Saudi man sentenced to be paralysed from the waist down in 'eye for an eye' punishment
87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162404]Universal behaviours: Breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting waste, etc.
According to the scientific method, if you claim that something is a universal human behaviour, but a single human being fails to engage in that behaviour among all the human beings on the planet, either you refuse to class that anomaly as human, or your theory isn't specific enough.
Also, tendencies in human behaviour are not the same as consistently predictable outcomes.[/QUOTE]
they might not be as good as consistently predictable outcomes
they might be less likely to get published in a fancy journal
but in terms of what science is actually for, in terms of satisfying ones curiosity, in terms of constraining one's anticipations about the world, they're perfectly good.
if anything i think you're the one peddling cargo cult science here
it's like saying that since intersexed people exist, "male" and "female" aren't useful descriptors of empirical clusters of traits
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162404]Universal behaviours: Breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting waste, etc.[/quote]
What about raping, dreaming, division of labour, names, language, cooking, leaders and complex tools?
[quote]According to the scientific method, if you claim that something is a universal human behaviour, but a single human being fails to engage in that behaviour among all the human beings on the planet, either you refuse to class that anomaly as human, or your theory isn't specific enough.[/quote]
Or it's quite possible they have an extraneous variable of some kind that modifies their behaviour (like mental illness).
Universal means "what humans tend to do left to themselves.
[quote]Also, tendencies in human behaviour are not the same as consistently predictable outcomes.[/QUOTE]
It's the best explanation we have so far though?
I.e you use something which is the closest to reality and as predictable as possible. Once new research trumps it, use it.
Claiming that science can't control for all variables as an argument to not use scientific methodology in research is actually bullshit because it justifies making unfalsifiable propositions and making "theories". Whenever research criticizes it, the rebuttal is "your research didn't take X into account".
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40162378]that's an unreasonably high standard of evidence
like
by that logic, anthropogenic climate change is unscientific because we can't control for all of the variables[/QUOTE]
PRECISELY.
You cannot *prove* anything where intelligence and human behaviour are concerned, just as you cannot *prove* that climate change is contributed to in any significant way by human beings.
However;
It is very commonly accepted by scientists that anthropogenic climate change is a thing because there are massive, massive amounts of data that point to an extremely strong correlation.
Let's take your longitudinal study, on the other hand. The fact that it fails to take important variables into account means the results have a huge margin of error. Why? Because it's using a method that ignores many other contributing factors, including the biggest ones - Internalized oppression and social history.
That graph mapped their results - Here's my hypothesis.
"An ethnic group that has been enslaved, oppressed and economically and socially marginalized for centuries will score slightly more poorly on a standardized intelligence test than the group which enslaved them, if the study is taken less than a century after the magnitude of that oppression was reduced. This result is due to internalized oppression and educational inequality."
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40162362]Which is why you try to do your best.
We get a experiment which doesn't take X into account.
It's still the best explanation we have.
Once you do an experiment which takes that into account, then that explanation becomes more favourable.[/QUOTE]
this is part of the reason sociology has multiple different explanations for the same phenomenon.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40162543]this is part of the reason sociology has multiple different explanations for the same phenomenon.[/QUOTE]
Why not use the one which is the least wrong?
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162501]PRECISELY.
You cannot *prove* anything where intelligence and human behaviour are concerned, just as you cannot *prove* that climate change is contributed to in any significant way by human beings.[/quote]
yes I learned that in my first intro to science class well done you know the difference between deduction and induction have a gold star
[quote]It is very commonly accepted by scientists that anthropogenic climate change is a thing because there are massive, massive amounts of data that point to an extremely strong correlation.[/quote]
you're slightly misplacing cause and effect here. if one was simply looking to determine the truth of whether anthropogenic climate change was real or not, we had the answer back in the early 90s. the additional massive amounts of subsequent data was there to convince politicians and the general public and scientists who didn't want to go out on a limb.
since ACC is such a big and noticeable thing and comes straight from a basic understanding of how radiation interacts with carbon dioxide molecules which we've known for over a century, it didn't take much evidence to indicate it. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and ACC is not an extraordinary claim.
