• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Self-Contradictory Nature of Both the Left and Right

The Self-Contradictory Nature of Both the Left and Right

  • Self-Contradictory

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • Self-Consistent

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 50.0%

  • Total voters
    8
No, his point was that you were completely wrong on all points, and there is no need for further discussion.

Well that certainly ends the debate and,as always, is ever so simple (minded)
 
You obviously have no idea about data gathering, history of the Earth, the effect of human actions on the environment, and the science behind forecasting, modeling, and projection of data.
You would be better served addressing an issue that you actually understand, which is not this one.

I understand your point completely, you have absolutely no tools available to address the subject so personal insult should work as the old reliable "scientific" response of the scientifically illiterate left.

I welcome the response of those who are at least armed for an intellectual duel.
 
The Self-Contradictory Nature of Both the Left and Right

A huge problem with the typical talk surrounding the Left-Right dynamic is that the many of the positions/views on both sides are self-contradictory and often highly out of step with theory.

A few examples I have previously given about this from the Left are "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic", champions of free speech while perpetrating student "protests" designed to shut-down Free Speech, champions of Science while promoting 63+ genders pseudo-science, champions of anti-discrimination/anti-prejudice while simultaneously promoting positions and values that inherently are discriminatory (e.g. Affirmative Action, new laws/rules regarding M-F dynamics in court, M-F dynamics in rape/sexual assault and elsewhere, ect.) ect. ect.

From the Right, there are also a plethora of self-contradictory positions such as Small Government but massive military with a global presence, Nationalism and sovereignty are of chief importance but we should perpetually interfere with the affairs of other Nations, Lazefaire Capitalism in theory should reign supreme however promote all sorts of Mixed Economy positions, "Family values" are most important but most parents are encouraged to physically, emotionally, psychologically, educationally, ect. abuse their children, ect. ect.

Links to discussion concerning "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic" here:

(A) Crisis of Democracy | CreateDebate
(B) Fascism is Good (Please read my argument) | CreateDebate (Look for my posts in the discussion)
(C) Plato's Republic is the Ideally Just Society | CreateDebate

Thoughts?

Parties have Public positions and Virtual positions. Like the MeToo nature of the moment. Virtually baseless accusations vs. virtual reality and you had to be there to experience the virtual moment. However, with clever and expensive manipulation of the narrative, a perception can be targetted. Guess who's the bullseye of the target?
/
 
I understand your point completely, you have absolutely no tools available to address the subject so personal insult should work as the old reliable "scientific" response of the scientifically illiterate left.

I welcome the response of those who are at least armed for an intellectual duel.
No you don't.
You continue to prove that you lack basic understanding of the issues that I addressed.
Fascinating lack of self awareness.
 
xMathFanx:

At the root of your question is the assumption that choices of politics and ideological alignment are rational, internal processes occurring within independent individuals. Only if that is true is the "self-contradictory" descriptor applicable. However, if political identity and ideological alignment are more a product of externally administered socialisation by both state and private propaganda (advertising), then the "self" is removed from "self-contradictory". You are left with just contradictory.

Now why would 'contradictory' serve the interests of propagandists and advertisers? 'Divide by distraction and atomisation and thus rule' or 'profit from division and competition' could be at the root of the issue. As long such contradictory currents and forces are at work in the body politic then that body politic cannot effectively cooperate and unite to challenge the long-term agendas of powerful elites which wield political power and control commerce and finance. We could be being yoked as chattel by the ideological contradictions imposed upon us by political propaganda and commercial advertising. We think our ideas are our own but they may be more the products of externally administered conditioning and less the result of rising consciousness. Are we beings of sovereign and self-determined intellect or are we meat-puppets dancing to the subtle tugs of strings pulled by propagandistic puppeteers? Red pill or Blue pill? Read the Powell Memorandum and step through the looking glass.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
No you don't.
You continue to prove that you lack basic understanding of the issues that I addressed.
Fascinating lack of self awareness.

What "basic" issues have you addressed (other than characterization and personal insult)?

Please list them: 1, 2 , 3 etc.

