Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Really, a word becomes a word when people use it.
English wasn't invented in a day.
English wasn't invented in a day.
FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex
- Thread starter judyjudyjudy
- Start date
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='chunk']Why is dictionary.com a "real" source of information while the wiki isn't? Because the makers of dictionary.com say so?[/QUOTE]
I would say its because dictionary.com can't be changed by anybody who comes along and decides to click the 'edit' link. Dictionary.com gets their information from American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster and literally dozens of other reputable sources, while Wikipedia gets their information from anybody with a computer who feels like typing something up.
I would say its because dictionary.com can't be changed by anybody who comes along and decides to click the 'edit' link. Dictionary.com gets their information from American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster and literally dozens of other reputable sources, while Wikipedia gets their information from anybody with a computer who feels like typing something up.
[quote name='David85']You know what, I'm not going to scan people's blood anymore either. You know, I'm the leader of the FDA and see no need in it. I rather take the money being saved and give myself a raise. I mean what problems could ever come up from not scaning? Oh yeah AIDS.
I have had "sex" with two guys, that's it, both were/are clean. I know this for a fact, but because these people are dumbasses I can not give sperm, not that I was planning on it, but that's not the point. Some hetro jackass whore can sleep with 10,000 people and give as much as he wants.
And zionoverfire brings up a good point. How the yell would they know? If I want to I'll just lie, they want to be bitches, I'll be a liar.[/QUOTE]
Remember if you've had gay MALE sex you're not allowed to donate blood EVER either.
Now camoor I think brought up a good point and it wouldn't be as much African American men but women that have that rate to my knowledge.
Ok now I gotta ask a quick question, speaking of the African American community and this is specifically directed at David but if anyone else wants to feel free to respond.
David what do you think of Atlanta, more specifically I'm referring to "On the Down Low". I think if the Black community wouldn't ingraine such macho behavioral patterns into the culture for Black men as well as Black women being fair to the men I think it would be easier for them to accept themselves and the problem mentioned above wouldn't be so bad.
I have had "sex" with two guys, that's it, both were/are clean. I know this for a fact, but because these people are dumbasses I can not give sperm, not that I was planning on it, but that's not the point. Some hetro jackass whore can sleep with 10,000 people and give as much as he wants.
And zionoverfire brings up a good point. How the yell would they know? If I want to I'll just lie, they want to be bitches, I'll be a liar.[/QUOTE]
Remember if you've had gay MALE sex you're not allowed to donate blood EVER either.
Now camoor I think brought up a good point and it wouldn't be as much African American men but women that have that rate to my knowledge.
Ok now I gotta ask a quick question, speaking of the African American community and this is specifically directed at David but if anyone else wants to feel free to respond.
David what do you think of Atlanta, more specifically I'm referring to "On the Down Low". I think if the Black community wouldn't ingraine such macho behavioral patterns into the culture for Black men as well as Black women being fair to the men I think it would be easier for them to accept themselves and the problem mentioned above wouldn't be so bad.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='chunk']So what? You have a right to discriminate as long as you aren't violating that person's rights. I have a right to refuse to date white women or gay asian men. Is it discrimination? Hell yes, but its perfectly legal because no one has a right to date me. Likewise, there isn't a right to donate sperm. So there is no problem discriminating on any basis because it doesn't violate anyone's rights.[/QUOTE]
Ok, because it's government sanctioned discrimination.
Ok, because it's government sanctioned discrimination.
[quote name='Drocket']I would say its because dictionary.com can't be changed by anybody who comes along and decides to click the 'edit' link. Dictionary.com gets their information from American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster and literally dozens of other reputable sources, while Wikipedia gets their information from anybody with a computer who feels like typing something up.[/QUOTE]
What makes sources such as American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, etc. more reputable than your average computer user?
I would rather have information from the average computer user than from some stuffy academic "authority". Your so called "reputable" sources are biased (all sources are) and filter out information which doesn't suit them. To blindly believe whatever your source tells you is gullible. Any intelligent person should read their sources critically and if you read your sources critically then the wikipedia is a better because you get all viewpoints, even the marginal ones.
We need to think for ourselves and wikipedia gives us the tools to do that. It is a much better source of information because it is more complete. I don't know about you, but I consider a more complete source of information more "real" than a less complete source.
