Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

2u2me

joeguevara wrote: »

Pandora will be happy.

Or Schrödinger

joeguevara

2u2me wrote: »

Or Schrödinger

That was the name of Pandora’s box prior. I’m offended you brought that up.

CtevenSrowder

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

so, it's both male and female until we check?

Quantum human superposition

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Because as anyone who has done a degree in Physics will know you do not learn about the different interpretations in the course of your undergraduate studies.

I guess all physics undergraduate courses are not created equally -


Physics and Philosophy at the University of Oxford


But you’re right, it’s off topic, carry on...

joeguevara

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Quantum human superposition

Loved that show. No idea where he would end up. Sam Beckett could become Samantha. Ziggy had no morals.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But regardless, this is off topic, and removed from the poster proclaiming that those in the hard sciences care about the 'sociological philosophical cultural and political aspects of science' and integrate them into their work. Broadly speaking, they aren't and don't.

Lol it would be great if you could interpret just one of my posts correctly.

What I actually said was GOOD scientists are aware of the differences between the scientific method and the validity of their scientific statements and definitions outside of communicating their ideas within their field.

I never said most scientists care about any of these things. I would actually say you're right. Most scientists do not understand the position and validity of scientific knowledge. They are worker bee scientists. They follow the accepted rules of their discipline and work within them and produce reasonable if unexciting work.

The really great scientists are usually aware of the impact and limitations of their work. Usually they are passionate about science and not just doing a competent job for a paycheque.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I guess all physics undergraduate courses are not created equally -


Physics and Philosophy at the University of Oxford


But you’re right, it’s off topic, carry on...

That's a course entitled physics and philosophy. It's not a straight physics degree. Good try though. You can google MSc physics in delft or Leiden can't remember which. One of those has a module in quantum foundations. You can post that up and think that it somehow invalidates what I said.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I guess all physics undergraduate courses are not created equally -


Physics and Philosophy at the University of Oxford


But you’re right, it’s off topic, carry on...

Yeah Oxford are keeping the quality in their degrees. Unfortunately the vast majority of courses have dropped any requirements to be aware of the meaning of scientific knowledge or its history. We had 2 years of it in my degree course to great complaints from the vast majority of the students. It no longer exists in that degree course. Supposedly the toughest and best course in this country.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lol it would be great if you could interpret just one of my posts correctly.

What I actually said was GOOD scientists are aware of the differences between the scientific method and the validity of their scientific statements and definitions outside of communicating their ideas within their field.

I never said most scientists care about any of these things. I would actually say you're right. Most scientists do not understand the position and validity of scientific knowledge. They are worker bee scientists. They follow the accepted rules of their discipline and work within them and produce reasonable if unexciting work.

The really great scientists are usually aware of the impact and limitations of their work. Usually they are passionate about science and not just doing a competent job for a paycheque.

There is complete validity to the definition of female as defined to humans. As I said to another poster, if one finds something so fantastical that it unsurps our definition of male and female then they will likely win the nobel prize. I will not hold my breath though.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah Oxford are keeping the quality in their degrees. Unfortunately the vast majority of courses have dropped any requirements to be aware of the meaning of scientific knowledge or its history. We had 2 years of it in my degree course to great complaints from the vast majority of the students. It no longer exists in that degree course. Supposedly the toughest and best course in this country.

What is this toughest and best course if you don't mind me asking?

Clearly the study of philosophy has lead you down the bizarre path of being unable to define things. Sounds like they made the right move in removing it from the programme of courses.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There is complete validity to the definition of female as defined to humans. As I said to another poster, if one finds something so fantastical that it unsurps our definition of male and female then they will likely win the nobel prize. I will not hold my breath though.

Isn't that what all worker bee scientists have said?

joeguevara

In Tawu Sabah a baby was born with just a head. The astonishing baby birth went viral after photos of the head of the baby, which had eyes, mouth, and hair. It had none of the biological elements that have been described in countless pages. Could you define the sex?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Isn't that what all worker bee scientists have said?

Ah yes those worker bee scientists who don't share your world view and as such aren't GOOD scientists. Is this the rubbish they thought yiu in your philosophy courses? Do you ever wonder why all the students complained about it?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There is complete validity to the definition of female as defined to humans. As I said to another poster, if one finds something so fantastical that it unsurps our definition of male and female then they will likely win the nobel prize. I will not hold my breath though.

Ok, in good faith I ask you, not for the dictionary definition now, but for your own opinion (and for the love of God don’t mention that you have a physics degree again, it means nothing), of what constitutes male and female, or men and women? There’s no need to restrict yourself to biology either, in fact I would encourage you to be as broad as possible!

