Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

[hgc]

...
? How the hell did you come up with that notion? I think perhaps you should re-read the statement.

Fair question. I know you didn't make the direct comparison. But since you insult the intelligence of average Americans (something I often do myself) in the same sentence as noting that Bush made dictional sense, I was overcome with notion that perhaps the American people haven't gotten a fair shake -- but then they re-elected Bush.

 

[RandFan]

Fair question. I know you didn't make the direct comparison. But since you insult the intelligence of average Americans (something I often do myself) in the same sentence as noting that Bush made dictional sense, I was overcome with notion that perhaps the American people haven't gotten a fair shake -- but then they re-elected Bush.

Fair enough. I see your point. But please note that I'm not really attacking the intelligence of average Americans just their education and understanding as it relates to the word.

...since most Americans lack the education or understanding of the word...

FWIW, I think most Americans are ignorant of the etymolgy, history and various definitions of the word.

 

[President Bush]

There is definitely a doctrine, one that says we will not believe in UFOs, faith healing, speaking to the dead, alternative medicines, ghosts or any other paranormal phenomena without solid scientific proof to back it up.

I'm not interested in breaking our "truce". So please do not take my following question in a way you might find unfairly critical, Mycroft. I appreciate you hanging in there with me on this subject.

Can propaganda be wholly objective? Doesn't seem that way to me.

Assuming that skepticism attempts to employ objective, universally valid criteria of rationality and truth - science - in exploring phenomena such as UFOs, faith healing, speaking to the dead, alternative medicines, ghosts and other paranormal goings-on... I'm wondering where it becomes reduced to just promoting doctrine.

Just a question.

 

[RandFan]

Can propaganda be wholly objective? Doesn't seem that way to me.

Depends on what you mean by propaganda.

In the course of this thread we have discussed a number of definitions.

1. The most narrow which is the one that most people subscribe to and the one you dogmatically cling to.
2. A more broad definition. One that says propaganda is propagating a cause, information or doctrine with a partial view.
3. The most broad which defines propaganda as simply propagating information.

Propaganda can't be wholly objective based on #1 and #2. It can for #3.

Please see link below:

What is propaganda?

So there are different kinds of propaganda. They run all the way from selfish, deceitful, and subversive effort to honest and aboveboard promotion of things that are good.

 

[RandFan]

Sure I'll shaddup and totally concede your argument and embrace the notion - without qualification - that the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of smokes is propaganda if youse guys agree - without qualification - that the following is, likewise, true:

You'll concede "without qualification" if we agree "without qualification"?

There is more than one definition of propaganda. This thread started because of the misconceptions that many people have about the meaning of the word. I'll let Mycroft speak for himself but making such a consensus would be counter to the purpose of the thread and would be rather silly.

Again, it depends on what you mean by propaganda as it relates to these two examples.

 

[Mycroft]

...I'm wondering where it becomes reduced to just promoting doctrine.

Just a question.

Who said that? I didn't, did you?

 

[President Bush]

Who said that? I didn't, did you?

Your dictionary?

 

[Mycroft]

Your dictionary?

Cite?

 

[President Bush]

Cite?

Here.

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Both the Surgeon General's warning and the the promotion of critical thinking by the James Randi Educational Foundation are propaganda, right?

My question: assuming that skepticism attempts to employ objective, universally valid criteria of rationality and truth - science - in exploring phenomena such as UFOs, faith healing, speaking to the dead, alternative medicines, ghosts and other paranormal goings-on... I'm wondering where it (employing skepticism) becomes reduced to just promoting doctrine.

 

[RandFan]

My question: assuming that skepticism attempts to employ objective, universally valid criteria of rationality and truth - science - in exploring phenomena such as UFOs, faith healing, speaking to the dead, alternative medicines, ghosts and other paranormal goings-on... I'm wondering where it (employing skepticism) becomes reduced to just promoting doctrine.

How does using any definition of propaganda restrict the goals of JREF to promoting doctrine?

 

[Mycroft]

Here.


Both the Surgeon General's warning and the the promotion of critical thinking by the James Randi Educational Foundation are propaganda, right?

My question: assuming that skepticism attempts to employ objective, universally valid criteria of rationality and truth - science - in exploring phenomena such as UFOs, faith healing, speaking to the dead, alternative medicines, ghosts and other paranormal goings-on... I'm wondering where it (employing skepticism) becomes reduced to just promoting doctrine.

Like RandFan, I don't follow. I don't see anything in the definition that restricts anything in the way you describe.

 

[President Bush]

I don't see anything in the definition that restricts anything in the way you describe.

How science becomes propaganda... interesting I thought. Oh, well.

 

[RandFan]

How science becomes propaganda... interesting I thought. Oh, well.

Obtuse.

 

[Mycroft]

How science becomes propaganda... interesting I thought. Oh, well.

I don't follow you.

Science isn't propaganda, but one can certainly use the results of science for propaganda. Agree or not?

You seem reluctant to explain the foundation of your question and I don't understand why.

"I'm wondering where it (employing skepticism) becomes reduced to just promoting doctrine."

The JREF certainly promotes a doctrine. A very positive doctrine, in my opinion.

But you claim it is reduced to justpromoting a doctrine, and I fail to see your support for that. As far as I can tell the debate here is entirely on how the actions of the JREF may be described, not what limits may be placed on them.

 

[President Bush]

I don't follow you.

Science isn't propaganda, but one can certainly use the results of science for propaganda. Agree or not?

Sure, but please remember that I don't share your sunny outlook on the value of propaganda. At bottom it seeks to manipulate people into adopting a particular point of view, no?

You seem reluctant to explain the foundation of your question and I don't understand why.

"I'm wondering where it (employing skepticism) becomes reduced to just promoting doctrine."

The JREF certainly promotes a doctrine. A very positive doctrine, in my opinion.

But you claim it is reduced to justpromoting a doctrine, and I fail to see your support for that. As far as I can tell the debate here is entirely on how the actions of the JREF may be described, not what limits may be placed on them.

What is skepticism? Having a doubting or questioning state of mind of mind, I believe. What demonstrates uncertainty is what is interesting. Instead of sticking to a definite position, the skeptic is someone who continues to investigate.

Skepticism seems directly opposed to doctrine. Don't you think?

 

[RandFan]

Sure, but please remember that I don't share your sunny outlook on the value of propaganda. At bottom it seeks to manipulate people into adopting a particular point of view, no?

"At bottom"? Here's the problem. As you have been told time and time again it depends on what you mean by propaganda.

What is propaganda?

So there are different kinds of propaganda. They run all the way from selfish, deceitful, and subversive effort to honest and aboveboard promotion of things that are good.

What is skepticism? Having a doubting or questioning state of mind of mind, I believe. What demonstrates uncertainty is what is interesting. Instead of sticking to a definite position, the skeptic is someone who continues to investigate.

And what if your doctrine is that people should use critical thinking and to be skeptical?

Skepticism seems directly opposed to doctrine. Don't you think?

Often it is, sure. I suppose that in this case one could be skeptical of James Randi and the efforts of JREF. I guess one could be skeptical of skepticism. I think that would be an abuse of skepticism. I often think of doctrine as dogmatic so I'm less inclined to view the ideas and values of the JREF as doctrine however Randi and the JREF certainly have a cause.

 

[Mycroft]

Sure, but please remember that I don't share your sunny outlook on the value of propaganda. At bottom it seeks to manipulate people into adopting a particular point of view, no?

Sunny?

My view is that it can be good or bad depending on how it's used.

The Surgeon General's warning "manipulates" people into adopting an anti-smoking point of view. Is that good or bad?

The AIDS posters "manipulates" people into adopting a point of view that condom use is a good thing. Is that good or bad?

Everyone with a point of view they want others to adopt utilized propaganda. From fliers, to commercials, talking points, sound-bites, books or television shows, it's all designed to sway opinions. Sometimes it's for the good, sometimes it's for the bad.

What is skepticism? Having a doubting or questioning state of mind of mind, I believe. What demonstrates uncertainty is what is interesting. Instead of sticking to a definite position, the skeptic is someone who continues to investigate.

Skepticism seems directly opposed to doctrine. Don't you think?

This seems to be a shift in topic. Are you conceeding that the definition of propaganda doesn't "limit" or "reduce" the JREF to anything?

 

[President Bush]

Sunny?

My view is that it can be good or bad depending on how it's used.

The Surgeon General's warning "manipulates" people into adopting an anti-smoking point of view. Is that good or bad?

The AIDS posters "manipulates" people into adopting a point of view that condom use is a good thing. Is that good or bad?

Everyone with a point of view they want others to adopt utilized propaganda. From fliers, to commercials, talking points, sound-bites, books or television shows, it's all designed to sway opinions. Sometimes it's for the good, sometimes it's for the bad.

Speaking strictly for myself... bad. I don't care for it when others attempt to manipulate me. And don't care that this could be motivated by a seeming belief on their part that they are helping me process my complicated world in a way that's best for me.

Because I believe that propaganda scripts are run to benefit whoever is writing them. Not to benefit who it is they are meant to manipulate.

(You left out the question: "the James Randi Educational Foundation 'manipulates' people into adopting an anti New-Age point of view. Is that good or bad?"... if I'm responding within a context here of the Surgeon General's warning assumed as being propaganda I ask that you reciprocate.)

This seems to be a shift in topic. Are you conceeding that the definition of propaganda doesn't "limit" or "reduce" the JREF to anything?

Don't know what you mean, but I'll take a stab at it and say "no".

 

[Crazytree]

The AIDS posters "manipulates" people into adopting a point of view that condom use is a good thing. Is that good or bad?

From a strictly health-oriented analysis... condom use is probably the #1 life saver in the world. This is scientific fact.

However, there are those whose twisted sense of morality places the evil of sex and hate of the inherent sexuality of humankind on a far higher position than say... 5,000,000 lives in the third world.

 

[RandFan]

From a strictly health-oriented analysis... condom use is probably the #1 life saver in the world. This is scientific fact.

However, there are those whose twisted sense of morality places the evil of sex and hate of the inherent sexuality of humankind on a far higher position than say... 5,000,000 lives in the third world.

Scientific fact can be part of propaganda. Of course it depands on your definition of propaganda. PB doesn't believe that there can be more than one definion. If I understand him correctly.

What is propaganda?

So there are different kinds of propaganda. They run all the way from selfish, deceitful, and subversive effort to honest and aboveboard promotion of things that are good.