[quote]Let's take your longitudinal study, on the other hand. The fact that it fails to take important variables into account means the results have a huge margin of error. Why? Because it's using a method that ignores all the other contributing factors, including the biggest ones - Internalized oppression and social history.[/QUOTE]
i didn't want to turn this all into "dainbramage is a scientific racist v2: electric boogaloo" but i will point out that those sorts of things were controlled for in the study to the best of the scientist's ability. i don't take it as gospel and i recognize how bloody difficult it is to isolate everything in such a big study. there are also smaller interventionary studies which did control for a lot of the variables and they agreed with the main conclusions.
I ask you - what threshold of evidence would my hypothesis have to overcome to even make it to the point where you would consider it?
[editline]4th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162501]This result is due to internalized oppression and educational inequality."[/QUOTE]
(like i said it controlled for education)
(internalized oppression sounds mighty unfalsifiable to me)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40162587]Why not use the one which is the least wrong?[/QUOTE]
because there are multiple ones that are all valid in different circumstances.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40162645]because there are multiple ones that are all valid in different circumstances.[/QUOTE]
So essentially you are saying that if we observe the sun moving across the sky, that in different circumstances, the argument that the sun goes around the earth, and the argument that it doesn't, are both valid?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40162645]because there are multiple ones that are all valid in different circumstances.[/QUOTE]
there may be many maps but there is only one territory
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40162600]
I ask you - what threshold of evidence would my hypothesis have to overcome to even make it to the point where you would consider it?
[/QUOTE]
I'm willing to bet that with successive generations, that gap in test scores between the two ethnicities will decrease, even if all else remains equal. So let's wait, and watch. By the time we're both old men, we'll have a better idea of who was right. I'm quite as confident in my belief as you are in yours, and there's no way to resolve it now.
You argue it's a racial difference - I say rather that it's entirely because of the social history of the ethnic groups involved, and the fact that one enjoyed privelege for hundreds of years off the slave labour of the other.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162687]I'm willing to bet that with successive generations, that gap in test scores between the two ethnicities will decrease, even if all else remains equal. So let's wait, and watch. By the time we're both old men, we'll have a better idea of who was right. I'm quite as confident in my belief as you are in yours, and there's no way to resolve it now.
You argue it's a racial difference - I say rather that it's entirely because of the social history of the ethnic groups involved, and the fact that one enjoyed privelege for hundreds of years off the slave labour of the other.[/QUOTE]
If the gap doesn't diminish, how will you avoid the trap of "well obviously we haven't been trying hard enough to get rid of the racists, comrades!"
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40162671]there may be many maps but there is only one territory[/QUOTE]
ok?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40162669]So essentially you are saying that if we observe the sun moving across the sky, that in different circumstances, the argument that the sun goes around the earth, and the argument that it doesn't, are both valid?[/QUOTE]
not at all. we can show that the earth is rotating in various ways. the idea that the sun goes around the earth isn't supported by evidence.
but if two different explanations adequately explain the same occurrence in separate circumstances, which one do you decide to use? shouldn't you use both until you are able to gather enough evidence to refine and consolidate the theories?
you don't see these things in physical sciences as much because physical science doesn't have near the subjectivity. it's a lot more common in social sciences like psychology, economics, and sociology. it just so happens psychology and economics are more mature and have been able to refine their theories better.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40162740]If the gap doesn't diminish, how will you avoid the trap of "well obviously we haven't been trying hard enough to get rid of the racists, comrades!"[/QUOTE]
The other statistics from that time will tell the tale - If blacks with the same qualifications as whites, doing the same jobs, still make less on average, it won't quite be over. But if systemic racism continues to decrease, we should see *some* change anyway.
[QUOTE=tr00per7;40160258]Man I guess all those drone attacks in afghanistan, bombing raids on palastine and entire iraq war was for nothing, didnt contain the ugly muslim arab barbarians. tsk tsk tsk.
Ok, perhaps this aint exactly the best way to deal with criminals, even life imprisonment or execution looks better than this but hell, what can you do, I don't live there and cant really argue against it.[/QUOTE]
Well, it says Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan isn't Saudi Arabia last time I checked. I might be wrong though, don't take my word for it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40162760]not at all. we can show that the earth is rotating in various ways. the idea that the sun goes around the earth isn't supported by evidence.[/quote]
Therefore we dismiss the theory unsupported by evidence.
[quote]but if two different explanations adequately explain the same occurrence in separate circumstances, which one do you decide to use? shouldn't you use both until you are able to gather enough evidence to refine and consolidate the theories?[/quote]
Name me an instance where two theories have been both supported equally by evidence.
[quote]you don't see these things in physical sciences as much because physical science doesn't have near the subjectivity. it's a lot more common in social sciences like psychology, economics, and sociology. it just so happens psychology and economics are more mature and have been able to refine their theories better.[/QUOTE]
They've been able to refine them for the simple reason they are moving towards experimentation and scientific methodology as opposed to things like anti-positivism.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40162760]but if two different explanations adequately explain the same occurrence in separate circumstances, which one do you decide to use? shouldn't you use both until you are able to gather enough evidence to refine and consolidate the theories?[/QUOTE]
what bothers me is the lack of progress on this
I don't necessarily think it's just the subjectivity of the discipline, it's that sociology is poisoned to the core by politics.
also sociology is kind of seen as the thing people study when they aren't sure what they want to study. the more smart people tend to go on to study things like physics and maths because in those fields it's easy to show off how smart you are.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40162883]
also sociology is kind of seen as the thing people study when they aren't sure what they want to study. the more smart people tend to go on to study things like physics and maths because in those fields it's easy to show off how smart you are.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's true. If sociology is passed over by most students because it's not so clear-cut, doesn't that make it a more difficult field in some ways? Not technically speaking, but in the sense that the people who become experts in the field are expected to contribute to it. You can't sell its importance short, and those who do study it help to develop it further, little by little, piece by piece.
As someone studying sociology, we don't subscribe to any one theory and discard all the rest, we look at all of them and try and find frameworks that fit a certain situation best, and ultimately come up with something that fits all of them a little better. Just like any other science.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162977]I don't think that's true. If sociology is passed over by most students because it's not so clear-cut, doesn't that make it a more difficult field in some ways? Not technically speaking, but in the sense that the people who become experts in the field are expected to contribute to it.[/quote]
Isn't this true in every field?
[quote]You can't sell its importance short, and those who do study it help to develop it further, little by little, piece by piece.[/quote]
They should be conducting science though when doing it.
[quote]As someone studying sociology, we don't subscribe to any one theory and discard all the rest, we look at all of them and [b]try and find situations that suit a certain framework best[/b], and ultimately come up with something that fits all of them a little better. Just like any other science.[/QUOTE]
That's not science. That's literally bending reality to fit the theory.
[QUOTE=tr00per7;40159713]I know, its a good thing we go over there and bomb some of their civilians so these barbarians dont breed.[/QUOTE]
Yeah we sure do bomb Saudi Arabia a whole lot.
[sp]No.[/sp]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40162883]what bothers me is the lack of progress on this
I don't necessarily think it's just the subjectivity of the discipline, it's that sociology is poisoned to the core by politics.
also sociology is kind of seen as the thing people study when they aren't sure what they want to study. the more smart people tend to go on to study things like physics and maths because in those fields it's easy to show off how smart you are.[/QUOTE]
maybe that's true. idk i think economics is pretty badly poisoned by politics too since it's the underpinning of a nation's financial expenditures and the system they cultivate.
but i would still say economics is more reliable than sociology at explaining the world.
i hold out hope for sociology but i would agree that it is currently...lacking. i just think that as time goes on it will progress just like every other social science.
