Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Just a reminder!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AE 87" data-source="post: 209881" data-attributes="member: 195"><p>Yes!!!!! </p><p>I agree that most of us rely on what seems as "common sense" to us. </p><p>That's the point!!!!</p><p></p><p>You see, in a culturally diverse society, we find that there is often no one, single, common sense. What is common sense to the conservative fundamentalist is not common sense to the Yankee liberal. What's common sense to the creationist-theist is not common sense to the materialist-atheist. What's common sense to polytheists from Chinese or Indian culture is not common sense to any of the above.</p><p></p><p>That's why ethical discourse must get beyond the simplistic position of they disagree with what is common sense to me so they must be idiots. We have to be able to talk about the reasons we have for holding certain positions and their limits. </p><p></p><p>My problem with your posts in the climate change discussion is that you haven't actually moved beyond saying you agree with the majority of the experts. You haven't explained why the arguments against 97% number aren't persuasive to you. You haven't explained why you trust the manipulated and constantly corrected surface data but not the satellite data. You haven't explained why you suspect millions of dollars may have influenced the science and positions of those who are skeptical about a dangerous influence of humanity on climate change but don't seem worried that the billions of dollars of government money are affecting the science on the other side.</p><p></p><p>I don't say that you have taken your position by faith because it disagrees with mine. I say that you have taken your position by faith because you don't lay out your reasons beyond accepting the data and conclusions of one side and dismissing the data and conclusions on the other. </p><p></p><p>Oh, and for completeness, I think you misused the phrase the exceptions prove the rule. Iirc, it does not mean that exceptions to the rule prove the rule. I'm pretty sure that it means that exceptions to normal circumstances which still follow the rule prove the rule. But, that's again, iirc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AE 87, post: 209881, member: 195"] Yes!!!!! I agree that most of us rely on what seems as "common sense" to us. That's the point!!!! You see, in a culturally diverse society, we find that there is often no one, single, common sense. What is common sense to the conservative fundamentalist is not common sense to the Yankee liberal. What's common sense to the creationist-theist is not common sense to the materialist-atheist. What's common sense to polytheists from Chinese or Indian culture is not common sense to any of the above. That's why ethical discourse must get beyond the simplistic position of they disagree with what is common sense to me so they must be idiots. We have to be able to talk about the reasons we have for holding certain positions and their limits. My problem with your posts in the climate change discussion is that you haven't actually moved beyond saying you agree with the majority of the experts. You haven't explained why the arguments against 97% number aren't persuasive to you. You haven't explained why you trust the manipulated and constantly corrected surface data but not the satellite data. You haven't explained why you suspect millions of dollars may have influenced the science and positions of those who are skeptical about a dangerous influence of humanity on climate change but don't seem worried that the billions of dollars of government money are affecting the science on the other side. I don't say that you have taken your position by faith because it disagrees with mine. I say that you have taken your position by faith because you don't lay out your reasons beyond accepting the data and conclusions of one side and dismissing the data and conclusions on the other. Oh, and for completeness, I think you misused the phrase the exceptions prove the rule. Iirc, it does not mean that exceptions to the rule prove the rule. I'm pretty sure that it means that exceptions to normal circumstances which still follow the rule prove the rule. But, that's again, iirc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Just a reminder!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top