I'll get you started:

"Basic" issue 1:

No, his point was that you were completely wrong on all points, and there is no need for further discussion.

You can carry on from this first "basic" issue:
 
xMathFanx:

At the root of your question is the assumption that choices of politics and ideological alignment are rational, internal processes occurring within independent individuals. Only if that is true is the "self-contradictory" descriptor applicable. However, if political identity and ideological alignment are more a product of externally administered socialisation by both state and private propaganda (advertising), then the "self" is removed from "self-contradictory". You are left with just contradictory.

@Evilroddy

Thanks for your post. Its nice to interact with you again.

Now, I am more pointing out that these respective political world-views essentially aren't based in the theories that they claim them to be--or else these deviations would be completely unrecognizable (i.e. there are other "forces" at work behind the scenes; don't take individuals/Party's/Organizations/ect. self-declarations of principles/theory they claim to be governed by at face-value, but really investigate the matter more as it is rarely the case).
 
The Self-Contradictory Nature of Both the Left and Right

A huge problem with the typical talk surrounding the Left-Right dynamic is that the many of the positions/views on both sides are self-contradictory and often highly out of step with theory.

A few examples I have previously given about this from the Left are "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic", champions of free speech while perpetrating student "protests" designed to shut-down Free Speech, champions of Science while promoting 63+ genders pseudo-science, champions of anti-discrimination/anti-prejudice while simultaneously promoting positions and values that inherently are discriminatory (e.g. Affirmative Action, new laws/rules regarding M-F dynamics in court, M-F dynamics in rape/sexual assault and elsewhere, ect.) ect. ect.

From the Right, there are also a plethora of self-contradictory positions such as Small Government but massive military with a global presence, Nationalism and sovereignty are of chief importance but we should perpetually interfere with the affairs of other Nations, Lazefaire Capitalism in theory should reign supreme however promote all sorts of Mixed Economy positions, "Family values" are most important but most parents are encouraged to physically, emotionally, psychologically, educationally, ect. abuse their children, ect. ect.

Links to discussion concerning "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic" here:

(A) Crisis of Democracy | CreateDebate
(B) Fascism is Good (Please read my argument) | CreateDebate (Look for my posts in the discussion)
(C) Plato's Republic is the Ideally Just Society | CreateDebate

Thoughts?

This is nothing more than cherry-picking the facts you want to use to make your point. The only thing sets you apart from the usual suspects in this is that you're cherry-picking facts to try to make yourself sound smart and not to attack people you disagree with.
 
This is nothing more than cherry-picking the facts you want to use to make your point. The only thing sets you apart from the usual suspects in this is that you're cherry-picking facts to try to make yourself sound smart and not to attack people you disagree with.

?? Are these positions held by the respective groups or not? Are they in-line with the theories/principles they claim?
 
@Evilroddy

Thanks for your post. Its nice to interact with you again.

Now, I am more pointing out that these respective political world-views essentially aren't based in the theories that they claim them to be--or else these deviations would be completely unrecognizable (i.e. there are other "forces" at work behind the scenes; don't take individuals/Party's/Organizations/ect. self-declarations of principles/theory they claim to be governed by at face-value, but really investigate the matter more as it is rarely the case).

xMathFanx:

Yes, I took your meaning but digressed nonetheless. I'm bad that way, a lack of discipline. There is plenty of linguistic and ideological drift occurring in the political forum as there always has been. "Left" has been detached from its original anti-monarchist and pro-classical liberal meaning and has been colonised by later generations to mean different things in different places. Socialism colonised the term, then social and societal liberals paltrooned it for cultural, ethical and social causes. Then environmentalists somehow went from conservationists to leftists. Later anti-war advocates found themselves labelled as members of the left. Then internationalists and globalists found themselves ghettoed in Leftsvile. The process continues today with advocates of social justice, anarchists and sexual/gender diversity advocates being shunted under the leftist umbrella.