[editline]4th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40163037]
That's not science. That's literally bending reality to fit the theory.[/QUOTE]
no it's not, it's called testing a hypothesis.
this is what happens when you want to test anything. you set up experiments to find situations where the hypothesis fits. if the hypothesis doesn't fit, then it is discarded or refined.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162977]I don't think that's true. If sociology is passed over by most students because it's not so clear-cut, doesn't that make it a more difficult field in some ways? Not technically speaking, but in the sense that the people who become experts in the field are expected to contribute to it. You can't sell its importance short, and those who do study it help to develop it further, little by little, piece by piece.[/quote]
That was kind of my point - sociology is a harder field to make big unifying progress in. The people most likely to be competent enough to do this sort of thing are gonna be turned off by it because it isn't as neat as physics. Craving for social status is a human universal and academia is no different.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40163063]no it's not, it's called testing a hypothesis.
this is what happens when you want to test anything. you set up experiments to find situations where the hypothesis fits. if the hypothesis doesn't fit, then it is discarded or refined.[/QUOTE]
Except the post there is more or less saying "we are seeking to find results which fit the theory, rather than actively trying to falsify them as well".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40163155]Except the post there is more or less saying "we are seeking to find results which fit the theory, rather than actively trying to falsify them as well".[/QUOTE]
i think it was just a poor choice of words
more like "hey there's this thing we don't know much about, which of our stock of theories, X, Y, or Z best explains it or helps us to understand it a bit more?"
instead of "let's try to shoehorn this thing into our Grand Unifying Theory That Also Supports Our Political Beliefs"
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40163037]Isn't this true in every field?
They should be conducting science though when doing it.
That's not science. That's literally bending reality to fit the theory.[/QUOTE]
You're entitled to your opinion and the expression of it; I'm entitled to mine, and to say I think you're an idiot for arbitrarily dismissing it.
[editline]4th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40163155]Except the post there is more or less saying "we are seeking to find results which fit the theory, rather than actively trying to falsify them as well".[/QUOTE]
I meant to say theory to fit the results; As Dainbramage said, I mixed my words up.
[QUOTE=lifehole;40161511]An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?[/QUOTE]
That saying only functions in a situation without control and balance.
1. Person A takes an eye from Person B
2. Person B then takes an eye from Person A
Person A originally took an eye from B; B has now taken an eye in return, they are now balanced and even. Person A taking another eye based on B taking his eye in retaliation is greedy -- A already got the eye he wanted, now he's simply mad that B took his in return. Person A has forgotten the balance and lost control over himself. Only if A were to take another eye for a completely 100% unrelated reason would it be proper, and thus the cycle continues.
The philosophical meaning relies on the human emotion to overpower their logic and take another eye as retaliation for the original retaliation. If people have control over their emotions then the phrase loses all meaning; in such an event an 'eye for an eye' will work just fine on the core level.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40163155]Except the post there is more or less saying "we are seeking to find results which fit the theory, rather than actively trying to falsify them as well".[/QUOTE]
it seems like an argument of semantics. what i read was "we look at evidence to see when it fits our hypotheses and use that to refine our worldview" which is scientific.
[QUOTE=Axznma;40163263]That saying only functions in a situation without control and balance.
1. Person A takes an eye from Person B
2. Person B then takes an eye from Person A
Person A originally took an eye from B; B has now taken an eye in return, they are now balanced and even. Person A taking another eye based on B taking his eye in retaliation is greedy -- A already got the eye he wanted, now he's simply mad that B took his in return. Person A has forgotten the balance and lost control over himself. Only if A were to take another eye for a completely 100% unrelated reason would it be proper, and thus the cycle continues.
The philosophical meaning relies on the human emotion to overpower their logic and take another eye as retaliation for the original retaliation. If people have control over their emotions then the phrase loses all meaning; in such an event an 'eye for an eye' will work just fine on the core level.[/QUOTE]
So let's just have a big black rapist on hand to rape the rapists. You assaulted that man? You get punched in the face.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.