Jump to content
IGNORED

Znanost i politicka (ne)korektnost


Zoe

Recommended Posts

To sve vreme i pokušavam da kažem, a ti si to lepo formulisao. Upravo je to ono na šta mislim kad kažem da ne postoji adekvatna "teorija rase" (za razliku od "teorije pola" koju je srednjoškolac u stanju da uspešno formuliše).
Da. Više bi smisla imalo klasificirati ljude po krvnoj grupi nego li prema morfoloških osobitostima.
Link to comment
svakako. ono sto ja pokusavam da kazem je da isto to vazi za inteligenciju. ne mozes da zaronis ispod nivoa koze i odredis ko je koliko inteligentan, a i ako uspes, to su toliko sitne razlike da su potpuno nebitne u odnosu na celokupnu kolicinu informacija u genomu.a opet su nam te sitne razlike vazne u nasim malim zivotima. predvidjaju uspeh u skoli, uspeh u poslu, visinu plate, zdravstveno stanje, zivotni vek, ekonomsku klasu... nama jako bitne stvari.
Statistika je najpodmuklija od sviju laži. Jest istina u generalnom smislu a često je laž u pojedinačnom smislu.
Link to comment

Samo da se nadovezem, svaka cast Indiju i Antonu na strpljenju. Nalazim da je ipak malo deprimirajuce da jos uvek postoji potreba da se i dan danas objasnjavaju stvari koje su odavno opste mesto, posebno imajuci u vidu socijalne implikacije (uglavnom negativne) koji koncept "rase" nosi sa sobom.

Link to comment

a ti samo australijske citas? :) klik"More importantly, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." ma da, ta tvrdnja bi bila jako cudna (ovo se odnosilo na genetsku inferiornost afrikanaca) jer bi nuzno implicirala intrinzicku korelaciju, a watson zna suvise genetike za tako nesto, cenim.

Link to comment

Buuu, ovaj prepisuje od mene <_< :"There is no scientific basis for what Watson was saying. Race is a social concept, it's not a scientific one, there's no evidence in our genetic code that would indicate there to be a clear demarcation that would separate humans into different race categories. It is absolutely clear to me that even the association of skin colour with medicine, the so-called race based medicine, is clearly misguided, and when you go to race based intelligence it just racist talk. It has no scientific basis whatsoever." Dr Craig Venter @ BBCTold you so. wink.gif

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...

(Надам се да опет нећу бити пребачен на читчет... тако је то кад си проблем-ђак).Елем, силно ме је забавила хипотеза Нила Турока о томе да Биг Бенг није почетак ни простора ни времена, тј. да исти немају ни почетак ни крај, тј. не хипотеза сама, већ то што је наишла на негативну реакцију не само опонената у редовима експерата, већ и на противљење Католичке Цркве :lol: ...толико су у Ватикану пригрлили теорију о Биг Бенг почетку, да ће сад бити политичке некоректно оборити или надоградити је.И, на крају, утешне речи из интервјуа за оне који прате теорију струна као ја са потпуним неразумевањем:The extent to which we believe it derives from the mathematics. We're not smoking something and making it up.

Edited by Indy
Link to comment

Ne čudi me reakcija Vatikana. Teorija Big Benga postulira dve stvari - prauzrok i vremensko određenje. Obaranje teorije bilo bi strašan udarac Vatikanu koji je odlučio da Big Beng uvrsti u dogmu u Postanju. Mukice, još uvek nisu shvatili da mešanje vere i nauke nanosi malu štetu nauci, ali veliku veri.

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...

(Да не покрећем нову тему, а пошто има везе са науком и етиком).The Stupidity of DignityСтивен Пинкер, у свом јединственом стилу, разбија на парампарчад биоетику Џорџ Буша и његових теокона (теолошких неокона - који су, што је мало "откриће" овог есеја, а вероватно и изненађење са многе, предвођени римокатолицима, не протестантима). Права посластица за добре познаваоце енглеског - мада, очито, има и забрињавајуће конотације. (Ако некога збуњује назив есеја, "глупост достојанства", збуниће га вероватно још и више, између много осталих примера, и чињеница да главни Бушов саветник за питања биоетике сматра конзумацију сладоледа из корнета на јавном месту "недостојном". Да, да, ти људи заиста постоје!)

