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

47937Re: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Apr 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      L,

      In other words, race only makes sense on the level of ideology and
      xenologism.

      Wil


      -----Original Message-----
      From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:03 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking

      What exactly does have meaning, on the level of the genome??

      Louise

      --- 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