Moving away from stereotypes

Hope said:

Yes, I have looked at the 'evidence'. It is not clear that you can conflate apparent physical differences (very small though they are) with causes. Society indoctrinates people to behave a certain way; behaviour changes the structure of the brain, which is plastic. It is hard to disentangle effect from cause. I am no Scientist, so I must be stupid, but the real-world is very different from a Scientific laboratory - there are so many variables that can affect the brain. Secondarily, how do we KNOW that minute differences in brain structure significantly affect behaviour? And, also, what about the myriad differences between the brains of women or between the brains of men?

And this is why brain scientists don't deal with individual brains when drawing conclusions. Instead they look at numbers of brains from across as broad a spectrum of individuals as possible. This way the noise of environmental influence is canceled out and the underlying hard-wired differences are revealed.

We don't even need to use brain scanning to see that there are universal differences between men and women - even in the most matriarchal of societies, labour is divided down very clear lines, between nurture, and physical activity - the women raise children, and care for the sick, whilst the men hunt, and build.

Hope said:

And you obviously did not read what I said about American segregation being an EXTREME example - just the logical conclusion of this argument that some might pursue

Yes, I read it. But, resorting to extreme examples is a poor way to present an argument.

Hope said:

Your argument about humans being intrinsically worthless is called nihilism, or post-modernism. I am an atheist but I believe all humans and animals have intrinsic worth because sentient matter has feelings, feels pain, feels satisfaction, have a RIGHT to exist. Do you believe we have a right to exist? I assume you do, because not to believe this suggests moral bankruptsy and cynicism

Then you assume wrong. But not because I am morally bankrupt, or cynical (though I must admit I am often the latter), but because I believe simply in "do as to others as you would done to you". This principle does not require 'right', or 'worth', or 'value', precisely because in a system where one entity has as much 'right', 'worth', or 'value' as any other, those terms cease to have meaning. 'Right', 'worth', and 'value' are all relative concepts, so without relative difference, they have no validity.

Hope said:

And tautology is not a  way to argue a point either! (I am referring to your repetitive assertion that I am being emotional, this is a smear, and is a silly way of trying to argue a point)

I state that you're responding emotionally because it is evident in the language you use. I am not saying that this is wrong, or bad. Just that it is biasing your arguments.

Hope said:

If worth and value are subjective constructs, then presumably what you say is also a subjective construct? (a rhetorical question of course).

Your question may be rhetorical, but my answer to that question isn't:

I try not to place worth or value or what I say, or think. Instead I try to hold, and present absolute objective truth.

I am sure you will argue that we can not know absolute objective truth, and this is where I disagree.

We can assume absolute objective truth because if we did not percieve absolute objective truth we would find existence very hard indeed.

If I see a tiger, I can draw but two conclusions - either I'm halucinating - a very dangerous conclusion to reach - or that really is a tiger, and I need to attack, stay very still, hide, or run away very quickly.

And, the more evidence I have that it's a tiger, the more sure I can be - so if I see others attacking, standing very still, hiding, or running away, then I can pretty sure they too see a tiger.

Hope said:

Brain science is still about questions. The questions you have in mind bias the answers to the (apparent) physical differences. Science can never completely eliminate bias, and while hard physics can usually be relied on - we are all natural physicists, we use physics to manipulate THINGS - Science applied to humans is far less reliable, particularly when dealing with how brain patterns translate into human behaviour!

The basis of science is not the probably biased, possibly halucinatory, subjective, opinion of one individual - but the likely objective, probably true, fact, discerned from the shared, and corroborated, conclusions that have been drawn from of a myriad of opinions from a myriad of inidividuals.

In this way, the scientific method cancels out the noise of subjectivity to reveal objective truth.

Hope said:

Yes, I have looked at the 'evidence'. It is not clear that you can conflate apparent physical differences (very small though they are) with causes. Society indoctrinates people to behave a certain way; behaviour changes the structure of the brain, which is plastic. It is hard to disentangle effect from cause. I am no Scientist, so I must be stupid, but the real-world is very different from a Scientific laboratory - there are so many variables that can affect the brain. Secondarily, how do we KNOW that minute differences in brain structure significantly affect behaviour? And, also, what about the myriad differences between the brains of women or between the brains of men?

And this is why brain scientists don't deal with individual brains when drawing conclusions. Instead they look at numbers of brains from across as broad a spectrum of individuals as possible. This way the noise of environmental influence is canceled out and the underlying hard-wired differences are revealed.

We don't even need to use brain scanning to see that there are universal differences between men and women - even in the most matriarchal of societies, labour is divided down very clear lines, between nurture, and physical activity - the women raise children, and care for the sick, whilst the men hunt, and build.

Hope said:

And you obviously did not read what I said about American segregation being an EXTREME example - just the logical conclusion of this argument that some might pursue

Yes, I read it. But, resorting to extreme examples is a poor way to present an argument.

Hope said:

Your argument about humans being intrinsically worthless is called nihilism, or post-modernism. I am an atheist but I believe all humans and animals have intrinsic worth because sentient matter has feelings, feels pain, feels satisfaction, have a RIGHT to exist. Do you believe we have a right to exist? I assume you do, because not to believe this suggests moral bankruptsy and cynicism

Then you assume wrong. But not because I am morally bankrupt, or cynical (though I must admit I am often the latter), but because I believe simply in "do as to others as you would done to you". This principle does not require 'right', or 'worth', or 'value', precisely because in a system where one entity has as much 'right', 'worth', or 'value' as any other, those terms cease to have meaning. 'Right', 'worth', and 'value' are all relative concepts, so without relative difference, they have no validity.

Hope said:

And tautology is not a  way to argue a point either! (I am referring to your repetitive assertion that I am being emotional, this is a smear, and is a silly way of trying to argue a point)

I state that you're responding emotionally because it is evident in the language you use. I am not saying that this is wrong, or bad. Just that it is biasing your arguments.

Hope said:

If worth and value are subjective constructs, then presumably what you say is also a subjective construct? (a rhetorical question of course).

Your question may be rhetorical, but my answer to that question isn't:

I try not to place worth or value or what I say, or think. Instead I try to hold, and present absolute objective truth.

I am sure you will argue that we can not know absolute objective truth, and this is where I disagree.

We can assume absolute objective truth because if we did not percieve absolute objective truth we would find existence very hard indeed.

If I see a tiger, I can draw but two conclusions - either I'm halucinating - a very dangerous conclusion to reach - or that really is a tiger, and I need to attack, stay very still, hide, or run away very quickly.

And, the more evidence I have that it's a tiger, the more sure I can be - so if I see others attacking, standing very still, hiding, or running away, then I can pretty sure they too see a tiger.

Hope said:

Brain science is still about questions. The questions you have in mind bias the answers to the (apparent) physical differences. Science can never completely eliminate bias, and while hard physics can usually be relied on - we are all natural physicists, we use physics to manipulate THINGS - Science applied to humans is far less reliable, particularly when dealing with how brain patterns translate into human behaviour!

The basis of science is not the probably biased, possibly halucinatory, subjective, opinion of one individual - but the likely objective, probably true, fact, discerned from the shared, and corroborated, conclusions that have been drawn from of a myriad of opinions from a myriad of inidividuals.

In this way, the scientific method cancels out the noise of subjectivity to reveal objective truth.