The virii entry proves that. Whether you like it or not, virii is a widely used term and it is, therefore, part of the english language. Looking at the history of the wikipedia entry proves that. However, your so called "reputable" sources fail to even recognize its existence. A dictionary is supposed to document the language and dictionary.com is obviously doing a poor job.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Ok, because it's government sanctioned discrimination.[/QUOTE]
Why should we care whether or not there is government sanctioned discrimination? Because of the symbolism?
In my opinion, getting worked up about that kind of symbolism is foolish. I care about people's rights and as long as they aren't being violated then I'm fine with whatever is going on.
What makes sources such as American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, etc. more reputable than your average computer user?
I would rather have information from the average computer user than from some stuffy academic "authority". Your so called "reputable" sources are biased (all sources are) and filter out information which doesn't suit them. To blindly believe whatever your source tells you is gullible. Any intelligent person should read their sources critically and if you read your sources critically then the wikipedia is a better because you get all viewpoints, even the marginal ones.
We need to think for ourselves and wikipedia gives us the tools to do that. It is a much better source of information because it is more complete. I don't know about you, but I consider a more complete source of information more "real" than a less complete source.
The virii entry proves that. Whether you like it or not, virii is a widely used term and it is, therefore, part of the english language. Looking at the history of the wikipedia entry proves that. However, your so called "reputable" sources fail to even recognize its existence. A dictionary is supposed to document the language and dictionary.com is obviously doing a poor job.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Ok, because it's government sanctioned discrimination.[/QUOTE]
Why should we care whether or not there is government sanctioned discrimination? Because of the symbolism?
In my opinion, getting worked up about that kind of symbolism is foolish. I care about people's rights and as long as they aren't being violated then I'm fine with whatever is going on.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Cecil From Straigh Dope']There is one more common English -us word borrowed from Latin that doesn't follow any of the rules above: virus. To the Romans a virus was a dangerous or disgusting substance, anything from snake venom to body odor. Ancient grammarians couldn't agree whether the word was a third-declension noun, a fourth-declension noun or in a class by itself, but the one thing they could agree on was that it didn't have a plural form. Ever. To the Romans, it was a mass noun, not a count noun. That hasn't stopped English writers from inventing pseudo-Latin plural forms to cover the modern countable senses of the word. Viri is formed on the false assumption that virus is a second-declension noun. (Viri in fact is the plural of Latin vir, "man".) Virii is an even worse mistake. Only Latin nouns that end in -ius form the plural with -ii. There are no really common English plurals in -ii other than radii. That hasn't stopped people from trying out such atrocious forms as virii and penii. Virii would be the plural of virius, if such a word existed in Latin. Other suggested plurals include virora, vira, virua, and vire. For more on the debate, see http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus. html. The one inescapable fact is that in classical Latin, there was no plural of the word. In English, the only correct plural is viruses.[/quote]
Use virii all you want, I suppose, but be aware that it's about as valid a word as the similarly goofus indicating, "libary."
Use virii all you want, I suppose, but be aware that it's about as valid a word as the similarly goofus indicating, "libary."
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='chunk']What makes sources such as American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, etc. more reputable than your average computer user?
I would rather have information from the average computer user than from some stuffy academic "authority". Your so called "reputable" sources are biased (all sources are) and filter out information which doesn't suit them. To blindly believe whatever your source tells you is gullible. Any intelligent person should read their sources critically and if you read your sources critically then the wikipedia is a better because you get all viewpoints, even the marginal ones.
We need to think for ourselves and wikipedia gives us the tools to do that. It is a much better source of information because it is more complete. I don't know about you, but I consider a more complete source of information more "real" than a less complete source.[/QUOTE]
It all sounds nice, but in reality most reputable sources have something, a reputation of accuracy. They're considered trustworthy. To suggest you, me, or some guy on the street should be viewed as just as reputable and reliable as people who devote their whole lives to something shows a disconnect with reality. It's great to want to do your own research to back things up (sitting in a chair and spouting whatever is common sense to you does not count as research, and is of no value to anyone other than to study how the human mind works).
Besides, being complete has little to do with accuracy, aristotle had a complete worldview, but he wasn't very accurate. Practically every single religion has a complete worldview, but they can't all be right.