I’ve already given what I believe are the distinctions as to how they are defined, that is characteristics or traits which are commonly attributed to either males or females, men or women.

If you wouldn’t mind?

And it’s not a trick question btw or anything else, I’m just genuinely curious, in layman’s terms, so to speak.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ah yes those worker bee scientists who don't share your world view and as such aren't GOOD scientists. Is this the rubbish they thought yiu in your philosophy courses? Do you ever wonder why all the students complained about it?

No it was pretty obvious. They wanted knowledge that would.lead to a job. Not knowledge that would lead to greater understanding.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok, in good faith I ask you, not for the dictionary definition now, but for your own opinion (and for the love of God don’t mention that you have a physics degree again, it means nothing), of what constitutes male and female, or men and women? There’s no need to restrict yourself to biology either, in fact I would encourage you to be as broad as possible!

I’ve already given what I believe are the distinctions, that is characteristics or traits which are commonly attributed to either males or females, men or women.

If you wouldn’t mind?

My opinion is that one should defer to the scientific definition of male and female, and the dictionary definition of man and woman as it has a scientific underpinning.
And that is my answer in good faith. Otherwise, one goes down the road of stereotypes and clichés. 'A man is a person who likes beer, women and sex'. I also have a physics degree. Don't know why that annoys you so much.

Though if by any chance you've a degree in hypnotherapy, can you make me fall asleep? Can't believe I'm still awake.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

No it was pretty obvious. They wanted knowledge that would.lead to a job. Not knowledge that would lead to greater understanding.

Philosophy doesn't lead to a greater understanding. That's what science does. It superceded it. Philosophers ask questions, scientists answer them.

LLMMLL

Here's a little thought experiment for you cteven.

Suppose in the 1950s a small group of Engkish speakers isolated themselves on an island and had no contact with the rest of the world.

This small group already had the individual words "climate" and "change" defined in the same way as everyone else used them.

They finally emerge from isolation in 2020 and turns out they have also a compound word "climate change" but for them it means the natural day to day variations in weather patterns.

Now suppose a scientist meets someone from this group and says "climate change is our greatest threat" and the island person says "oh climate change is harmless".

Should that scientist scream at that individual that they are a climate change denier?

Should the Islanders be forced to change the definiton of their words because science has exclusive rights to define terms?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Here's a little thought experiment for you cteven.

Suppose in the 1950s a small group of Engkish speakers isolated themselves on an island and had no contact with the rest of the world.

This small group already had the individual words "climate" and "change" defined in the same way as everyone else used them.

They finally emerge from isolation in 2020 and turns out they have also a compound word "climate change" but for them it means the natural day to day variations in weather patterns.

Now suppose a scientist meets someone from this group and says "climate change is our greatest threat" and the island person says "oh climate change is harmless".

Should that scientist scream at that individual that they are a climate change denier?

Should the Islanders be forced to change the definiton of their words because science has exclusive rights to define terms?

You have it back words. It's you who is trying to change the meaning of words, bit of an own goal there. So I take your thought experiment and give it back to you. Why should we, who have the words female and women, now change the definitions of these words to include people who aren't female and as such women?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Philosophy doesn't lead to a greater understanding. That's what science does. It superceded it. Philosophers ask questions, scientists answer them.

Science answers a very specific subset of questions. Once it leaves its own domain it is just one other tool in the philosophers toolbox.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

My opinion is that one should defer to the scientific definition of male and female, and the dictionary definition of man and woman as it has a scientific underpinning.
And that is my answer in good faith. Otherwise, one goes down the road of stereotypes and clichés. 'A man is a person who likes beer, women and sex'. I also have a physics degree. Don't know why that annoys you so much.

Though if by any chance you've a degree in hypnotherapy, can you make me fall asleep? Can't believe I'm still awake.

That’s honestly all I was looking for because I was trying to understand where you were coming from. I disagree with where you’re coming from but now I have a better understanding of where you’re coming from at least.

It doesn’t bother me that you have a degree in physics either btw, I just don’t consider it particularly relevant is all. Third level institutions in Ireland appear to be giving degrees out to anyone who can afford them these days tbh.

I don’t have a degree in hypnotherapy but I would have thought reading my posts would be enough to put even the most chronic insomnia sufferer to sleep :pac:

joeguevara

LLMMLL wrote: »

Here's a little thought experiment for you cteven.

Suppose in the 1950s a small group of Engkish speakers isolated themselves on an island and had no contact with the rest of the world.