Likewise "Right" has been adrift as well, as various groups have either appropriated the term for themselves or had it thrust upon them by others. The original rightists were supporters of monarchical power, aristocratic privilege, and Church authority. But then the term was appropriated by the rising bourgeoisie to mean rich commercial and financial elites. Right was then colonised by pro-free-market but otherwise classical liberals who resisted strong centralised power and statism. Then it swung over to pro-corporatist boosters of big business and empire. Then it was shifted to include social conservatives and traditionalists. Finally it was extended to include a religious aspect and a nationalist aspect. Today the label is being applied to people completely off the political spectrum like racists, ersatz left-wing radical anti-fascists and disengaged and aloof libertarians.

This bewildering situation is made worse by geographical differences. So in modern Russia hardcore leftists are actually right-wing fascists and in Israel you can be declaimed as leftist for opposing Zionism or supporting Palestinian causes.

Sloppy language and sloppy thinking have turned these polar terms into meaningless labels of "otherness". It would be better just to scrap them both and declare everyone to be "them" or "us". It would be simpler, save time and would be just as meaningless. Thus the concepts of division and otherness have triumphed over any real meaning in the terms "left" and "right". Their meanings today have been so lost that they are often used just as warning calls of hostile ideological positions or outright insults.

Cheers.
A sinister and dexterous Evilroddy in the centre.
 
Last edited:
?? Are these positions held by the respective groups or not? Are they in-line with the theories/principles they claim?

NO, they your cherry-picked examples of what you want to show that the respective "sides" believe. In both cases, they are taken out of context or taken to an extreme. It's your basic low-information, low thought approach.
 
NO, they your cherry-picked examples of what you want to show that the respective "sides" believe. In both cases, they are taken out of context or taken to an extreme. It's your basic low-information, low thought approach.

Okay--So Conservative's don't claim to champion Small Government for example?
 
Okay--So Conservative's don't claim to champion Small Government for example?

Many individual conservatives do. We just don't have a conservative party in this country. They just talk the talk but sure don't walk the walk.
 
xMathFanx:

Yes, I took your meaning but digressed nonetheless. I'm bad that way, a lack of discipline. There is plenty of linguistic and ideological drift occurring in the political forum as there always has been. "Left" has been detached from its original anti-monarchist and pro-classical liberal meaning and has been colonised by later generations to mean different things in different places. Socialism colonised the term, then social and societal liberals paltrooned it for cultural, ethical and social causes. Then environmentalists somehow went from conservationists to leftists. Later anti-war advocates found themselves labelled as members of the left. Then internationalists and globalists found themselves ghettoed in Leftsvile. The process continues today with advocates of social justice, anarchists and sexual/gender diversity advocates being shunted under the leftist umbrella.

Likewise "Right" has been adrift as well, as various groups have either appropriated the term for themselves or had it thrust upon them by others. The original rightists were supporters of monarchical power, aristocratic privilege, and Church authority. But then the term was appropriated by the rising bourgeoisie to mean rich commercial and financial elites. Right was then colonised by pro-free-market but otherwise classical liberals who resisted strong centralised power and statism. Then it swung over to pro-corporatist boosters of big business and empire. Then it was shifted to include social conservatives and traditionalists. Finally it was extended to include a religious aspect and a nationalist aspect. Today the label is being applied to people completely off the political spectrum like racists, ersatz left-wing radical anti-fascists and disengaged and aloof libertarians.

This bewildering situation is made worse by geographical differences. So in modern Russia hardcore leftists are actually right-wing fascists and in Israel you can be declaimed as leftist for opposing Zionism or supporting Palestinian causes.

Sloppy language and sloppy thinking have turned these polar terms into meaningless labels of "otherness". It would be better just to scrap them both and declare everyone to be "them" or "us". It would be simpler, save time and would be just as meaningless. Thus the concepts of division and otherness have triumphed over any real meaning in the terms "left" and "right". Their meanings today have been so lost that they are often used just as warning calls of hostile ideological positions or outright insults.