I would rather have information from the average computer user than from some stuffy academic "authority". Your so called "reputable" sources are biased (all sources are) and filter out information which doesn't suit them. To blindly believe whatever your source tells you is gullible. Any intelligent person should read their sources critically and if you read your sources critically then the wikipedia is a better because you get all viewpoints, even the marginal ones.
We need to think for ourselves and wikipedia gives us the tools to do that. It is a much better source of information because it is more complete. I don't know about you, but I consider a more complete source of information more "real" than a less complete source.[/QUOTE]
It all sounds nice, but in reality most reputable sources have something, a reputation of accuracy. They're considered trustworthy. To suggest you, me, or some guy on the street should be viewed as just as reputable and reliable as people who devote their whole lives to something shows a disconnect with reality. It's great to want to do your own research to back things up (sitting in a chair and spouting whatever is common sense to you does not count as research, and is of no value to anyone other than to study how the human mind works).
Besides, being complete has little to do with accuracy, aristotle had a complete worldview, but he wasn't very accurate. Practically every single religion has a complete worldview, but they can't all be right.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Am I think only one who thinks chunk is arguing with himself?
"I'm fine with government discrimination"
"I care about peoples rights and would not do anything to violate them"
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Am I think only one who thinks chunk is arguing with himself?
"I'm fine with government discrimination"
"I care about peoples rights and would not do anything to violate them"[/QUOTE]
Why do I go on for pages and pages, making my point of view painstakingly clear, only to have you extract phrases out of context? Maybe it could seem like I'm arguing with myself if you think that politics boils down to stupid oneliners. But if you put some thought in it then you should have no problem understanding that discrimination in itself isn't necessarily related to people's rights. Surely you can see that and you're just trying to pick a fight.
If the government passes a law saying that a white murderer will wear blue handcuffs while a black murderer will wear yellow handcuffs then is it discrimination? Hell yes. Does it violate anyone's rights? Hell no. Convicted murderers don't have a right to any particular color of handcuff.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It all sounds nice, but in reality most reputable sources have something, a reputation of accuracy. They're considered trustworthy. To suggest you, me, or some guy on the street should be viewed as just as reputable and reliable as people who devote their whole lives to something shows a disconnect with reality. It's great to want to do your own research to back things up (sitting in a chair and spouting whatever is common sense to you does not count as research, and is of no value to anyone other than to study how the human mind works).
Besides, being complete has little to do with accuracy, aristotle had a complete worldview, but he wasn't very accurate. Practically every single religion has a complete worldview, but they can't all be right.[/QUOTE]
You can only be sure of the accuracy of something based on your own personal research. So unless you want to base your information on faith that your sources are more accurate, the accuracy issue isn't relevant. You might as well go for the more complete information and sort out the accuracy for yourself.
Of course sitting in a chair and spouting whatever you think is common sense does not constitute research, but some people don't even bother to check whether their facts make logical sense. You'd be surprised how much you can accomplish just by checking for contradictions, and all that from your own chair.
Also, don't try to minimize understanding how the human mind works. There are millions of people across the globe experiencing things and writing about them. If you can interpret all those results in a consistent framework then your research is already done for you. I think that is at the heart of why the wiki is useful.
I'm not saying that one guy on the street should be viewed as more reliable than people who devote their whole lives to something. However, I am saying that 10000 guys on the street are more reliable than 1 guy who devotes his whole life to something. Also, a more diverse group is more reliable than a less diverse group.
At best, a group of experts can represent the collective knowledge of humanity focused into a small group, but if you have access to the collective knowledge itself then you don't need that group of experts and you're better off without them because they introduce their own biases which you might consider are averaged out across the whole of humanity. This is especially true of nonspecialized, general information such as what you might find in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
"I'm fine with government discrimination"
"I care about peoples rights and would not do anything to violate them"[/QUOTE]
Why do I go on for pages and pages, making my point of view painstakingly clear, only to have you extract phrases out of context? Maybe it could seem like I'm arguing with myself if you think that politics boils down to stupid oneliners. But if you put some thought in it then you should have no problem understanding that discrimination in itself isn't necessarily related to people's rights. Surely you can see that and you're just trying to pick a fight.
