Comments for Todd\'s Hammer

Comment on Popper, Falsification, and Social Theory by Poppers

Poppers — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:28:12 +0000

wow, what a spamy post above. “This is really fascinating.” It should say, I’ve only spammed this blog because of the pagerank of 3 on this page……

A real comment is, you know most of the most amazing things I learned in school were completely dis-proven since I graduated. Like the Brontosaurus, it never existed. Theory and reality in science and knowledge are always being extended.

Comment on Brainwashing: Children and Religion by Carter

Carter — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:42:15 +0000

These are good questions. Should parents have the right to indoctrinate their children into a religion? The end result of early childhood religous training is the establishment of disparate cultures of mistrust. It appears that it will require a number of generations working together to eventually establish human rights for children, including the right to protection from religious information prior to having achieved the mental capacities and cultural and political freedom to question the concepts. I write more about this on the theamology blog at theamology.blogspot.com.

Comment on Brainwashing: Children and Religion by Justin

Justin — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:59:50 +0000

As far as I’m concerned, nothing wrong with believing in a knowledgeable creator who was always there who started the complex creation process. It actually makes sense. However does that same creator still exists? None of us know; and we sure as hell don’t know what he likes or dislikes. To know what he wants or doesn’t is to be him.

That is why most religions who talk about God especially the Abrahamic religions actually make themselves God. The people who control these religions as oracles of God actually are the “God” of their specific cult.

Therefore an honest atheist can boldly and accurately say that based on observable facts, he does not believe that people’s idea of god exist. However, to bluntly say for a fact that there was never an intelligent creator in the beginning is to be narrow minded as religious people.

I believe the problem with us humans is that we can’t acknowledge that we don’t know everything. Therefore what we don’t know we use “faith” and believe certain aspects of the unknown. Problem is when the unknown is taking for absolute fact, differences in opinion occur without either party willing to change and seek truth.

I believe as we discover and test things through observable scientific evidences and draw conclusions, not through mere theory either scientific or religious, it is then we will be closer to the truth.

Comment on What Is a Scholar? by Youngone

Youngone — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:16:29 +0000

I, however, am just now beginning to look at universities as a place to study and further my education. I hope that I might find the one in million that will allow me to inquire (and still let me be able to eat upon leaving the school) . I can say that from my current experience through the public eduation system, I have found more scholarship outside of classes. Interestingly enough, I’ve found the most logical inquiries at church. There everyone is truly searching for greater understanding. Pastors don’t make a product they only guide people’s understanding. What I love the most is that my friends and I can use what we’ve learned in school, logic, and the spirit of inquiry to cover all kinds of topics that no one particularly cares if we think about.

Comment on Popper, Falsification, and Social Theory by Patrick Alexander Gaillard

Patrick Alexander Gaillard — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 09:42:58 +0000

I completely disagree. Popper has no reason for preferring one bridge to the other, because he rejects the idea of confirmation. The fact that one of them might “explain or predict more” means nothing on his theory. There is no way to tell which bridge will (in the future) support more weight, only the knowledge that the first bridge has worked well in the past. Since Popper is an induction skeptic he can not infer that past observations made on the first bridge will reflect future events. Remember, what we know about physics and engineering is entirely dependent on induction so we can’t make any inferences just based on the structural features of these two bridges if we’re to accept Popper’s theory.

You compare this case to astronomy and appeal to the criteria of parsimony, explanatory power, and predictive power. But without induction these concepts are totally empty.

Now for your comments on corroboration. According to Popper, corroboration does not make a hypothesis more likely. If it did, this would mean that confirmation of a hypothesis is possible, and he contends that falsification is all that science can do. Here’s the bottom line: Popperian Falsificationism says that the probability of a hypothesis being true remains the same no matter how much evidence is collected to support it. Therefore, the two bridges are equal in terms of how likely they are to bear weight. This is why virtually all philosophers of science agree that Popper failed to account for science without appealing to induction.

Comment on Is Bisexuality Real? by Matthew

Matthew — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 06:19:46 +0000

I know I said a lot. But looking over my life with all the “straight” men who have told me of their desires, I don’t think bisexual men in orientation are rare. I think it is generally unexpressed, sublimated, invisible, and closeted. For example my therapist has had experiences, met his wife, got married in 1973 and has been monogous ever since. I would wager to guess that many sensitive “straight” men have a bisexual orientation. Another example is my best straight friend, made out with a guy and has occasional fantasies. He said “I don’t want to explore it, it would complicated life.” and it will. For me I came out because a gay friend ask if I was attracted to guys too, I said yes. He asked if I would come out with him in my small town. I agreed. To be honest – I lost a lot, my father told me to leave, I was branded a faggot, etc. I was offered a football scholarship which I refused because I did not want to deal with homophobia, I was refused a linguist position in the army for my honesty. So I went off and became an artist in art school, I met a girl we dated and we both came out to each other. We then came out to the whole school which was not so popular to do. BUT with no parents and no one telling me what to do I gave myself peission to date whomever I wanted. It was more girls than guys but I took the guys serious too. In my case coming out came at a huge price, so I figure I might as well live it. But even recently many in the art world can’t believe it. But now as I am meeting more and more bi men and women interested in dating each other in open poly relationships I see a change which is already here because the Internet allows bi people to find each other. Ironically the guy I was dating left so now I am dating two bisexual girls. But I am really beginning to feel like I am part of bisexual expressive subculture that will increase in numbers as people open up.

Comment on Family Values: A Response to the LDS Church’s Proclamation by Todd, A mission?

Todd, A mission? — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:43:08 +0000

Todd,
From what I understand you were very devout at one point, to the extent of a mission (and therefore temple passage?). What caused the switch? How do you reflect on your time spent as a mormon? Converts to different ways fascinate me, and it seems like you are fairly committed to exactly the opposite of what you were doing before.

Comment on Popper, Falsification, and Social Theory by poppers

poppers — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 05:18:58 +0000

This is really fascinating, You’re an overly skilled blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and look ahead to in search of more of your excellent post. Also, I have shared your website in my social networks

Comment on Literary Criticism Is Anti-Intellectual by Huskie

Huskie — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 03:57:50 +0000

I wish I could take every lit-crit class I ever took over again. As a duel major, English/Psych, I noticed the Grand Canyon-esque rift between what constituted “research” and “data” in each discipline…I just couldn’t articulate it, and besides, 80% of the time I was struggling to keep up with the readings (and the impenetrable vocabulary), while balancing a marriage and a full time job.

Good job, Todd…you posted what I’ve been kicking myself for not voicing in class six years or so ago. Best post I’ve ever read on the subject.

Comment on Approaching Difficult Texts (For Students) by Huskie

Huskie — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:50:56 +0000

The problem begins with your students telling you that what you are offering them is too difficult. Who is a 20 year old kid to tell a PhD that his selection of texts is “wrong”? And because the words aren’t small enough?

I’m a High School teacher, and so I am familiar with what you’re up against…the big difference is that NY says it’s unlawful for my students not to come to school…they are required legally to be imbued with knowledge. Your students ought to be there because they need to be to reach some career goal, or want to complete a solid, liberal education, or simply want to avoid the stigma of being degreeless. A lot has been written on this by people who could do a much better job than me, but the bottom line (from my perspective) is that
1) K-MA teachers/professors are being blamed for their students not reaching the standards set,
2) therefore the standards keep sliding south (and this is defined as a number of things, but is occurring nationally, at the state level, and in individual classrooms), and
3) too many kids are going to college who either shouldn’t be, or shouldn’t be at eighteen.