Cheers.
A sinister and dexterous Evilroddy in the centre.
I'm calling this "Post of the Month" material! :thumbs:
 
xMathFanx:

Yes, I took your meaning but digressed nonetheless. I'm bad that way, a lack of discipline. There is plenty of linguistic and ideological drift occurring in the political forum as there always has been. "Left" has been detached from its original anti-monarchist and pro-classical liberal meaning and has been colonised by later generations to mean different things in different places. Socialism colonised the term, then social and societal liberals paltrooned it for cultural, ethical and social causes. Then environmentalists somehow went from conservationists to leftists. Later anti-war advocates found themselves labelled as members of the left. Then internationalists and globalists found themselves ghettoed in Leftsvile. The process continues today with advocates of social justice, anarchists and sexual/gender diversity advocates being shunted under the leftist umbrella.

Likewise "Right" has been adrift as well, as various groups have either appropriated the term for themselves or had it thrust upon them by others. The original rightists were supporters of monarchical power, aristocratic privilege, and Church authority. But then the term was appropriated by the rising bourgeoisie to mean rich commercial and financial elites. Right was then colonised by pro-free-market but otherwise classical liberals who resisted strong centralised power and statism. Then it swung over to pro-corporatist boosters of big business and empire. Then it was shifted to include social conservatives and traditionalists. Finally it was extended to include a religious aspect and a nationalist aspect. Today the label is being applied to people completely off the political spectrum like racists, ersatz left-wing radical anti-fascists and disengaged and aloof libertarians.

This bewildering situation is made worse by geographical differences. So in modern Russia hardcore leftists are actually right-wing fascists and in Israel you can be declaimed as leftist for opposing Zionism or supporting Palestinian causes.

Sloppy language and sloppy thinking have turned these polar terms into meaningless labels of "otherness". It would be better just to scrap them both and declare everyone to be "them" or "us". It would be simpler, save time and would be just as meaningless. Thus the concepts of division and otherness have triumphed over any real meaning in the terms "left" and "right". Their meanings today have been so lost that they are often used just as warning calls of hostile ideological positions or outright insults.

Cheers.
A sinister and dexterous Evilroddy in the centre.

@Evilroddy

Good Post.

I have discussed a similar point to what you are making elsewhere (on a different forum I believe). Or, at least, it is logically connected to your observations.

This fuzzy, vague, ill-defined, nebulous language and its applications which are commonplace in the Humanities is clearly inferior to the system that has been provided by Science/Mathematics. It is difficult to even stress enough how unrecognizable this kind of talk would be in a Math/Science (Physics) course/conference/ect. In a Science/Math class/conference/ect., if one spots a flaw in the instructors/peers work while they are lecturing, they can raise their hand, point it out, and if they're right they will correct it on-the-spot in real time and say "thank you for that". There is no ambiguity, the definitions are so clear, it leaves no room for obfuscation by design (although pseudo-scientists, New Agey Deepak Chopra types try to run away with it).

In the Humanities, you have to be prepared to "go to war" with the professor/peers even about the most basic topics (e.g. definitions and applications) and the main weapon in one's arsenal (that reliably works) is Primary sources. There are certain areas that have to be conceded by all parties when viewing Primary Sources, although there is still so much ambiguity relative to Maths (for instance) that it is very difficult/rare to truly "pin someone down" inside the framework of the Humanities. That's how you get bullsh't like their being 63 genders and no Biological basis for Sex coming out of the Humanities and Gender Studies departments with near impunity (as if "anything goes") as well as issues such as we are discussing here--that in a rational system, would be non-existent/non-issues. We pay a tremendous price for not demanding the same rigorous standards in the Ideological subjects that is already applied in STEM (as far as that is possible).
 
Chomsky:

Thank you for your kind words.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
@Evilroddy

Good Post.

I have discussed a similar point to what you are making elsewhere (on a different forum I believe). Or, at least, it is logically connected to your observations.

This fuzzy, vague, ill-defined, nebulous language and its applications which are commonplace in the Humanities is clearly inferior to the system that has been provided by Science/Mathematics. It is difficult to even stress enough how unrecognizable this kind of talk would be in a Math/Science (Physics) course/conference/ect. In a Science/Math class/conference/ect., if one spots a flaw in the instructors/peers work while they are lecturing, they can raise their hand, point it out, and if they're right they will correct it on-the-spot in real time and say "thank you for that". There is no ambiguity, the definitions are so clear, it leaves no room for obfuscation by design (although pseudo-scientists, New Agey Deepak Chopra types try to run away with it).