If the government passes a law saying that a white murderer will wear blue handcuffs while a black murderer will wear yellow handcuffs then is it discrimination? Hell yes. Does it violate anyone's rights? Hell no. Convicted murderers don't have a right to any particular color of handcuff.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It all sounds nice, but in reality most reputable sources have something, a reputation of accuracy. They're considered trustworthy. To suggest you, me, or some guy on the street should be viewed as just as reputable and reliable as people who devote their whole lives to something shows a disconnect with reality. It's great to want to do your own research to back things up (sitting in a chair and spouting whatever is common sense to you does not count as research, and is of no value to anyone other than to study how the human mind works).
Besides, being complete has little to do with accuracy, aristotle had a complete worldview, but he wasn't very accurate. Practically every single religion has a complete worldview, but they can't all be right.[/QUOTE]
You can only be sure of the accuracy of something based on your own personal research. So unless you want to base your information on faith that your sources are more accurate, the accuracy issue isn't relevant. You might as well go for the more complete information and sort out the accuracy for yourself.
Of course sitting in a chair and spouting whatever you think is common sense does not constitute research, but some people don't even bother to check whether their facts make logical sense. You'd be surprised how much you can accomplish just by checking for contradictions, and all that from your own chair.
Also, don't try to minimize understanding how the human mind works. There are millions of people across the globe experiencing things and writing about them. If you can interpret all those results in a consistent framework then your research is already done for you. I think that is at the heart of why the wiki is useful.
I'm not saying that one guy on the street should be viewed as more reliable than people who devote their whole lives to something. However, I am saying that 10000 guys on the street are more reliable than 1 guy who devotes his whole life to something. Also, a more diverse group is more reliable than a less diverse group.
At best, a group of experts can represent the collective knowledge of humanity focused into a small group, but if you have access to the collective knowledge itself then you don't need that group of experts and you're better off without them because they introduce their own biases which you might consider are averaged out across the whole of humanity. This is especially true of nonspecialized, general information such as what you might find in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It all sounds nice, but in reality most reputable sources have something, a reputation of accuracy. They're considered trustworthy. To suggest you, me, or some guy on the street should be viewed as just as reputable and reliable as people who devote their whole lives to something shows a disconnect with reality. It's great to want to do your own research to back things up (sitting in a chair and spouting whatever is common sense to you does not count as research, and is of no value to anyone other than to study how the human mind works).
Besides, being complete has little to do with accuracy, aristotle had a complete worldview, but he wasn't very accurate. Practically every single religion has a complete worldview, but they can't all be right.[/QUOTE]
You can only be sure of the accuracy of something based on your own personal research. So unless you want to base your information on faith that your sources are more accurate, the accuracy issue isn't relevant. You might as well go for the more complete information and sort out the accuracy for yourself.
Of course sitting in a chair and spouting whatever you think is common sense does not constitute research, but some people don't even bother to check whether their facts make logical sense. You'd be surprised how much you can accomplish just by checking for contradictions, and all that from your own chair.
Also, don't try to minimize understanding how the human mind works. There are millions of people across the globe experiencing things and writing about them. If you can interpret all those results in a consistent framework then your research is already done for you. I think that is at the heart of why the wiki is useful.
I'm not saying that one guy on the street should be viewed as more reliable than people who devote their whole lives to something. However, I am saying that 10000 guys on the street are more reliable than 1 guy who devotes his whole life to something. Also, a more diverse group is more reliable than a less diverse group.
At best, a group of experts can represent the collective knowledge of humanity focused into a small group, but if you have access to the collective knowledge itself then you don't need that group of experts and you're better off without them because they introduce their own biases which you might consider are averaged out across the whole of humanity.
Besides, being complete has little to do with accuracy, aristotle had a complete worldview, but he wasn't very accurate. Practically every single religion has a complete worldview, but they can't all be right.[/QUOTE]
You can only be sure of the accuracy of something based on your own personal research. So unless you want to base your information on faith that your sources are more accurate, the accuracy issue isn't relevant. You might as well go for the more complete information and sort out the accuracy for yourself.
Of course sitting in a chair and spouting whatever you think is common sense does not constitute research, but some people don't even bother to check whether their facts make logical sense. You'd be surprised how much you can accomplish just by checking for contradictions, and all that from your own chair.