This small group already had the individual words "climate" and "change" defined in the same way as everyone else used them.

They finally emerge from isolation in 2020 and turns out they have also a compound word "climate change" but for them it means the natural day to day variations in weather patterns.

Now suppose a scientist meets someone from this group and says "climate change is our greatest threat" and the island person says "oh climate change is harmless".

Should that scientist scream at that individual that they are a climate change denier?

Should the Islanders be forced to change the definiton of their words because science has exclusive rights to define terms?

Was this season 3 of lost or season 4?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You have it back words. It's you who is trying to change the meaning of words, bit of an own goal there. So I take your thought experiment and give it back to you. Why should we, who have the words female and women, now change the definitions of these words to include people who aren't female and as such women?

Not trying to change the meaning at all. Outside of some very niche disciplines nobody is even aware of the "gamete" definition.

I mean you can pretend it is how woman was always defined but it's just a pretense.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s honestly all I was looking for because I was trying to understand where you were coming from. I disagree with where you’re coming from but now I have a better understanding of where you’re coming from at least.

It doesn’t bother me that you have a degree in physics either btw, I just don’t consider it particularly relevant is all. Third level institutions in Ireland appear to be giving degrees out to anyone who can afford them these days tbh.

I don’t have a degree in hypnotherapy but I would have thought reading my posts would be enough to put even the most chronic insomnia sufferer to sleep :pac:

Haha well considering this is what, our third, fourth trans thread I'm surprised we all didn't fall asleep of boredom a long time ago.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Science answers a very specific subset of questions. Once it leaves its own domain it is just one other tool in the philosophers toolbox.

If it leaves its domain that it isn't a tool for anything. Science can't answer unscientific questions. But then again, neither can philosophers.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

If it leaves its domain that it isn't a tool for anything. Science can't answer unscientific questions. But then again, neither can philosophers.

I agree philosophy does not answer questions definitively. It's why competing definitions can exist. If people were educated about science's position in the philosophy of knowledge then this silly and clearly false idea that science has sole rights to define words would be a non issue. Unfortunately science education is pretty one note these days.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not trying to change the meaning at all. Outside of some very niche disciplines nobody is even aware of the "gamete" definition.

I mean you can pretend it is how woman was always defined but it's just a pretense.

I've never pretended that. But a woman would've been defined on outward appearance, they would've known a women isn't a man, and they would've been right roughly 99% of the time. Due to technologically advances the definition can now be more specific, that is, scientific and include chromosomes for example. And as I've already, if someone comes along and unsurps all this. Well then surely a Nobel for them.

The idea that trans-women are literal women is an idea that has only sprung out seemingly in the last 3 or 4 years. Though I'm sure in academic circles they were kidding themselves before this.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I agree philosophy does not answer questions definitively. It's why competing definitions can exist. If people were educated about science's position in the philosophy of knowledge then this silly and clearly false idea that science has sole rights to define words would be a non issue. Unfortunately science education is pretty one note these days.

And yet, we don't know what these competing definitions are, because when asked for them, they are not given. Will you know give us a 'competing' definition?

joeguevara

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I've never pretended that. But a woman would've been defined on outward appearance, they would've known a women isn't a man, and they would've been right roughly 99% of the time. Due to technologically advances the definition can now be more specific, that is, scientific and include chromosomes for example. And as I've already, if someone comes along and unsurps all this. Well then surely a Nobel for them.

The idea that trans-women are literal women is an idea that has only sprung out seemingly in the last 3 or 4 years. Though I'm sure in academic circles they were kidding themselves before this.

Which is the correct classification so I know for future reference. Male and female or man and woman

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I've never pretended that. But a woman would've been defined on outward appearance, they would've known a women isn't a man, and they would've been right roughly 99% of the time. Due to technologically advances the definition can now be more specific, that is, scientific and include chromosomes for example. And as I've already, if someone comes along and unsurps all this. Well then surely a Nobel for them.

The idea that trans-women are literal women is an idea that has only sprung out seemingly in the last 3 or 4 years. Though I'm sure in academic circles they were kidding themselves before this.

That's not a scientific approach to definiton of a word. It's a scientific approach to narrowing down a group of individuals to fit a preconceived idea.

For example I've pointed out the issues with defining adult and why adult human female is not a scientific definition.

Would it be scientific to claim that adult refers to anyone for whom more than 18 years have passed since they were born.

You would have an exclusive category of adults and an exclusive category of non adults.

Do you think this process would be a satisfying scientific endeavour?