BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
No. My advice to you is not to assume.
My advice to you is to lay off the bong.
No. My advice to you is not to assume.
More ridiculous, how many scientist do you know, what do you base your bigotry onSubjective impressions are all that there are.
(We seem to agree)
Scientifically, subjective thinking of scientists together can approximate some kind of map related to what is being observed, and how to use that data
(Still seem to agree)
but offers little else.
(unsure if we agree)
Moral consideration not a thing of science but of philosophy...
(Should agree because science isn't about dealing with such things)
not to say scientists thus have no morals, but these derive from other types of thought and as with all things moral, are subject to...yep...subjective impressions -
(Should still agree...)
which is why some scientist will offer their services to morally dubious causes.
(which is the case, we should agree)
Science can be used for immoral purpose.
(should agree)
So why is it that you both don;t agree? Perhaps because you completely over-rode your critical thinking processes in favor of an emotionally based response?
No. I have simply said that scientist are not beyond reproach and that science isn't always about bring good into the world. I have recognized this as part of the problem.
It appears to me you are not engaging in discussion, you seem to have chosen sides and ignore the fact that you are not upset with science, you are upset with social structure, markets structures and technology.Well it doesn't matter if we rant or turn a blind eye. The results are going to be the same as long as everyone chooses sides rather than finding a way to get on the same page and work on solutions.
How many scientists do you actually know, what are you basing this one, some bad impression from where exactly?.That is what critical thinking processes should enable.
Agree.
However, in that it doesn't really address what was said.
You are just saying that science is not about morality (which is what I said) it is about sorting objective knowledge from subjective observation (also what I said) but scientists and those who pay them are not necessarily using that knowledge to produce good things. (that is the bit you skipped) and so if you cannot agree to that, you are obviously in support of scientists and their owners doing whatever they want to do in the pursuit of profits and systems of disparity.
.... Scientists may not be outright responsible for systems of disparity but to ignore that they play no part in those processes is...quite frankly, willful ignorance.
In speaking of scientists, you need to show coordinated effort toward your suspicions and show it is a question of intent, and is directly a result of being a member of the group. You also need to exclude the effects/actions of any other group on the question of 'disparity' you are concerned with. Then quantify and identify, and determine if there is any effect, and if the behaviors leading to it are a function of being a scientist, or obey some other factor among the individuals involved, assuming there are any involved at all.
Critical thinking involves isolating observable cause and effect, and understanding the obvious can often be not obviously wrong (heliocentrism, for example), and have a lot going for it superficially.
It's late, and I'm not gonna edit this any more. It'll have to do....
Dancing David did not actually say "...why doncha" so you're already misquoting him. And as far as another poster accepts there are some corrupt ones, that says nothing at all in the fact that you're the one painting all scientists as such.No, not at all. Perhaps if you lived on a different planet and were here for a visit and I being your guide said as much and you - being ignorant of the goings on of the human created SoD (systems of disparity) might ask for examples, but really...as Dancing David argued - "Just ignore all the moral scientists why dontcha" - which shows that DD was at least willing to accept that there are indeed corrupt ones.
Dancing David did not actually say "...why doncha" so you're already misquoting him.
And as far as another poster accepts there are some corrupt ones, that says nothing at all in the fact that you're the one painting all scientists as such.
For me critical thinking in the word itself involves a smart way of evaluating a difficult topic or problem.
I think that has much to do with it...do you think it can be applied for corrupt purposes?
HTHNot really... I got the gist and that was it.
...or something. But yeah, it's an interesting way of looking at the concept of "critical thinking" but it doesn't seem to match what is commonly understood to be critical thinking.I don't know why, but I am forming the opinion that Navigator is convinced that critical thinking is somehow synonymous with critique of a movie.