Also, don't try to minimize understanding how the human mind works. There are millions of people across the globe experiencing things and writing about them. If you can interpret all those results in a consistent framework then your research is already done for you. I think that is at the heart of why the wiki is useful.
I'm not saying that one guy on the street should be viewed as more reliable than people who devote their whole lives to something. However, I am saying that 10000 guys on the street are more reliable than 1 guy who devotes his whole life to something. Also, a more diverse group is more reliable than a less diverse group.
At best, a group of experts can represent the collective knowledge of humanity focused into a small group, but if you have access to the collective knowledge itself then you don't need that group of experts and you're better off without them because they introduce their own biases which you might consider are averaged out across the whole of humanity.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='chunk']Why do I go on for pages and pages, making my point of view painstakingly clear, only to have you extract phrases out of context? Maybe it could seem like I'm arguing with myself if you think that politics boils down to stupid oneliners. But if you put some thought in it then you should have no problem understanding that discrimination in itself isn't necessarily related to people's rights. Surely you can see that and you're just trying to pick a fight.
If the government passes a law saying that a white murderer will wear blue handcuffs while a black murderer will wear yellow handcuffs then is it discrimination? Hell yes. Does it violate anyone's rights? Hell no. Convicted murderers don't have a right to any particular color of handcuff.[/quote]
The right to be treated equally before the law regardless of your race is a right that is being violated.
Pretty much anything you know requires some faith. I've never been to washington, but there are sources I find more credible than others to try to figure out what's going on there. I can't do much personal research into how laws are made, what the presidents positions are etc. without taking someones word for it, the hard part is figuring out who is trustworthy and accurate.
Well, making logical sense doesn't mean much without anything to back it up. To many god makes perfect sense, to many god is utterly illogical, how do you reconcile the two? In that example you really can't, but there are many such examples, evolution and creationism (intelligent design or whatever the name of the week is) being another. What political action is best, one way makes sense to some, one way makes sense to others. Common sense only gets you so far, you eventually need more to back it up. Another thing, checking for contradictions is great, just realize that often what you see as a contradiction others don't.
Minimizing understanding of the human mind is not what I was doing, realizing that the human mind is probably the last place to look for accurate, unbiased information is what I was doing.
10,000 idiots are still 10,000 idiots, and in terms of science that's what the general public is. The whole of medieval europe couldn't comprehend a heliocentric society, but where they very reliable? Technology can be the doman of the common man, more complex technology is usually the result of men and women who devote their lives or part of their lives to solving problems. Science has always been the domain of people who devote extensive portions of their lives to understanding it.
In theory a more diverse groups is more reliable, but when the diverse group knows nothing about a particular field, one person will hold infinately more knowledge.
Science has become so indepth, the days of being able to be a generalist and master of everything are long gone. If you don't deal with experts, you won't get very far on your own outside of a few select interests you have chosen.
If the government passes a law saying that a white murderer will wear blue handcuffs while a black murderer will wear yellow handcuffs then is it discrimination? Hell yes. Does it violate anyone's rights? Hell no. Convicted murderers don't have a right to any particular color of handcuff.[/quote]
The right to be treated equally before the law regardless of your race is a right that is being violated.
Pretty much anything you know requires some faith. I've never been to washington, but there are sources I find more credible than others to try to figure out what's going on there. I can't do much personal research into how laws are made, what the presidents positions are etc. without taking someones word for it, the hard part is figuring out who is trustworthy and accurate.
Well, making logical sense doesn't mean much without anything to back it up. To many god makes perfect sense, to many god is utterly illogical, how do you reconcile the two? In that example you really can't, but there are many such examples, evolution and creationism (intelligent design or whatever the name of the week is) being another. What political action is best, one way makes sense to some, one way makes sense to others. Common sense only gets you so far, you eventually need more to back it up. Another thing, checking for contradictions is great, just realize that often what you see as a contradiction others don't.
Minimizing understanding of the human mind is not what I was doing, realizing that the human mind is probably the last place to look for accurate, unbiased information is what I was doing.
10,000 idiots are still 10,000 idiots, and in terms of science that's what the general public is. The whole of medieval europe couldn't comprehend a heliocentric society, but where they very reliable? Technology can be the doman of the common man, more complex technology is usually the result of men and women who devote their lives or part of their lives to solving problems. Science has always been the domain of people who devote extensive portions of their lives to understanding it.
