Talk-Polywell.org

I've been looking at the recent advances in neurological with more than a little concern. Not so much the research itself, but how the research could be misused by those of a progressive bent. It seems to me that it become all too easy for the Progressives to decide that free will is just a factor of chemical imbalances and that individuals should no longer be responsible for their actions. After all this has been a common thread in Progressive thought from the beginning. It a seems that I was not the only one with concerns along those lines:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... ly-be-free

Some of the kind of the research I am talking about:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/search/label/BrainWorks
I don't think we need to repeat the same kind of things that Progressives did in the '20s and '30's, to say nothing of the fun exciting early '40s.

Well, what do you want to do?
Do you want to condemn a field of science because you do not like the results of the research?
Genetics show simillar results though. A lot of our mental capabilities and a lot of how we think and tick is defined by our genes.
Again, you may not like the results, but facts do not change just because you dont like them.
The question is what you do with the results of the research.
Ignoring facts has never brought any good though.

Before I forget to mention it:
Here it is the left that is condemning the results of science if it does not go conform with their ideology. Genetics, e.g. because it contradicts their (twisted) dogma of "everybody is the same".

Skipjack wrote:Well, what do you want to do?
Do you want to condemn a field of science because you do not like the results of the research?
Genetics show simillar results though. A lot of our mental capabilities and a lot of how we think and tick is defined by our genes.
Again, you may not like the results, but facts do not change just because you dont like them.
The question is what you do with the results of the research.
Ignoring facts has never brought any good though.

I'm not condemning the research. I think the research is very important and could lead in all sorts of interesting directions. I do have concerns that the research will be misused the same way that Darwin's stuff was. You can't deny that the history of the last century was replete with terrible examples of using genetics and eugenics to justify truly terrible things all over the world. I'm very concerned with "research" that "proves" that conservatives, say are mental defectives. Some of that crap is already going around.

I think that experience is a very good teacher:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak- ... 393&sr=8-1

Science doesn't kill people. People do.

I'm very concerned with "research" that "proves" that conservatives, say are mental defectives. Some of that crap is already going around.

Care to share that research?

kcdodd wrote:Science doesn't kill people. People do.

I'm very concerned with "research" that "proves" that conservatives, say are mental defectives. Some of that crap is already going around.

Care to share that research?

Here's a start:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/ ... -politics/
Conservatives as mental defectives:
http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/20/p ... nservatism

You see enough of this and combine it with the action of the likes of Janet Napolitano and there much to be concerned about.

Knowing something about someone's capability is never reason to laud them or harm them.

Actions, though, are another matter. And many a "bad seed" has turned out to be a force of great boon to humanity.

Oh yeah fox news, a very credible source.
Of course they hate neuro science. It contradicts the existance of a "soul", unacceptable for religious zealots.

Skipjack wrote:Oh yeah fox news, a very credible source.
Of course they hate neuro science. It contradicts the existance of a "soul", unacceptable for religious zealots.

Fox News happened to be the first link that came up:
http://www.google.com/search?q=gene+for ... =firefox-a
Usually, I have found Fox News to as credible as CNN when it comes to raw news and less biased than the networks, who have a habit of larding news stories with pure opinion. Can you point to a particular news item or story where Fox was using news to put forward a point of view?

Fox news bias:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA-cpzGWVwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60r2beeS ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ukqOdf-5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7jBVWMXC4M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60r2beeSa4U

I could get that list on and on and on. These are just a few jewels that I found on Youtube. The first one made me LOL.
I mean this is just wrong on so many levels.
Definition of paganism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan

But yeah, Fox news defínitely demonstrated that it is totally unbiased and definitely not home to a bunch of religious zealots.

Skipjack wrote:Fox news bias:
...
But yeah, Fox news defínitely demonstrated that it is totally unbiased and definitely not home to a bunch of religious zealots.

Just to make sure we are ACTUALLY speaking the same language, would you please define "unbiased" to me?

For instance, if 20% of a population has a particular viewpoint and 20% of the things that happen are related to that viewpoint and 20% of the press releases express that viewpoint, which is more unbiased, a news organization that hase NO news stories with that view point or one that has 20%?

Jccarlton wrote:I think that experience is a very good teacher:

and that we are usually very poor learners.

Skipjack wrote:Oh yeah fox news, a very credible source.
Of course they hate neuro science. It contradicts the existance of a "soul", unacceptable for religious zealots.

Thank you for revealing your reflexive religious beliefs. Most enlightening.

Thank you for revealing your reflexive religious beliefs. Most enlightening.

Not sure what you mean with that. Care to elaborate?

would you please define "unbiased" to me

You do not make qualitative statements about the actual facts of the news.
E.g. calling Europeans pagans is absolutely stupid anyway. I think that only a very small fraction of Europeans actually qualify to be pagans. The rest are atheists (no religion) and christians mostly (still)... None of them qualify as "Pagans"
Oh and letting anybody know what side you are on and what opinion you have in regards to certain news sure does not qualify as unbiased. But if you think that Fox news is unbiased, who the hell is biased then?