The sickness in theocon bioethics goes beyond imposing a Catholic agenda on a secular democracy and using "dignity" to condemn anything that gives someone the creeps. Ever since the cloning of Dolly the sheep a decade ago, the panic sown by conservative bioethicists, amplified by a sensationalist press, has turned the public discussion of bioethics into a miasma of scientific illiteracy. Brave New World, a work of fiction, is treated as inerrant prophesy. Cloning is confused with resurrecting the dead or mass-producing babies. Longevity becomes "immortality," improvement becomes "perfection," the screening for disease genes becomes "designer babies" or even "reshaping the species." The reality is that biomedical research is a Sisyphean struggle to eke small increments in health from a staggeringly complex, entropy-beset human body. It is not, and probably never will be, a runaway train.A major sin of theocon bioethics is exactly the one that it sees in biomedical research: overweening hubris. In every age, prophets foresee dystopias that never materialize, while failing to anticipate the real revolutions. Had there been a President's Council on Cyberethics in the 1960s, no doubt it would have decried the threat of the Internet, since it would inexorably lead to 1984, or to computers "taking over" like HAL in 2001. Conservative bioethicists presume to soothsay the outcome of the quintessentially unpredictable endeavor called scientific research. And they would stage-manage the kinds of social change that, in a free society, only emerge as hundreds of millions of people weigh the costs and benefits of new developments for themselves, adjusting their mores and dealing with specific harms as they arise, as they did with in vitro fertilization and the Internet.Worst of all, theocon bioethics flaunts a callousness toward the billions of non-geriatric people, born and unborn, whose lives or health could be saved by biomedical advances. Even if progress were delayed a mere decade by moratoria, red tape, and funding taboos (to say nothing of the threat of criminal prosecution), millions of people with degenerative diseases and failing organs would needlessly suffer and die. And that would be the biggest affront to human dignity of all.Цео текст.

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...
da je moguce, jebiga.ne bih volela da je istina, ali teorijski, jeste moguce.
A što ne bi volela da je istina?p.s. sorry. sad vidim da je post iz oktobra 2007e a ne 2008e. Edited by Evi
Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

Evo još 1 komada evolucione psihologije osuđenog na kontroverzu... pogotovo će ljubitelje slobodne volje i izbora ostaviti u 1 araspoloženju (komentar sa drugog borda: "Bullshit article about bullshit science, just reading this makes you dumber" sumira taj sentimenAt).Wealthy men give women more orgasmsScientists have found that the pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner?s bank balance.They found that the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has orgasms.?Women?s orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner,? said Dr Thomas Pollet, the Newcastle University psychologist behind the research.He believes the phenomenon is an ?evolutionary adaptation? that is hard-wired into women, driving them to select men on the basis of their perceived quality.Related LinksThe study is certain to prove controversial, suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers. (LINK).

Link to comment
Evo još 1 komada evolucione psihologije osuđenog na kontroverzu... pogotovo će ljubitelje slobodne volje i izbora ostaviti u 1 araspoloženju (komentar sa drugog borda: "Bullshit article about bullshit science, just reading this makes you dumber" sumira taj sentimenAt).
I još jedan kdp komentar: With the way the world economy is right now, why are scientists being paid to do such a RIDICULOUS study. A complete waste of timeNa stranu "istraživanje" i smešna metodologija, ali mene bi čudilo da stvari stoje drugačije. Evoluciona psihologija kicks ass!!
Link to comment

Da, upravo napisah drugde, ponekad se čini da evoluciona psihologija ima 1 garanciju da bude kontroverzna, pošto mnogo stvari koje ona obelodani izgleda kao projekcija naših najgorih ideja o tome kakvi su ljudi. Nije čudo da je neki strastveno mrze.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Ovo je zanimljivo, ponovo primer politički nekorektnih akademika. Postavlja čovek pitanje zašto se tolika histerija diže protiv ekstazija kada je npr. konjički sport (koji se, kao i svaki sport, ohrabruje) po posledicama uporedljivo štetan? Naravno, persone iz odgovarajućeg nadležnog tela nisu propustile da više puta ponove da je on to pitanje pokrenuo "kao akademik" (eufemizam za "irelevantno").

...why society tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use...
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...