In theory a more diverse groups is more reliable, but when the diverse group knows nothing about a particular field, one person will hold infinately more knowledge.
Science has become so indepth, the days of being able to be a generalist and master of everything are long gone. If you don't deal with experts, you won't get very far on your own outside of a few select interests you have chosen.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The right to be treated equally before the law regardless of your race is a right that is being violated.[/quote]
Fine. I accept that argument. Even though I don't think that handcuffs that only differ in color could be considered unequal, I realize that there is a precedent for viewing anything different as unequal. However, I don't think the same applies to nonlegal matters such as donating body parts/fluids.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Pretty much anything you know requires some faith. I've never been to washington, but there are sources I find more credible than others to try to figure out what's going on there. I can't do much personal research into how laws are made, what the presidents positions are etc. without taking someones word for it, the hard part is figuring out who is trustworthy and accurate.[/quote]
This is true, but in my opinion a diverse group of sources lends a lot of weight in terms of trustworthiness. I believe that using a very diverse group of sources to check against itself yields results that are about as good as one could obtain by doing all their own research personally.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, making logical sense doesn't mean much without anything to back it up. To many god makes perfect sense, to many god is utterly illogical, how do you reconcile the two? In that example you really can't, but there are many such examples, evolution and creationism (intelligent design or whatever the name of the week is) being another. What political action is best, one way makes sense to some, one way makes sense to others. Common sense only gets you so far, you eventually need more to back it up. Another thing, checking for contradictions is great, just realize that often what you see as a contradiction others don't.[/quote]
Heh, well in the very least I'm tempted to say that those who contradict themselves are wrong.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Minimizing understanding of the human mind is not what I was doing, realizing that the human mind is probably the last place to look for accurate, unbiased information is what I was doing.[/quote]
Why not? The human mind is the most powerful statistical analyzer in existence. It will be a very long time before mankind can artificially create an equally powerful tool for statistical analysis. Until then the human mind is unmatched in its ability to find the best solutions.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']10,000 idiots are still 10,000 idiots, and in terms of science that's what the general public is. The whole of medieval europe couldn't comprehend a heliocentric society, but where they very reliable? Technology can be the doman of the common man, more complex technology is usually the result of men and women who devote their lives or part of their lives to solving problems. Science has always been the domain of people who devote extensive portions of their lives to understanding it.[/quote]
If the whole of mankind says the sky is red and 1 scientist says it is blue then who is right? I think that is a question for the philosophers, but I also think that regardless of the objective truth the truth claimed by the majority is the more practical one. I mean the practicality of objective truth comes from the fact that the same truth is true for everyone, but if the majority experiences a different truth then that practicality is lost.
I agree that science has always been the domain of people who devote extensive portions of their lives to understanding it, but its only significance lies in the fact that the majority can experience it. Without the ability of the majority to experience it, science is just a meaningless and arbitrary game. This ties in with the idea of fact checking because experiencing the results of science is in a sense a kind of fact checking. I mean, observations don't get any more objective than if the observer doesn't even know what is going on.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']In theory a more diverse groups is more reliable, but when the diverse group knows nothing about a particular field, one person will hold infinately more knowledge.
Science has become so indepth, the days of being able to be a generalist and master of everything are long gone. If you don't deal with experts, you won't get very far on your own outside of a few select interests you have chosen.[/QUOTE]
These things may be true of science, but that isn't what things like wikipedia and dictionary.com address. That said, with respect to their goals I think that wikipedia is much better suited to achieve them than dictionary.com.
Even within strict science though I think that fact checking is much easier than original research. So I think nonexperts still have the ability to evaluate the claims of the experts, even if they can't achieve the same in terms of original research.
As a side note: I personally expect that nonexperts will still make significant contributions to scientific understanding. There are a lot of kludges that need some cleaning up and it might take a nonexpert to think out of the box and fix those kludges. For example, all physical units can be expressed in terms of time and space, yet physicists continue to hold on to the traditional unit system. I believe this acts as a barrier for nonexperts and probably also makes things unecessarily complicated for the experts. Also, I believe that there is a lot of mathematics being applied that isn't necessarily appropriate, but scientists stick with it because of their traditional training on certain topics. It might take a nonexpert to bring in a fresh perspective. Of course, to make significant contributions these nonexperts might need to be a geniouses.