In the Humanities, you have to be prepared to "go to war" with the professor/peers even about the most basic topics (e.g. definitions and applications) and the main weapon in one's arsenal (that reliably works) is Primary sources. There are certain areas that have to be conceded by all parties when viewing Primary Sources, although there is still so much ambiguity relative to Maths (for instance) that it is very difficult/rare to truly "pin someone down" inside the framework of the Humanities. That's how you get bullsh't like their being 63 genders and no Biological basis for Sex coming out of the Humanities and Gender Studies departments with near impunity (as if "anything goes") as well as issues such as we are discussing here--that in a rational system, would be non-existent/non-issues. We pay a tremendous price for not demanding the same rigorous standards in the Ideological subjects that is already applied in STEM (as far as that is possible).

xMathFanx:

I am inclined to agree with you about fuzzy language and the propensity of those in the humanities to talk past each other because they are using imprecise concepts couched in imprecise specialized vocabulary. But that is also the nature of the humanities; humans are fuzzy beings despite losing most of their courser body hair. Describing their complex behaviour multiplied by millions or billions of individuals is so complex and so chaotic that no vocabulary and no amount of algorithms, fractal or otherwise, can effectively describe or explain it. We have not yet arrived at the precision of the fictional social mathematics and psychohistory employed by Isaac Asimov's Hari Seldon in the Foundation series of books.

Physical forces, physical and organic chemistry, cellular metabolic pathways, etc., while amazingly complex, are still far more basic than aggregate human behaviour at the individual or group level. Imagine trying to discuss the physical world using only the mathematics of infinities as the basic foundation for all our discussions. Not only would this be very difficult and time consuming but it would likely drive us all mad. Science and scientists can impose artificial and often arbitrary order on the passive physical world because we discount its complexity and we don't give the phenomena which we study a vote on how they will be observed and analysed. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle not withstanding, most physical science does not have to deal with objects of observation which have the potential to revolt against the experimental trials being conducted upon them and such objects of observation don't tell the observers to bugger-off and mind their own business. Humans are far less cooperative than most passive constituent parts of the physical world and usually bristle at the notion that others can accurately observe, analyse and predict their behaviour. So fuzziness is to be expected in the humanities and that fuzziness will lead to vagueness of concepts and vocabulary, misunderstanding and miscommunication, and politics creeping into the process of learning. Perhaps those in the humanities are by their nature less disciplined then their peers in the applied sciences but one must also remember that the discipline of the humanities is less disciplined too. Also as a countervailing anecdote, I have been present at some university discussions where theoretical physicists, un-chaperoned by experimental physicists, have gone off the reservation big time and had their discussions degenerate into irrational (almost mystical) debates driven by personal dogmas and egos rather than mathematics and science. So no one is truely safe from these irrationalities in academia because we are all, in the final analysis, just human.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
xMathFanx:

I am inclined to agree with you about fuzzy language and the propensity of those in the humanities to talk past each other because they are using imprecise concepts couched in imprecise specialized vocabulary. But that is also the nature of the humanities; humans are fuzzy beings despite losing most of their courser body hair. Describing their complex behaviour multiplied by millions or billions of individuals is so complex and so chaotic that no vocabulary and no amount of algorithms, fractal or otherwise, can effectively describe or explain it. We have not yet arrived at the precision of the fictional social mathematics and psychohistory employed by Isaac Asimov's Hari Seldon in the Foundation series of books.

@Evilroddy

Although I agree with much of what you are stating here, I view much of it as orthogonal to my point. It seems to me you are conflating two issues. That is, yes, I agree that the Humanities are in fact orders of magnitude more complex than Physics and therefore we are nowhere near having the precision of equations to describe Human social dynamics (and such). However, that doesn't therefore indicate that the current model is necessarily as deeply, fundamentally flawed as it is, largely due to sloppy language and/or less than rigorous standards generally.

