Comments on: Quote notes (#67)

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:50:08 +0000

@James Freund

James, I have two favors to ask. The first is: please read George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language”.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

The second is: please define the word “racism” as you are using it. I’m sorry if I am boring everyone to tears by complaining about fallacies of ambiguity, but I feel like I’m drowning in them.

By: Rasputin

Rasputin — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:23:14 +0000

@James Freund

Welcome to the Neoreaction…

By: James Freund

James Freund — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:38:09 +0000

Of course, Hurlock may argue that her inverted commas means that she is not talking about racists and atheists at all – she is really referring to ‘those who today are falsely accused of being racists’ and ‘those who in the 15thC were falsely accused of being atheists’. Obviously, these 2 populations are both much smaller in number than real contemporary racists and 15thC atheists – and they are by definition more complex and more heterogeneous – not least because they are defined not by their own actions alone, but by others’ reactions to them. Hurlock is thus stepping on dodgy terrain in making such a generalization about such internally fragmented groups, whose main similarity may be the fact that they have been falsely accused. Or are we to suppose 15thC people who were falsely accused of atheism when really they were true Christians are really akin in other important ways (apart from being falsely accused) to people who are currently accused of racism but who are not racists?

By: James Freund

James Freund — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:56:18 +0000

Therefore today’s racists are not in any important or interesting sense similar to 15th century atheists.

By: James Freund

James Freund — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:50:32 +0000

In my view the typical racist of today has decided to focus on hating other races as a way to bolster their identity and blame an out-group for the problems they face – they then congratulate themselves for the bravery they (falsely) believe it has taken to make this step against the mainstream of anti-racist belief. Whereas your typical 15thC atheist probably looked at the world very deliberately and carefully, and concluded that it was unlikely that God existed – then had to deal with the fact that the Church would probably burn them alive if they expressed this thought publicly.

By: James Freund

James Freund — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:28:52 +0000

No, I was referring to Hurlock’s comment – in what sense does he claim that ‘today’s “racists” are […] the 15th century’s “atheists”’?

By: admin

admin — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:56:24 +0000

If you mean “in what sense” has science been corrupted? — Jim’s post makes the argument. Peer review is unfortunately vulnerable to collusion (whether deliberate or not). It certainly represents a relatively ‘closed loop’ in the marketplace of ideas — as if companies were able to ignore their customers, and restrict their sensitivity to objections made about each others’ products in boardroom meetings.

By: James Freund

James Freund — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:01:13 +0000

in what sense?

By: Zimriel

Zimriel — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 03:36:51 +0000

There are a lot of silly people out there, and there are even more silly opinions (opinions held by all silly people, and most smart people most of the time).

Peer review serves to screen out the opinions of the silly people. It’s less good at screening out the silly opinions of the smart people.

By: Hurlock

Hurlock — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:57:55 +0000

The emergence of peer-review actually marks a return to those times when if your science doesn’t agree with scripture you get burned at the stake.
Today’s “racists” are, in a sense, the 15th century’s “atheists”.