Fine. I accept that argument. Even though I don't think that handcuffs that only differ in color could be considered unequal, I realize that there is a precedent for viewing anything different as unequal. However, I don't think the same applies to nonlegal matters such as donating body parts/fluids.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Pretty much anything you know requires some faith. I've never been to washington, but there are sources I find more credible than others to try to figure out what's going on there. I can't do much personal research into how laws are made, what the presidents positions are etc. without taking someones word for it, the hard part is figuring out who is trustworthy and accurate.[/quote]
This is true, but in my opinion a diverse group of sources lends a lot of weight in terms of trustworthiness. I believe that using a very diverse group of sources to check against itself yields results that are about as good as one could obtain by doing all their own research personally.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, making logical sense doesn't mean much without anything to back it up. To many god makes perfect sense, to many god is utterly illogical, how do you reconcile the two? In that example you really can't, but there are many such examples, evolution and creationism (intelligent design or whatever the name of the week is) being another. What political action is best, one way makes sense to some, one way makes sense to others. Common sense only gets you so far, you eventually need more to back it up. Another thing, checking for contradictions is great, just realize that often what you see as a contradiction others don't.[/quote]
Heh, well in the very least I'm tempted to say that those who contradict themselves are wrong.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Minimizing understanding of the human mind is not what I was doing, realizing that the human mind is probably the last place to look for accurate, unbiased information is what I was doing.[/quote]
Why not? The human mind is the most powerful statistical analyzer in existence. It will be a very long time before mankind can artificially create an equally powerful tool for statistical analysis. Until then the human mind is unmatched in its ability to find the best solutions.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']10,000 idiots are still 10,000 idiots, and in terms of science that's what the general public is. The whole of medieval europe couldn't comprehend a heliocentric society, but where they very reliable? Technology can be the doman of the common man, more complex technology is usually the result of men and women who devote their lives or part of their lives to solving problems. Science has always been the domain of people who devote extensive portions of their lives to understanding it.[/quote]
If the whole of mankind says the sky is red and 1 scientist says it is blue then who is right? I think that is a question for the philosophers, but I also think that regardless of the objective truth the truth claimed by the majority is the more practical one. I mean the practicality of objective truth comes from the fact that the same truth is true for everyone, but if the majority experiences a different truth then that practicality is lost.
I agree that science has always been the domain of people who devote extensive portions of their lives to understanding it, but its only significance lies in the fact that the majority can experience it. Without the ability of the majority to experience it, science is just a meaningless and arbitrary game. This ties in with the idea of fact checking because experiencing the results of science is in a sense a kind of fact checking. I mean, observations don't get any more objective than if the observer doesn't even know what is going on.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']In theory a more diverse groups is more reliable, but when the diverse group knows nothing about a particular field, one person will hold infinately more knowledge.
Science has become so indepth, the days of being able to be a generalist and master of everything are long gone. If you don't deal with experts, you won't get very far on your own outside of a few select interests you have chosen.[/QUOTE]
These things may be true of science, but that isn't what things like wikipedia and dictionary.com address. That said, with respect to their goals I think that wikipedia is much better suited to achieve them than dictionary.com.
Even within strict science though I think that fact checking is much easier than original research. So I think nonexperts still have the ability to evaluate the claims of the experts, even if they can't achieve the same in terms of original research.
As a side note: I personally expect that nonexperts will still make significant contributions to scientific understanding. There are a lot of kludges that need some cleaning up and it might take a nonexpert to think out of the box and fix those kludges. For example, all physical units can be expressed in terms of time and space, yet physicists continue to hold on to the traditional unit system. I believe this acts as a barrier for nonexperts and probably also makes things unecessarily complicated for the experts. Also, I believe that there is a lot of mathematics being applied that isn't necessarily appropriate, but scientists stick with it because of their traditional training on certain topics. It might take a nonexpert to bring in a fresh perspective. Of course, to make significant contributions these nonexperts might need to be a geniouses.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
You know what? I'm gonna raise millions of dollars and start television ad campaigns promoting the use of virii, and THEN it will be in the dictionaries.
I'll start tomorrow...
[edit]
my keyboard
I'll start tomorrow...
[edit]
my keyboard
bread's done