Consider a term such as "Communism". Now, if one were to invoke this term, you have essentially no idea what they are referring to unless it is further explained in some depth (as the possibilities are so vast). It could indicate, a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless, Borderless society with public/worker ownership of the means of production, all the way to an extremely powerful Totalitarian Centralized Government/State, rigid social hierarchies, operates on a form of monetary-based Market System, has borders & attempts to expand its sphere of influence, and state ownership of the means of production (rather than worker).

This is highly problematic (to say the least) and in many ways incoherent. In Science, it is inconceivable that there could be a confusion of this size based on a simple definition to a term as it would render progress on the topic essentially impossible (which is precisely what we tend to see in the Humanities).
 
Last edited:
xMathFanx:

Although I agree with much of what you are stating here, I view much of it as orthogonal to my point. It seems to me you are conflating two issues. That is, yes, I agree that the Humanities are in fact orders of magnitude more complex than Physics and therefore we are nowhere near having the precision of equations to describe Human social dynamics (and such). However, that doesn't therefore indicate that the current model is necessarily as deeply, fundamentally flawed as it is, largely due to sloppy language and/or less than rigorous standards generally.

You make a good point here but I am also confused about something. You say, "However, that doesn't therefore indicate that the current model is necessarily as deeply, fundamentally flawed as it is,...". What do you mean by the "current model"? Do you mean a model for the pursuit of the humanities, a model for pursuit of the sciences, mathematical models to describe reality or a grand theory of everything on steroids to describe quite literally everything including science, maths and all the humanities? If you mean the current model to mean scientific/mathematical models to explain the physical universe around us then I would argue that there are misunderstandings based on sloppy language/maths in science as fundamentally disabling to common understanding among trained scientists as there are in the humanities. These stumbling blocks may be so abstract and seem so marginal to the whole spectrum of science in general that they might seem like I am cherry-picking for the sake of argument but they are actually fundamental to our understanding of the physical world. Some examples of sloppy language at both the linguistic and mathematical levels are the definitions for fundamental terms like photon, electron, probability field, wave, time, time-space, cause/causation, star, galaxy, gravity, matter, energy, organism, life, organic, infinity, unity. All these terms have alternate and very different meanings depending on which branch of physical science the term is being used in.

This is highly problematic (to say the least) and in many ways incoherent. In Science, it is inconceivable that there could be a confusion of this size based on a simple definition to a term as it would render progress on the topic essentially impossible (which is precisely what we tend to see in the Humanities).

Like your cited example of communism in the humanities, I could argue that the word "electron" is as fuzzy and misunderstood by those who use it routinely as those who use and abuse the term communism. Is an electron a particle, a wave, both, a quantum of energy, neither, a probability field, a positron running backwards through space-time or is there just one electron in the whole universe being repeatedly spotted but our perception is just so limited that we cannot see this for what it is? These fundamental gaps in our understanding make discussion of electrons and their role(s) in our universe fraught with misunderstanding and lead to disputes as fundamental to the physical sciences as ideological disputes in the humanities. The only reason that these differences in the physical sciences seem less serious and don't lead to open schism in the wider society is that these ideas are not used widely in real world ways to organise our daily lives and therefore are inaccessible to most people who would otherwise mess up their meanings and question the validity of their definitions. We all use electricity but we have no clear idea of what an electron is. Behold the inconceivable!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
xMathFanx:



You make a good point here but I am also confused about something. You say, "However, that doesn't therefore indicate that the current model is necessarily as deeply, fundamentally flawed as it is,...". What do you mean by the "current model"?

By "current model" I am discussing the current tools/methods/formatting approach employed by these separate (yet interconnected) domains. Math has one model, Science another, and the Humanities yet a very different one (Note: the Humanities themselves actually operate on various models themselves respective to certain subjects--another distinction is the Social Sciences from other Humanities, ect. ect.). I can explore this more if you like, if you still have questions on this front
 
...I would argue that there are misunderstandings based on sloppy language/maths in science as fundamentally disabling to common understanding among trained scientists as there are in the humanities.

No. There are issues in certain areas, however to state that it is somehow on par with the Humanities is hyperbolic in the extreme (particularly when compared to Mathematics--as the rules are all internally constructed).


