Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by ElectricFetus, May 18, 2010.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Maybe this is the core problem with this "racism" (as well as "nations") debate: I find this concept as part of political, cultural and/or political-cultural discursive realm rather than "social".
Society is obviously the arena where racism can exist, no doubt about it. But it is not "naturally" integral part of it. If we state race or nation concept as sine qua non part of being "society", why do we separate religion; is it because of the so-called "moral aspect" of the religion, or is it because it is substantially proven that religion and science must be dealt with separately?
To be honest, I didn't mind about the "society" bit of the topic; but rather "scientific" part bothered me, and you must admit there is little or no relation between race/nations and what we accept as "science". Apart from that, I believe here we have this classical division between European understanding and American perspective on what is political and/or what is social especially when it comes to race and nation...
The concept of "Social Sciences" is invented to get more customer, sorry "students" to colleges and universities. There is no such a thing called "social sciences" in reality; to say social sciences is similar to "fortune telling sciences" or "magical sciences".
If what you call "social" was anything near to science, the concepts, experiments, formulations would not dramatically shift from one generation to another, or from one regime to another; its theories and findings must have been respected and applicable universally as well as -this part is important- "without the human view". And you must admit, core subject of "social" is human - with a careful isolation of social interaction among non-human animal species. That is to say human understanding and its social environment is not, and can not be scientific.
Science, by its definition, is pursue of knowledge about existence. Human social environment only exist in human mental universe, which is not the subject of science but subject of arbitrary masturbation with bureaucratic regulations for this generation, and it was shagging virgins in temples around two thousand years ago.
How about this here some science, well sort of, these same kind of study has been repeated many time before its just this time it had a media groups backing to get publicity and shock appeal.
Famous doll test, first conducted by a "black" guy in 1940s...
I read the CNN article but I couldn't open the video. I found one video from 2007 probably supporting your article:
"Black" kids prefering "white" dolls. An experiment. I had watched a similar type of test was done in UK, years ago. I couldn't find the video but I still remember the results were not conclusive and differed between age groups and different genders. However, we have similar inconclusive video from America; this one is from last year:
My point is simple: Unlike a scientific research, an isolation of a human mind from its gender, economic, social, cultural and numerous other aspects is practically impossible. So credibility is near to zero. How? This is the Danish version of the same test:
You don't have to understand any Danish; basically "black" kid chooses the "white" doll case, you can understand this from the pictures. But same pictures also show that a white guy is pushing the dolls and "black" kid keeping the eye contact with this experimenter. What if this kid was simply trying to please him with her choice? Who can claim that she was not?
Secondly, in general, why don't they put other kids from hispanic, chinese or mixed background? Why don't they offer various coloured dolls, including pink, green, blue, etc? Why don't they do the same test in the countries where "black" kids are majority? And as we can see in the videos, how these results differ from one generation to another?
Thirdly, how can we know if these kids will behave parallel to their play time preferences in real situations. "Two real babies are in a burning house, which one would you save?" type of questions for example. But no, we can not do that since it is ethically unacceptable. If something is ethically impossible, how can we deduce a "scientific" result which must -by definition- have nothing to do with "ethics".
The dilemma of social masturbations is that they are bound to be biased; good for manipulation bad for science...
Certainly you ask question which plague any statistical study: lack of variability and limited range of each study. If you want to know more simply do a scholarly search, these kind of studies have been done many many different times with many different parameters, the majority outcome is that children automatically form "us and then" association, that they are influence by social-racial pressures at a very young age.
As for social sciences such as psychology and sociology these are vital sciences to understanding the world, certainly you can point out they lack the rigors of biology, chemistry, physics or mathematics (in that order) but they still are valid studies and they still try to do valid experiments, certainly you can complain about the lack of scope and variability but that probably do to limitations in funding, in a meta-analysis of these studies you could achieve that goal.
Why do you capitalize the ends of words? Do you also write Muhammad as muhamMAD?
What are you talking about? Where do you get this stuff?
Never, eh? How old are you?
What Muslim terrorists? In America? Where? There have been no Muslim terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, as far as I'm aware.
These criminal aliens must have a lot of influence to make people move out of 3 states. How do they do that?
It's actually from the same place as this stuff:
Not that I endorse taking Sandy seriously, but the whole "no terror attacks since 9/11" is one of the primary canards of the Bushistas and pro-torture crowd, frequently cited as evidence that their leave-no-liberty-untrampled approach is effective and needed.
you must not be that old then it has been much much much worse.. but since our president is black its his fault right? just like this country is in debt because we habea black democratic president...
and tbh sandy depending on how you read that post it could make you sound extremely racist "The good, decent American citizens HATE that Muslim terrorists are making their lives Hell. They HATE that criminal aliens have invaded the country and are making people move OUT of CA, FL and AZ. They HATE all the crime"
Well, there have been quite a few interrupted attacks, and an assortment of lower-level 'personal jihad'. Jewish centre in San Diego, stabbings and 'car jihad' here and there, planned mortar attacks, armed communities, and so forth.
i believe in competition of nations. what can be bad about nations trying to perform better than others? competition is our motor, without it, there´s no need to evolve. the other side of the medal - if you perform good, you think your country is better than others, you look down to them and say "oh those poor bloated stomaches in tansania, they are too silly to grow some wheat". pretty racist, uh !? so my answer to your question about the most racist nation should be obvious - it´s the nation that can look down to most other nations.
Good grief, how old are you? Twenty-five?? I don't imagine you're old enough to remember "Loving vs. Virginia," the Watts Riots, the assassination of MLK, the killings in Mississippi, Governor Wallace, Rosa Parks, or Ike having to send federal troops to integrate the schools in Arkansas. But for the sake of your beloved Jesus Christ, are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me you slept through the goddamned Rodney King Riots??? The racist cops who claimed he was going 80mph in a Hyundai, and the president of Hyundai submitted an affidavit saying that his cars couldn't go that fast? And then the racist cops clubbed the crap out of him, after he surrendered, while people were videotaping them? And then with all that evidence, a jury of racists let the racist cops go free?
That was racism. The stuff that happened during my lifetime but apparently before you were born, that wasn't just racism, that was pure evil. By those standards, what's happening today is just people blowing off a little steam. Nobody's dead yet. You have NO IDEA what "tension" is!
We elected a President whom we identify as "black" (even though Africans insist that he looks more like us than like them). How many more clues do you need that America has made a quantum improvement in race relations?
* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *
Will you please stop your incessant trolling? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You make inflammatory remarks about things you weren't around to witness or read about first hand, and you don't bother to check your facts before you start typing. You even make erroneous statements about things that happened during your own lifetime! Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?
Giving trolls attention means they win.
Moderators always win. Not to worry.
I am convinced that the worst violation of the scientific method is intellectual dishonesty. Therefore on a website of science and scholarship it is the worst form of trolling. Trolling cannot be allowed because it is an attempt to derail, distract or otherwise impair or halt the forward progress of a discussion except in (rare and reasonable) jest. Intellectual dishonesty therefore falls in the same category as a personal insult or an off-topic post, but it is worse than either because when done well it may not be noticed until the damage is done. If a member makes an assertion and it is challenged, the scientific method requires either:
Debate: Respond to the challenge by providing reasoning or other evidence for the assertion. This is not an academy and the rules of evidence are reasonable: a Wikipedia citation is allowed; a Biblical citation is not.
Capitulation: Accept the falsification of the assertion, discontinue the line of argument and never repeat the assertion on SciForums in the original thread or any other.
In my moderation, to do otherwise is trolling, which is a violation of the forum rules. I have a long memory and I revere the scientific method. I realize that we all have day jobs and we might sometimes honestly fail to see a challenge to our assertion, or honestly forget that an assertion we post today is a repeat of one that was successfully falsified last month. But a pattern of intellectual dishonesty is guaranteed to place a member at the top of the week's topics on the Super-Secret Moderators' Subforum.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I was a moderator back in the day, I don't have much trust in that.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry, I was expanding my post while you were responding to it. I thought it might be encouraging to spell out my strategy for dealing with this most egregious violation of the scientific method.
I am one of the oldest Moderators (1943) and I take my role as "elder" very seriously--both among the general members and among the other Moderators. Given that I am also a professional writer and an experienced teacher, I can be a very persuasive communicator. Trust me, this problem is seldom out of the spotlight in the Moderators' discussions.
What does your age and profession life have to do with the Internets? I'll hold out for when the only treatment for trolls is administered, in short words are nice but action is better.
As for the super secret moderator forum, that not a secret.
I'm not talking about the entire internet, just this place.
Not its existence, but its content.
Separate names with a comma.