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

47920Re: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Apr 28, 2009
      Tom,

      Please save me the PC bit, friend.

      Wil


      -----Original Message-----
      From: devogney <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 1:37 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

      >

      Wil,

      Your saying that my reference to the fact that in many cases studies
      involving race or sexual differences will be repudiated if they dont
      adhere to political correctness is pandering, is a great example of
      what Louise and I are saying. Obviously, the fact that the DNA of most
      human beings will contain various strands from different racial pools
      in no way precludes that people can be to a certain extent described as
      Caucasian, Negro, or Oriental. Certainly, the US is a great melting
      pot,and more varieties of gene pools are likely to be found than one
      would find in China, India, or Denmark. Obama describes himself as a
      mut. We all have some male and female hormones, but that doesn't
      preclude humnans being classified into male and female.



      To me the most salient point of your post is the great example to
      support the viewpoint expressed by Louise and agreed to by me that
      numerous people with agendas varying from political correctness to
      expanding the drug war have agendas that will result in a person being
      accused of pandering if they freely search for truth.



      Despite the fact that races like any other category are relative rather
      than absolute, any objective studies will find different abilities and
      disabilities among DNA pools such as the fact that all Olympic running
      has been won by people of African descent in the last 20 years or so
      and that people of Jewish descent comprise 1/4% of the world's
      population and 28% of the Nobel Prize winners.

      Tom



      Tom



      > 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