These stumbling blocks may be so abstract and seem so marginal to the whole spectrum of science in general that they might seem like I am cherry-picking for the sake of argument but they are actually fundamental to our understanding of the physical world. Some examples of sloppy language at both the linguistic and mathematical levels are the definitions for fundamental terms like photon, electron, probability field, wave, time, time-space, cause/causation, star, galaxy, gravity, matter, energy, organism, life, organic, infinity, unity. All these terms have alternate and very different meanings depending on which branch of physical science the term is being used in.

I think you are really over-extending this tremendously (although there is certainly truth about there being fuzzy areas in respect to certain terminology used). Consider the example of the label "planet", which has been/is a matter of some debate. Now, there is some ambiguity at work here which can have relevance in the application to the term (e.g. Pluto, ect.), however everyone essentially understands what is meant by the term (its not night & day, left & right, ect.--as the example "Communism" is). Now, if you want to pick-a-bone with this point, or discuss one of the examples you gave further, that's fine. However, I really think there is an overt False Equivalency operative here

The main point is, there is a serious problem with the abuse of common language where definitions to terms become so infinitely malleable as to be consistent with criteria that are in zero-sum conflict with the original/intended definition of a term (e.i. as though one can claim a circle is a square and vice versa and have that be logically consistent. This is partially explored in George Orwell's Animal Farm with the "Principles of Animalism"). This literally never happens in Mathematics, Physics, and many other areas of Science. NEVER. Particularly Math because the "rules of the game" are all internally constructed thus the need for extremely precise definitions is of the utmost importance (e.g. if you claim that a "Set" is anything other than the rigorous definition constructed and employed in the field, then you are just wrong--there is no debate). As soon as you drift to the Social Sciences, terminology becomes a lot more vague, and then when your in Humanities it is often egregious, and in popular culture/popular conception it is just mind-numbingly stupid (it can start to get mind-numbly stupid in areas of the Humanities as well). In my view, we pay such a tremendously high price for allowing people not to understand basic/fundamental ideas from the "hard sciences" such as precision of language/terminology and are way to kind about this even in regards to many other academic disciplines.
 
Like your cited example of communism in the humanities, I could argue that the word "electron" is as fuzzy and misunderstood by those who use it routinely as those who use and abuse the term communism. Is an electron a particle, a wave, both, a quantum of energy, neither, a probability field...

The "fuzziness" in respect to the term "electron" is due to our limited range of knowledge about the true nature of the matter (as we have an incomplete picture as of yet). Now, there is nothing difficult to understand about "Communism" that would require more information to hit Philosophical bedrock (such as with "electron", ect.). Rather, the term is being appropriated by various elements (i.e. individuals, groups, movements, ect.) in contradictory ways that can ultimately lead it to ultimately become so infinitely malleable as to be consistent with criteria that are in zero-sum conflict with the original/intended definition of a term (e.i. as though one can claim a circle is a square and vice versa and have that be logically consistent. This is partially explored in George Orwell's Animal Farm with the "Principles of Animalism"--as I discussed in my previous post)
 
The only reason that these differences in the physical sciences seem less serious and don't lead to open schism in the wider society is that these ideas are not used widely in real world ways to organise our daily lives and therefore are inaccessible to most people who would otherwise mess up their meanings and question the validity of their definitions.

Actually, they are "widely used in real world ways to organize our daily lives" as our entire society is based around Science & Technology (including the device you are using at this moment to read these words). This is exceedingly robust evidence in regards to just how powerful the model used in STEM is.
 
xMathFanx:

No. There are issues in certain areas, however to state that it is somehow on par with the Humanities is hyperbolic in the extreme (particularly when compared to Mathematics--as the rules are all internally constructed).

And:

I think you are really over-extending this tremendously (although there is certainly truth about there being fuzzy areas in respect to certain terminology used). .... Now, if you want to pick-a-bone with this point, or discuss one of the examples you gave further, that's fine. However, I really think there is an overt False Equivalency operative here

I agree that sloppy concept and language use is far more noticeable in the Social Sciences and is likely far more prevalent but it also is more common in the Physical Sciences and Mathematics than most people believe is the case. That is not an opinion based on literature review or empirical data but rather is the anecdotal archive I have accumulated as a result of growing up in an academic milieu and seeing/listening to chemists, physicists, biologists, engineers and even a few almost mystical mathematicians discussing their fields in more unguarded and informal circumstances. I'm not saying my observations are accurate and can be universally applied. I only say that they correlate well with the developing state of science I was fortunate enough to witness between the mid-1960's and the early-1990's when at least one of my parents were still alive and interacting with their peers. You can take my imput for what it is and evaluate it in conjunction with other data and observations available to you to come to your own conclusions.

I do not think pointing out that sloppy concept and language use in the physical sciences is either hyperbolic or posing a false equivalence. I think it is an acknowledgement by me that human beings are at the heart of the process when they conduct science and create mathematical models and it is that humanity which imposes limitations and warps perceptions or analysis leading to misunderstandings and bitter debates between peers regarding topics in the physical sciences.

I also do not concede that mathematics is built upon internal concepts and immutable internal rules because mathematics is just a symbolic language used by humans to describe certain relationships with greater precision than other spoken or written languages. Note I wrote greater precision and not absolute accuracy. The central position of humans in mathematics (as well as physical science) makes it susceptible to human limitations in observation, analysis and understanding and that makes the externally imposed human concepts and externally imposed rules of both maths and sciences less reliable. We are biocentric creatures looking through eye-shaped keyholes at a baffling and quite possibly irrational universe and laminating over what we see our own limitations and biases producing ersatz understanding. Don't get me wrong, we are doing the best we can do and we must try to learn despite our limitations, but we should remain both aware and humble enough to still acknowledge that the mathematics and science we claim to understand are just crude, mental facsimiles of the far greater "real" physical world which we do not now, nor possibly ever will, understand. Ultimately I suppose I am saying the universe has not read our textbooks, studied and signed off on our peer reviewed papers nor submitted itself to be subordinate to our flawed human perceptions and reasoning, so it may not play by our rules at all.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
The "fuzziness" in respect to the term "electron" is due to our limited range of knowledge about the true nature of the matter (as we have an incomplete picture as of yet). Now, there is nothing difficult to understand about "Communism" that would require more information to hit Philosophical bedrock (such as with "electron", ect.). Rather, the term is being appropriated by various elements (i.e. individuals, groups, movements, ect.) in contradictory ways that can ultimately lead it to ultimately become so infinitely malleable as to be consistent with criteria that are in zero-sum conflict with the original/intended definition of a term (e.i. as though one can claim a circle is a square and vice versa and have that be logically consistent. This is partially explored in George Orwell's Animal Farm with the "Principles of Animalism"--as I discussed in my previous post)

xMathFanx:

We no longer live in a Boolean-style universe where binary or bivalent choices of true/false, 0/1, or yes/no answers are sufficient to describe, analyse and synthesise understanding from. We live in the age of fuzzy logic where murky inbetweens inhabit the spaces between and beyond the binary choices of yesteryear. This has forced us to adopt fuzzy mathematics and fuzzy reasoning to try to accommodate an uncooperative and untamed universe which is being inscrutable and down right ornery. Human concepts like space, time and even linear causation or any causation at all are crumbling and we find ourselves like ancient flies caught in the amber treacle of probability which refuses to crystallise and harden into fastness and certitude. We are surrounded by spooky action at a distance and holes in the universe into which we are not permitted to peer. This condition is not due to too little knowledge, it is down to too much knowledge, enough of which is contradictory that theories and schema are collapsing around us daily. We are living in an age of mental and intellectual seismic instability and Krakatoa is blowing its top as we speak. We have had to abandon experimentation in certain areas and have substituted the scientific method with synthetic complex computer generated models in place of empiricism. The unreality has gotten so bad that we are now looking for cosmic cheats and shortcuts in reality as an indicator that the universe around us may be just a simulation like our computer models and not a genuine reality. So, yes science is progressively falling further and further down the rabbit hole of sloppy concepts and sloppy language as we abandon empiricism for simulation in a triumph of mind over verifiable observation. We are staring into the abyss and we are seeing ourselves reflected back from there staring blindly. Ecce homo!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom