Based on the rallies I have attended (including the ones in Chicago and Milwaukee) and the news coverage I have seen (CNN, MSNBC, BNN, etc.)...the key players who coordinate these protests are the old hippies and college kids. Many of the college students I have talked to have no real stand on anything, they just join the rally just because they were anti-school and anti-government. MANY of these protests have no focus or valid argument. They protest Bush and government...They might intend to protest the war, but the majority of their message that gets out to the rest of America is the protesting of President Bush and the government. If you are anti-war, then fine..have a reason for it. Have a valid argument. There are PLENTY of reasons why we should go to war and very few significant reasons why we shouldn't, but that's based on my experience as a journalism and political science major in the "real world." If you are going to call Bush a terrorist and compare him to Hitler, you better damn well have a valid argument. People in Britain have better and more valid protests than people here in America.
You sound a lot like Broca and his attempts to justify why the evidence refuted his idea that brain size determined intelligence.
It's called the Oedipus Effect. Stop being its victim.
In other words, be a man and accept that the real world demonstrates that your theory is wrong.
If I'm not mistaken, it was Popper who talked about the Oedipus Effect - in which the mere fact that a theory exists will cause future events to change according to that theory.
Are you suggesting that Filmmaker2002's theory that only young neo-hippies and old people attend rallies will be self-fulfilling, and that soon enough we won't see a rally exclusive of those two groups of protesters?
I think we could be onto something here!! My theory is that no-one on this forum will have to be inconvenienced by protests that block intersections!
(edited to remove 'and an other researcher' from after 'Popper' in the first sentence)
If I'm not mistaken, it was Popper who talked about the Oedipus Effect - in which the mere fact that a theory exists will cause future events to change according to that theory.
Of course it was popper. But the Oedipus Effect is when you interpret data according to a pre-existing theory. Here it is in his words:
Quote:
Oedipus effect" to describe the influence of a theory or expectation or prediction upon the event which it predicts or describes.
(Popper, Conjectures and Refutations)
I can see how that can be misinterpreted if read out of context, but if you read the book (which I just finished last week) he is talking about emperical knowledge and inferences (or lack thereof). He uses it to demonstrate why you need to make tests of theories that attempt to falsify (not verify) and that the scientific standing (though certainly not validity) of a theory is positively linked to its ability to be refuted. In other words, the stronger the limits are on types of observations that validate the theory, the more scientific the theory is.
The Oedipus Effect is what happens when a devotee to a particular non-falsifiable theory (he uses psycho-analysis and astrology as examples) interprets results from within that theory, thus proving it true to themselves by justifying any observation from within the theory.
This is what he is doing. He is interpreting the evidence from within his theory. Broca is an extreme example, where even when faced with overwhelming evidence, he continued to justify the results, eventually proposing really absurd explanations why his data directly refuted his theory.
Thanks. Been so long that I had to read any of this, that it's been pushed out of my head by more important things - like cost analysis, cash flow forcasting, and juggling.
It's tough to encapsulate the whole Middle East foreign policy/economics of war/human effects etc etc in the classic simple 4-word statement that is the tradition in the protest movement. Lengthy, logical essays printed on a sheet of cardboard, held up in the air on a stick and addressing the follies of this war do not really work in the street or as a means to put facts or opinion over. The only way to reduce such complex issues for public consumption is via sloganeering. I have watched some Pro War rallies too...the sentiments expressed there are not exactly "intelligent" either....
actually, you just summed up what i'm trying to say very nicely.
however, i don't think that sloganeering is the answer. there has to be a better way.
The disruptive protests are just hurting the cause, but protestors who chain themselves up and don't let emergency response vehicles through their barricades are unreasonable anyway. These protests are an excuse to disrupt other people's lives.
My father was supposed to be doing rounds that morning. He didn't have time to check-up on a single patient.
If they had a logical argument I could understand, but it makes me SO MAD to see the people in Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington. I hear their chants on the radio and television, and they have no idea what this war is about.
Not sure if you guys have already heard this or not (pretty sure Groverat has) but here's a nice example of that...
What makes that clip so painful to listen to is how indicative it is of all the anti-war people I've talked to.
You ask them a very straight question and they talk around it or use a canned anti-Bush response.
"What is 2+2?"
"George Bush is trying to do what he wants without the world's approval!"
Yep, I agree, I have seen a bunch of em carrying the signs that say "no blood for oil",ect. and they look like they just got out of Jr high(saw lots of those) and they have no idea. I know people who are against it and they do the same, I tell people if you are for or against, you should have a reason why either way instead of just looking around, or dodging the questions.
but i guess that's what people like me feel like the anti-war movement is based on.
it bothers me though because i think the peace arguement has good and valid points. however, it's impossible to respect anyone who's arguments are so vaporous.
but i guess that's what people like me feel like the anti-war movement is based on.
it bothers me though because i think the peace arguement has good and valid points. however, it's impossible to respect anyone who's arguments are so vaporous.
Yeah, the whole problem is that we have some of that sort of thing from both poles of opinion. That's also why I won't participate in any demonstrations either for or against war. My position can be summed up simply, but I don't want the basis for my position to be dumbed down by someone else who doesn't have the same rationale or can't articulate it. (Not like I'm that good at articulating it of course?)
What an arsehole, calling her a "little girl","little bird".
That guy is off the wall, he's insulting her over and over and interrupting!
The friggin moderator was no help either. Unfortunately she was not apt enough to answer with "Like this, by gaining appropriate underground conections and infiltrating the government through less destructive assassinations"
The guy ignores the problem that the axis of evil is widening pathway and that the US is participating in peculiarly selective "Mother Teresa" mission here.
Comments
It's called the Oedipus Effect. Stop being its victim.
In other words, be a man and accept that the real world demonstrates that your theory is wrong.
Originally posted by giant
You sound a lot like Broca and his attempts to justify why the evidence refuted his idea that brain size determined intelligence.
It's called the Oedipus Effect. Stop being its victim.
In other words, be a man and accept that the real world demonstrates that your theory is wrong.
If I'm not mistaken, it was Popper who talked about the Oedipus Effect - in which the mere fact that a theory exists will cause future events to change according to that theory.
Are you suggesting that Filmmaker2002's theory that only young neo-hippies and old people attend rallies will be self-fulfilling, and that soon enough we won't see a rally exclusive of those two groups of protesters?
I think we could be onto something here!! My theory is that no-one on this forum will have to be inconvenienced by protests that block intersections!
(edited to remove 'and an other researcher' from after 'Popper' in the first sentence)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/...ification.html
This extract is a good read for anyone who's interested in how we interpret things we are told.
I love Google.
Originally posted by audiopollution
If I'm not mistaken, it was Popper who talked about the Oedipus Effect - in which the mere fact that a theory exists will cause future events to change according to that theory.
Of course it was popper. But the Oedipus Effect is when you interpret data according to a pre-existing theory. Here it is in his words:
Oedipus effect" to describe the influence of a theory or expectation or prediction upon the event which it predicts or describes.
(Popper, Conjectures and Refutations)
I can see how that can be misinterpreted if read out of context, but if you read the book (which I just finished last week) he is talking about emperical knowledge and inferences (or lack thereof). He uses it to demonstrate why you need to make tests of theories that attempt to falsify (not verify) and that the scientific standing (though certainly not validity) of a theory is positively linked to its ability to be refuted. In other words, the stronger the limits are on types of observations that validate the theory, the more scientific the theory is.
The Oedipus Effect is what happens when a devotee to a particular non-falsifiable theory (he uses psycho-analysis and astrology as examples) interprets results from within that theory, thus proving it true to themselves by justifying any observation from within the theory.
This is what he is doing. He is interpreting the evidence from within his theory. Broca is an extreme example, where even when faced with overwhelming evidence, he continued to justify the results, eventually proposing really absurd explanations why his data directly refuted his theory.
Originally posted by audiopollution
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/...ification.html
I'm reading Gould's mismeasure of man right now (I've been wanting to read it for some time). That's where I got the Broca bit.
And, yes, that's a chapter from the Popper book I just finished.
Will pick up the Gould book tomorrow.
It's tough to encapsulate the whole Middle East foreign policy/economics of war/human effects etc etc in the classic simple 4-word statement that is the tradition in the protest movement. Lengthy, logical essays printed on a sheet of cardboard, held up in the air on a stick and addressing the follies of this war do not really work in the street or as a means to put facts or opinion over. The only way to reduce such complex issues for public consumption is via sloganeering. I have watched some Pro War rallies too...the sentiments expressed there are not exactly "intelligent" either....
actually, you just summed up what i'm trying to say very nicely.
however, i don't think that sloganeering is the answer. there has to be a better way.
as for the stereotypes?
guess it depends on where you live.
The disruptive protests are just hurting the cause, but protestors who chain themselves up and don't let emergency response vehicles through their barricades are unreasonable anyway. These protests are an excuse to disrupt other people's lives.
My father was supposed to be doing rounds that morning. He didn't have time to check-up on a single patient.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
If they had a logical argument I could understand, but it makes me SO MAD to see the people in Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington. I hear their chants on the radio and television, and they have no idea what this war is about.
Not sure if you guys have already heard this or not (pretty sure Groverat has) but here's a nice example of that...
Iraqi American asks anti-war protester a question she can't seem to answer on Seattle talk radio show
... the Iraqi guy cracks me up.
You ask them a very straight question and they talk around it or use a canned anti-Bush response.
"What is 2+2?"
"George Bush is trying to do what he wants without the world's approval!"
Originally posted by groverat
What makes that clip so painful to listen to is how indicative it is of all the anti-war people I've talked to.
You ask them a very straight question and they talk around it or use a canned anti-Bush response.
"What is 2+2?"
"George Bush is trying to do what he wants without the world's approval!"
Yep, I agree, I have seen a bunch of em carrying the signs that say "no blood for oil",ect. and they look like they just got out of Jr high(saw lots of those) and they have no idea. I know people who are against it and they do the same, I tell people if you are for or against, you should have a reason why either way instead of just looking around, or dodging the questions.
but i guess that's what people like me feel like the anti-war movement is based on.
it bothers me though because i think the peace arguement has good and valid points. however, it's impossible to respect anyone who's arguments are so vaporous.
Originally posted by alcimedes
ouch, that clip hurts.
but i guess that's what people like me feel like the anti-war movement is based on.
it bothers me though because i think the peace arguement has good and valid points. however, it's impossible to respect anyone who's arguments are so vaporous.
Yeah, the whole problem is that we have some of that sort of thing from both poles of opinion. That's also why I won't participate in any demonstrations either for or against war. My position can be summed up simply, but I don't want the basis for my position to be dumbed down by someone else who doesn't have the same rationale or can't articulate it. (Not like I'm that good at articulating it of course?)
Originally posted by dviant
Not sure if you guys have already heard this or not (pretty sure Groverat has) but here's a nice example of that...
Iraqi American asks anti-war protester a question she can't seem to answer on Seattle talk radio show
... the Iraqi guy cracks me up.
That guy is off the wall, he's insulting her over and over and interrupting!
The friggin moderator was no help either. Unfortunately she was not apt enough to answer with "Like this, by gaining appropriate underground conections and infiltrating the government through less destructive assassinations"
The guy ignores the problem that the axis of evil is widening pathway and that the US is participating in peculiarly selective "Mother Teresa" mission here.