Ideas have consequences

[SigniferOne]

We hear plenty of people who propose evil ideas, but masquerade them as science, jambled propositions constructed in ivory towers (all too easy to find these days), having no connection to reality, or to the life of real human beings they pretend to explain, describe, or provide guidelines for.

It is to these people, -- to much of modern humanities, biology, and sociology, -- that this short film has been apparently addressed.

[Gaidin]

For those that don't have sound, mind writing out a five to six sentence rundown of the point you're trying to make?

[Claudius Gothicus]

I don't get it... are you throwing a punch at sciences that deal with the individual and his/her enviroment?

[justicar5]

We hear plenty of people who propose evil ideas, but masquerade them as science, jambled propositions constructed in ivory towers (all too easy to find these days), having no connection to reality, or to the life of real human beings they pretend to explain, describe, or provide guidelines for.

It is to these people, -- to much of modern humanities, biology, and sociology, -- that this short film has been apparently addressed.

If God is necessary for morality, then whatever God deems moral is moral. Therefore, why praise God for what He has done if He could have just as likely done the opposite, and it would have been equally moral. If whatever God says goes, then if God decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible. If things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if He does choose one over another, His choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not worthy of worship.
Second: If goodness is a defining attribute of God, then God cannot be used to define goodness. If we do so, we are guilty of circular reasoning. That is, if we use goodness to define God, we can't also use God to define goodness.

to paraphrase Thodore Schick Jr, paraphrasing a greek postion


oh and that video is an epic straw man, and an a better video could be made of the religous duty of the Abrhamic faiths to commit genocide and sex slavery, and to wipe out all peoples who do not follow the abrahamic faiths (as done in the flood and leviticus as well as by moses on the israelites who had found a kinder god) and to then kill each other until only the 'true faith' (whatever that actually is, guess better settle it by murder [as god did with any who dared question]) remains.

[OccidentisVir]

If God is necessary for morality, then whatever God deems moral is moral. Therefore, why praise God for what He has done if He could have just as likely done the opposite, and it would have been equally moral. If whatever God says goes, then if God decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible. If things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if He does choose one over another, His choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not worthy of worship.
Second: If goodness is a defining attribute of God, then God cannot be used to define goodness. If we do so, we are guilty of circular reasoning. That is, if we use goodness to define God, we can't also use God to define goodness.

This is the old Euthyphro problem from Plato: does God do good because it is good or is it good because God does it?

There is a response to this question on Scholastic grounds. The good is the good for a particular kind of being, thus what the good is for that being depends upon what kind of being it is. Therefore, the only way the good for man can change is by changing what man is, which, of course, would make him no longer man. God, by this reasoning, can at once be viewed as the source of morality but not as a completely arbitrary source.

[Sher Khan]

The video was inane.

Ideas have consequences? Okay, I suppose this is the message considering how it cuts off with this line. Is the torturer implying the professor's ideas are the cause of this specific crime?

"I'm a predator."

Are you going to eat him?

[Claudius Gothicus]

I get it now... Social Sciences DO HAVE a Double Hermeneutic, but that doesn't mean that we should prevent people from theorizing beyond the moral realm.

Sociology for example doesn't have a ''functional utilitarian'' end(improving society). It's just a science, that aims at explaining the way things are, and as any other science it doesn't have an specific moral/ethic end. It's just what it's is, and the ''pratical ends'' are for politicians to decide, not scientifics.

[The Dude]

I was looking at that and wondered why he didn't win the debate. His psychopath opponent wasn't exactly making it difficult.

Also, what a ridiculous concept is this anyway? "Ideas have consequences?"

Facts have consequences. Ideas only do when they appeal to facts. An idea that does not appeal to facts will have zero consequences.

[godol shmok]

Yup, also ideas can antedate facts.

[Himster]

Facts have consequences. Ideas only do when they appeal to facts. An idea that does not appeal to facts will have zero consequences.

A bad idea is usually a misinterpretation of facts, that still has consequences.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Facts have consequences. Ideas only do when they appeal to facts. An idea that does not appeal to facts will have zero consequences.

They do, just look at Religious Fanaticism. Not only they misinterpret facts but also fabricate them into a supposed reality.

[The Dude]

They do, just look at Religious Fanaticism. Not only they misinterpret facts but also fabricate them into a supposed reality.

Let me put it differently, because "facts" is too narrow a term. Reality has consequences, ideas only do when they appeal to reality.

What I mean by this is that an idea can already have consequences the moment even the slightest part of it appeals to something which is real, ie which is possible. An idea about a unicorn in itself has no consequences at all, but an idea about me killing people who don't believe in unicorns has all the consequence in the world because killing is a very real and possible thing, unlike unicorns.

The same with the holocaust. The idea of jews being inferior people would have had no consequence whatsoever if it had just been an idea in hitlers mind without any added components, but the moment he started incorporating into his idea all sorts of things that were very real and possible, ie persecution, extermination, etc, the idea grew to one that appealed to reality enough to be of consequence.

If the idea that people only act out of a sort of biological disposition is true, then the idea itself will have no consequence at all. Because it will always been been true, regardless of whether we knew about it or not. And so reality dictates the course of action. If it is, however, false, then the idea itself will be utterly without consequence and we'll have to keep searching for something that does appeal to reality.

[chriscase]

Hey Sig,
Some of what gets posted may piss you off, but you should go easy on the psycho revenge fantasies. Just do like Jay and Silent Bob and chill out.

Parental Advisory on this one kids:

[Squiggle]

I'm really bloody shocked at how so few people actually understood the video at first glance. I did, sick as a dog and feverish as well.

If God is necessary for morality, then whatever God deems moral is moral. Therefore, why praise God for what He has done if He could have just as likely done the opposite, and it would have been equally moral. If whatever God says goes, then if God decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible. If things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if He does choose one over another, His choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not worthy of worship.
Second: If goodness is a defining attribute of God, then God cannot be used to define goodness. If we do so, we are guilty of circular reasoning. That is, if we use goodness to define God, we can't also use God to define goodness.

to paraphrase Thodore Schick Jr, paraphrasing a greek postion

Your confusing epistemology and ontology. Epistemologically you can know good intuitively. What we know as good is ontologically grounded in the nature of God. You can define good without God, you just have no basis for it being true...

[Sher Khan]

They are less so, and prone to pseudo-philosophy.

Like our killer in the film.

[Claudius Gothicus]

They are less so, and prone to pseudo-philosophy.

And why should Social Sciences attain themselves to follow the same rules as a Universe of Knowledge that doesn't have anything in common with them?

Social Sciences usually play by the Subject----Subject/Object(depending on the outlook and the case) relationship while Natural ones go with Subject---Object indistinctly.

The existence of pseudo-science is a problem both related to Natural and Social sciences, I mean I could quote hundreds of cases of scientific hoaxes on the natural realm(and if we follow ourselves by the ''failing to predict argument'' even newton's theory failed to predict several movements and generated anomalies). Social ones have the same problem but the factor of the subject---subject relationship adds to the issue, It doesn't mean that social theories aren't falsifiable(Like Popper said any scientific theory should be).

I mean... except for maybe Dialectical Materialism, the rest of the social theories in general are(and have been proved to be) falsifiable.

Like our killer in the film.

So now that stupid film is some sort of backing up argument for social science not being science?

[Sher Khan]

And why should Social Sciences attain themselves to follow the same rules as a Universe of Knowledge that doesn't have anything in common with them?

Why should they indeed.

They don't, however.

Social Sciences usually play by the Subject----Subject/Object(depending on the outlook and the case) relationship while Natural ones go with Subject---Object indistinctly.

The existence of pseudo-science is a problem both related to Natural and Social sciences, I mean I could quote hundreds of cases of scientific hoaxes on the natural realm(and if we follow ourselves by the ''failing to predict argument'' even newton's theory failed to predict several movements and generated anomalies). Social ones have the same problem but the factor of the subject---subject relationship adds to the issue, It doesn't mean that social theories aren't falsifiable(Like Popper said any scientific theory should be).

I mean... except for maybe Dialectical Materialism, the rest of the social theories in general are(and have been proved to be) falsifiable.

Hoaxes, troll-physics, and falsifiable theories are not what is meant by pseudo-science. Nor is this relevant.

So now that stupid film is some sort of backing up argument for social science not being science?

Is it now? Implications, etc.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Why should they indeed.

They don't, however.

The logical end to your argument is that if you take 2 fields of science and make one as ''less-scientific'' than another then you are making the second one as the most ''perfected form'' of science. Making a commensurable comparison between the two implies that one should follow the other.

Hoaxes, troll-physics, and falsifiable theories are not what is meant by pseudo-science. Nor is this relevant.

Then please... I invite you to make your arguments regarding the unscientific characteristics of social sciences present. I've already made my point(if falsifiable--->science) now it's time for you to make yours.

Is it now? Implications, etc.

It is by your earlier argument... the use of ''Like'' means that you're using it as an example of some sort.

[Sher Khan]

The logical end to your argument is that if you take 2 fields of science and make one as ''less-scientific'' than another then you are making the second one as the most ''perfected form'' of science.

Sure, perhaps.

Making a commensurable comparison between the two implies that one should follow the other.

This is a different argument.

Then please... I invite you to make your arguments regarding the unscientific characteristics of social sciences present. I've already made my point(if falsifiable--->science) now it's time for you to make yours.

Why? I'm not that interested in this, I'm just waiting for Sig.

It is by your earlier argument... the use of the verb ''Like'' means that you're using it as an example of some sort.

I said pseudo-philosophy. Not looking to chase an aside.

[Menelik_I]

We hear plenty of people who propose evil ideas, but masquerade them as science, jambled propositions constructed in ivory towers (all too easy to find these days), having no connection to reality, or to the life of real human beings they pretend to explain, describe, or provide guidelines for.

It is to these people, -- to much of modern humanities, biology, and sociology, -- that this short film has been apparently addressed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I agree with the premise, Social Sciences suffer from the Ivory tower syndrome and many times what is presented as researches is the condensate of the ''Scholar'' long years of reclusive paranoia.

Plus the problem with social science is a lack of Objectivity, nothing can be measured for certain, definitions changes and interpretations can be inverted, and many times it is more of opinions and prejudices.

Therefore Social scientist many times see what they want to see, model reality to fit the theories or simply argue with straw-man arguments.

Compared to physical science the BS rate in Social Science is probably higher, somewhere around 80% of all published work in a wild guestimate.

@Claudius Gothicus:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I can finally feed my Inner Bygoted Engineering Soul