Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

47918Re: The functions of thinking

Expand Messages
  • devogney
    Apr 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Nice pandering. On the level of the genome, the concept of race has no
      > meaning.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: devogney <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:09 pm
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking
      >
      >
      > -Louise,
      >
      > I very much agree with your statement Political suppression is ignored
      > and denied, so that what claims to be science may only be a highly
      > selective application of focussed intelligence.
      >
      >
      > The results of scientific studies to a large extent will be the results
      > that the organization funding the study desires.In the US over the last
      > 35 years or so, a good example is studies on pot smoking funded by the
      > Drug Enforcement Administration.Any study funded by the DEA that found
      > anything good about pot would never be published, and certainly the
      > scientist would have lost a source of future funding. Likewise, any
      > studies comparing different races or the 2 sexes, if the results come
      > out wrong will subject the scientist to charges of racism or
      > sexism.Certainly political and economic factors play a large role in
      > what studies are done, what criteria are compared, and the conclusions
      > reached.
      >
      > Tom
      >
      >
      >
      > -- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Still attempting to get a purchase on the basics. How to
      > discriminate different realms of concern. As an example, a recent
      > reference, the question arising, what is an Anglo-Saxon? This is not a
      > biological category. However, the further question arises, as to the
      > superstitious and magical nature of science, to which I have referred
      > also. Political suppression is ignored and denied, so that what claims
      > to be science may only be a highly selective application of focussed
      > intelligence. To become a 'scientist', one must pass certain tests of
      > social acceptability, which are cultural or quasi-religious, and may be
      > themselves highly unscientific. What responsibilities are involved in
      > philosophising? What is the relevance, if any, of courtesy? May one
      > only be a contemporary existentialist if developing a certain toughness
      > or dexterity, or does the acquisition of such skill vitiate the quality
      > of thought itself?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Louise
      >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic