Education v. Moronism

[tvashtarkatena]

I thought this thread would be an appropriate place to let everyone know that I am trying to find new members to join my cult. It goes like this:

 

One time I starved myself for a week then dropped some acid and saw a flaming unicorn that told me I held the key to becoming God and that everybody can PAY ME 10,000 a year for 5 years for me to give them God Water that I stare at to make it full of power.

 

Any Takers?

 

Where do i sign up? I really want to be part of something!

 

 

PM me your credit card # and salvation is garunteed!

 

Marc,

 

You're young and Canadian, so I thought I'd educate you about a few things regarding your new religion.

 

First of all, new religions don't come from Canada. They come from America.

 

Second, you'll need to find a second, third, fourth, or preferably 400th hand account of your experience to legitimize it. My suggestion would be to wait at least a century, then have someone write your story down, preferably in another language...no, wait, you've already recounted it in British Columbian, so you're OK there, then sit back on your unicorn and watch the magic happen.

 

Finally, no legitimate religion would have either a 10,000 dollar or 5 year limit on tithing.

 

Good luck, and God Bless.

Edited September 22, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[Choada_Boy]

what about scientists with a highschool or less education? what do they believe in?

 

We call those people Scientologists. Like most cults*, they believe in money/power/control.

 

*The only difference between a "cult" and a "religion" is how many people share the same stupid idea.

[Choada_Boy]

More Data:

 

[JayB]

Yes JayB: Science will save us. All Hail the New God Science!!

 

Funny you should mention that. I've just started reading Hayek's "The Counter Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason."

 

Very tough going so far, but it seems like he's elaborating on point that he's made elsewhere, which is that exporting the modes of examination and analysis that are beneficial and useful when attempting to understand phenomena that are operate independently of cognition and belief (falling rocks, chemical equilibria, etc) isn't always helpful, particularly when oversimplified, idealized, and abstract, statistical-aggregate-laden models of social phenomena are imposed on society by a centralized power.

 

I think I'm reasonably well aware of the limitations of the methods developed in the natural sciences, particularly as they apply to phenomena actuated by belief in things that may or may not exist outside of our imaginations - but I still think they're useful inside their proper domain, like designing planes, understanding a drug's specific mode of action, or demonstrating that homeopathy and magical unicorns are bunk.

[ivan]

"i don't believe in beatles, i just believe in me"

[TamaraSlade]

magical unicorns are bunk.

 

Watch it buddy..... I think you're bunk

[prole]

...exporting the modes of examination and analysis that are beneficial and useful when attempting to understand phenomena that are operate independently of cognition and belief (falling rocks, chemical equilibria, etc) isn't always helpful, particularly when oversimplified, idealized, and abstract, statistical-aggregate-laden models of social phenomena are imposed on society by a centralized power.

 

SAYS THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIST!!!! Whew! Ha-Ha! That is a knee-slapper! Thanks for the funny, Jay. You are a riot. Irony quota filled for the day. Ha. Man, that was good.

[CollinWoods]

First of all, new religions don't come from Canada. They come from America.quote]

[tomtom]

...exporting the modes of examination and analysis that are beneficial and useful when attempting to understand phenomena that are operate independently of cognition and belief (falling rocks, chemical equilibria, etc) isn't always helpful, particularly when oversimplified, idealized, and abstract, statistical-aggregate-laden models of social phenomena are imposed on society by a centralized power.

 

SAYS THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIST!!!! Whew! Ha-Ha! That is a knee-slapper! Thanks for the funny, Jay. You are a riot. Irony quota filled for the day. Ha. Man, that was good.

 

Hayek laughs at you, too.

 

[YocumRidge]

The gross misunderstanding of the Bible by the vast majority of Americans, Christian or not, precludes any reasonable discussion.

 

Are you the majority?

[ivan]

The gross misunderstanding of the Bible by the vast majority of Americans, Christian or not, precludes any reasonable discussion.

 

Are you the majority?

more importantly, what's to misunderstand about a poorly written, massively boring, 2000+ year old work of at first psycho-violent, then wierdly wimpy fiction?

[JayB]

...exporting the modes of examination and analysis that are beneficial and useful when attempting to understand phenomena that are operate independently of cognition and belief (falling rocks, chemical equilibria, etc) isn't always helpful, particularly when oversimplified, idealized, and abstract, statistical-aggregate-laden models of social phenomena are imposed on society by a centralized power.

 

SAYS THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIST!!!! Whew! Ha-Ha! That is a knee-slapper! Thanks for the funny, Jay. You are a riot. Irony quota filled for the day. Ha. Man, that was good.

 

While the two have quite a bit in common, Hayek does not equal Friedman, and there are some subtle differences in their outlook and methodological assumptions that derive from Hayek's arguments concerning "scientism" that I find convincing. The fact that they disagree with one another on certain methodological points no more strengthen's the case for central planning than disagreements between Dawkins and Gould should embolden creationists.

 

There's a concise version of the same argument that Hayek published in 1942. Although I think that you are profoundly wrong, you are a smart guy, and at the very least correctly perceive the intrinsic connection between economic and political power.

 

I'd actually be interested in reading what you have to say about the set of ideas that I mentioned if you can summon the concentration willpower necessary to do so.

 

http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Hayek%20Scientism%201.htm

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The gross misunderstanding of the Bible by the vast majority of Americans, Christian or not, precludes any reasonable discussion.

 

Are you the majority?

more importantly, what's to misunderstand about a poorly written, massively boring, 2000+ year old work of at first psycho-violent, then wierdly wimpy fiction?

 

The Bible. Why bother?

 

Unless you buy the bull, of course.

Edited September 23, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

 

The Bible. Why bother?

 

Unless you buy the bull, of course.

bad book, but a fine fire-starter - for years i've kept one in the bathroom as emergency reading and/or ass-wiping material

 

i loved the days the gideon's descended on my college w/ their free samples - i usualy collected at least a brace, and had a sweet little bonfire after i finished my russian homework still not as cool as the occasions when the local lunatic installed himself on the lawn w/ his 10 foot cross, thorn crown and crazy-eyed family who all screeched at us about how we were all going to hell

[j_b]

...exporting the modes of examination and analysis that are beneficial and useful when attempting to understand phenomena that are operate independently of cognition and belief (falling rocks, chemical equilibria, etc) isn't always helpful, particularly when oversimplified, idealized, and abstract, statistical-aggregate-laden models of social phenomena are imposed on society by a centralized power.

 

SAYS THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIST!!!! Whew! Ha-Ha! That is a knee-slapper! Thanks for the funny, Jay. You are a riot. Irony quota filled for the day. Ha. Man, that was good.

 

While the two have quite a bit in common, Hayek does not equal Friedman, and there are some subtle differences in their outlook and methodological assumptions that derive from Hayek's arguments concerning "scientism" that I find convincing. The fact that they disagree with one another on certain methodological points no more strengthen's the case for central planning than disagreements between Dawkins and Gould should embolden creationists.

 

While that may be a good book on the abuses of science, in practice Hayek was even more blatant than Friedman in his support of the dictatorships that neo-liberal fundamentalism rode on, i.e. not only did he couch his unscientific approach to the economy as dogma (I assume the object of Prole’s laughter) but he condoned authoritarian rule to impose it on people. Friedman, at least, verbally denied condoning dictatorships even if in practice he didn’t mind the opportunity they represented to market his snake oil.

[JayB]

...exporting the modes of examination and analysis that are beneficial and useful when attempting to understand phenomena that are operate independently of cognition and belief (falling rocks, chemical equilibria, etc) isn't always helpful, particularly when oversimplified, idealized, and abstract, statistical-aggregate-laden models of social phenomena are imposed on society by a centralized power.

 

SAYS THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIST!!!! Whew! Ha-Ha! That is a knee-slapper! Thanks for the funny, Jay. You are a riot. Irony quota filled for the day. Ha. Man, that was good.

 

While the two have quite a bit in common, Hayek does not equal Friedman, and there are some subtle differences in their outlook and methodological assumptions that derive from Hayek's arguments concerning "scientism" that I find convincing. The fact that they disagree with one another on certain methodological points no more strengthen's the case for central planning than disagreements between Dawkins and Gould should embolden creationists.

 

While that may be a good book on the abuses of science, in practice Hayek was even more blatant than Friedman in his support of the dictatorships that neo-liberal fundamentalism rode on, i.e. not only did he couch his unscientific approach to the economy as dogma (I assume the object of Prole’s laughter) but he condoned authoritarian rule to impose it on people. Friedman, at least, verbally denied condoning dictatorships even if in practice he didn’t mind the opportunity they represented to market his snake oil.

 

I'm not sure that we're talking about the same Hayek here. I've read a few hundred pages of his works, and have never encountered anything but impassioned, profound, and deep arguments for political and economic freedom.

 

It'd certainly be strange if the same guy who spent several decades arguing on behalf of these causes from at least the early 1920's onwards, against the prevailing sentiments of his day, and who is best remembered for "The Road to Serfdom" was a closet authoritarian.

 

What works of his have you actually read, and in what specific essays or passages in those works did he weigh in on the side of authoritarianism?

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

While that may be a good book on the abuses of science, in practice Hayek was even more blatant than Friedman in his support of the dictatorships that neo-liberal fundamentalism rode on, i.e. not only did he couch his unscientific approach to the economy as dogma (I assume the object of Prole’s laughter) but he condoned authoritarian rule to impose it on people. Friedman, at least, verbally denied condoning dictatorships even if in practice he didn’t mind the opportunity they represented to market his snake oil.

 

I'm not sure that we're talking about the same Hayek here. I've read a few hundred pages of his works, and have never encountered anything but impassioned, profound, and deep arguments for political and economic freedom.

 

It'd certainly be strange if the same guy who spent several decades arguing on behalf of these causes from at least the early 1920's onwards, against the prevailing sentiments of his day, and who is best remembered for "The Road to Serfdom" was a closet authoritarian.

 

What works of his have you actually read, and in what specific essays or passages in those works did he weigh in on the side of authoritarianism?

 

My post made the difference between discourse and practice because libertarians/neo-liberals claim to be for 'freedom' whereas in fact they subjugate every domain of human activity to the logic of the market, which effectively results in a loss of freedom and power for those without sufficient economic power to intervene in the market. The end result of libertarian freedom is concentration of most wealth and power in the hands of economic elites.

 

Hayek is well known for disliking representative democracy and he was openly against social justice; his model amounted to social darwinism: "Hayek visited Chile several times in the 1970s and 1980s during the reign of dictator Augusto Pinochet. Commenting on dictatorships to a Chilean interviewer, Hayek stated: "Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression — and this is valid for South America - is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government."[34][35] Hayek's words and actions concerning Chile under the Pinochet regime have drawn criticism from historian of modern Latin America Greg Grandin, who claims that "Hayek glimpsed in Pinochet an avatar of true freedom, who would rule as a dictator only for a 'transitional period'", while also noting that "in a letter to the London Times he defended the junta, reporting that he had 'not been able to find a single person in much-maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende.' "of course," writes Grandin, "the thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured by Pinochet's regime weren't talking."[36] Hayek recommended reforms similar to Chile's under Pinochet for the Keynesian economy in the United Kingdom to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher said "the remarkable success of the Chilean economy [was] a striking example of economic reform from which we can learn many lessons, [but] in Britain with our democratic institutions and the need for a high degree of consent, some of the measures adopted in Chile are quite unacceptable."[37]

[note that the chilean economy cratered shortly thereafter causing Pinochet to intervene massively in the economy]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

 

Note that Hayek even held meetings of his Mt Pelerin Society (an association of neo-liberal thinkers, mostly economists) in Chile while Pinochet was in power.

 

[Bug]

The gross misunderstanding of the Bible by the vast majority of Americans, Christian or not, precludes any reasonable discussion.

 

Are you the majority?

more importantly, what's to misunderstand about a poorly written, massively boring, 2000+ year old work of at first psycho-violent, then wierdly wimpy fiction?

 

The Bible. Why bother?

 

Unless you buy the bull, of course.

Are you of the ilk that beleives Raindawg is just a graverobber?

The Social-Scientific approach to deconstructing the Bible is a great history lesson. And as a bonus, when you read the original versions, what few there are, in their original language, their value as literature is more profound. Furthermore, the Bible is a treasure trove of phsycological history. Much of it parallels contemporary phsycology and thereby lends a great deal of "clinical study" to the methodologies. None of this is to say that the Bible is the "WORD of God". In fact, my belief as a Christian is that Jesus taught us to avoid such "codefication of the law". The Bible is an anthology of literary works from vastly differing cultures and periods. Much of it has been edited by successive religious and political interests (read "Propaganda"). And as we have read before, If you do not know history, you are doomed to repeat it. Not all that much has changed in ten thousand years with regards to social evolution. As evolution goes, ten thousand years is a mere blink. To discount the writings that identify each of us as westerners is simply refusing to look in a mirror. Everyone you interact with in other cultures will know you are from a "christian" society. Why not know what that means? Not in terms of religion or spirituality. But in terms of your cultural heritage (why do we "need" political leaders?). And do not worry. There is nothing in the Bible that will secretly tempt you to become a fundamentalist. Only you can choose that path wether through science, religion, or any other doctrinal pursuit (Fox News).

[ivan]

okay i take it back - the bible does have some amusing parts - who can't flip through leviticus or dude-er-onmy w/o having a few healthy gut laughs at the various howard hughesian minute directions on slaughtering and offering fatted marmots in the temple n' whatnot? or the assurances that almighty bog commands you to fuck the teenage daughters of your captured enemies into submission bfore selling them as slaves? or admonitions to kill bitches on the rag if they even look at you or your stuff? hiliarous, and certinaly yes, a great history lesson on how the hill billies amongst us have proud roots.

 

to steal from alex though, i wasn't such a fan of the later half of the book which was like, too much preachy talking, and not enough of the good old in-out, in-out and toe-chocking your enemies on their heads before retiring to the tent w/ your wives' handmaidens

 

for old ass reading, i prefer the epic of gilgamesh or herodotus or anything that hasn't served as a bs excuse for every excerable act guilty man is capable of

[Ponderosa]

So, from this graph, Moderates believe both philosophies should be taught and almost 60% of Liberals "would be upset if only Evolution" was taught.

 

 

 

[RuMR]

...exporting the modes of examination and analysis that are beneficial and useful when attempting to understand phenomena that are operate independently of cognition and belief (falling rocks, chemical equilibria, etc) isn't always helpful, particularly when oversimplified, idealized, and abstract, statistical-aggregate-laden models of social phenomena are imposed on society by a centralized power.

 

SAYS THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIST!!!! Whew! Ha-Ha! That is a knee-slapper! Thanks for the funny, Jay. You are a riot. Irony quota filled for the day. Ha. Man, that was good.

 

Hayek laughs at you, too.

 

those are so stunnning...

[Fairweather]

Since using Gallup is the order of the day, here's another:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122969/Many-Americans-Doubt-Costs-Benefits-Healthcare-Reform.aspx

[Fairweather]

So, from this graph, Moderates believe both philosophies should be taught and almost 60% of Liberals "would be upset if only Evolution" was taught.

 

 

 

The teaching of creationism has no place in public schools. It is based on faith, not science. But neither should it be mocked, or its practitioners ridiculed, IMO. Why bother "teaching" that which is based entirely on faith? It's dangerous ground.

[tvashtarkatena]

Creationism should be mocked, as should any thoroughly stupid idea foisted upon the public by idiots. It's 'practitioners' should be ridiculed and hounded off the public stage as the buffoons they are.

 

Oh wait, they already have been.

 

Check out the mockumentary 'Evolution on Trial' (PBS), and you'll see exactly what I mean. The morons fell on their own righteous swords...or lack thereof, in this court case.

 

Edited September 23, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[marc_leclerc]

Creationism should be mocked, as should any thoroughly stupid idea foisted upon the public by idiots.

 

Ideas like 'first there was nothing then it exploded'?

 

or

 

'first there was a little piggy, then its baby grew huge fucking ears and became really big and there were elephants?