Comments for Cai Wingfield http://caiwingfield.com/cms Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:55:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Look at that. by Jasmine http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/12/look-at-that/comment-page-1/#comment-6115 Jasmine Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:55:32 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=591#comment-6115 Oh Goddd.. how did we let these people get into power? Will we never learn?! Oh Goddd.. how did we let these people get into power? Will we never learn?!

]]> Comment on Look at that. by Rich A http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/12/look-at-that/comment-page-1/#comment-6114 Rich A Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:20:12 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=591#comment-6114 This speech wasn't meant for us: it was Kool-Aid for Tory voters. Pretty much the most fundamental concept in right-wing politics is the nuclear family, and this token gesture will lull their target audience into believing the Tories are fighting their corner. Obviously, the fact that it alienates unmarried and same-sex couples, as well as doing nothing to alleviate the fact that we are all going to suffer financially and in terms of our public services, will be missed entirely by the Mail/Telegraph. The guy is the worst kind of cowardly "yes man" in the cabinet, undoubtedly so, but the irony is that this is probably one of the best PR moves (in terms of retaining core voters) that the Conservative could have hoped for. Instead of railing against them with taunts of "Victorian" or mocking religious sensibilities, perhaps the best agenda to push would be the teaching of critical thinking (essential in the age of Wiki-learning) coupled with the unbiased presenting of statistics about marriage and its correlated (or otherwise) effect on the well-being of offspring. This speech wasn't meant for us: it was Kool-Aid for Tory voters. Pretty much the most fundamental concept in right-wing politics is the nuclear family, and this token gesture will lull their target audience into believing the Tories are fighting their corner. Obviously, the fact that it alienates unmarried and same-sex couples, as well as doing nothing to alleviate the fact that we are all going to suffer financially and in terms of our public services, will be missed entirely by the Mail/Telegraph.

The guy is the worst kind of cowardly "yes man" in the cabinet, undoubtedly so, but the irony is that this is probably one of the best PR moves (in terms of retaining core voters) that the Conservative could have hoped for. Instead of railing against them with taunts of "Victorian" or mocking religious sensibilities, perhaps the best agenda to push would be the teaching of critical thinking (essential in the age of Wiki-learning) coupled with the unbiased presenting of statistics about marriage and its correlated (or otherwise) effect on the well-being of offspring.

]]> Comment on Facebook atheists steal my poster :( by Kevin http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/10/facebook-atheists-steal-my-poster/comment-page-1/#comment-5869 Kevin Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:47:36 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=581#comment-5869 Looks like they've taken it from somewhere else though, as it has the GBS tag which is: http://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.at/ Looks like they've taken it from somewhere else though, as it has the GBS tag which is:
http://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.at/

]]> Comment on The Importance of Atheism by Facebook atheists steal my poster :( » Cai Wingfield http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2009/04/the-importance-of-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-5868 Facebook atheists steal my poster :( » Cai Wingfield Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:19:07 +0000 http://www.caiwingfield.com/?p=192#comment-5868 [...] a little familiar... A poster I designed for the Warwick [...] [...] a little familiar... A poster I designed for the Warwick [...]

]]> Comment on Hans Rosling: The Good News of the Decade? by Cai Wingfield http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/05/hans-rosling-the-good-news-of-the-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-4446 Cai Wingfield Tue, 17 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=524#comment-4446 YAY facebook works so well. Watch: http://www.ted.​com/talks/hans_​rosling_the_goo​d_news_of_the_d​ecade.html YAY facebook works so well. Watch: http://www.ted.​com/talks/hans_​rosling_the_goo​d_news_of_the_d​ecade.html

]]> Comment on Hans Rosling: The Good News of the Decade? by Cai Wingfield http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/05/hans-rosling-the-good-news-of-the-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-4265 Cai Wingfield Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=524#comment-4265 YAY facebook works so well. Watch: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_good_news_of_the_decade.html YAY facebook works so well. Watch: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_good_news_of_the_decade.html

]]> Comment on Cultural Relativism and Technology by Marios Richards http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/03/cultural-relativism/comment-page-1/#comment-4480 Marios Richards Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=480#comment-4480 'One example: roughly all of science is based on inductive reasoning which is, as Hume showed, flawed.'Not in the natural sciences (including the social sciences bar sociology) - we use the hypothetico-ded​uctive method (a la Popper). 'One example: roughly all of science is based on inductive reasoning which is, as Hume showed, flawed.'Not in the natural sciences (including the social sciences bar sociology) - we use the hypothetico-ded​uctive method (a la Popper).

]]> Comment on Cultural Relativism and Technology by Cai Wingfield http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/03/cultural-relativism/comment-page-1/#comment-4479 Cai Wingfield Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=480#comment-4479 Very good points, Niko. I think we are probably almost in agreement on everything!One point I want to press you on, though:I know it's technically impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is". However, in real life we routinely, systematically and cognisantly use incorrect derivations. One example: roughly all of science is based on inductive reasoning which is, as Hume showed, flawed. Even further, we tend to assume and act on the fact that there exists some external world which bears some resemblance to that which our senses and instruments detect, even though Descartes showed this is ill-founded. I think the logical inability to derive "ought" from "is" should be viewed in a similar way.While it is philosophically​ ill-founded, we would never get anywhere if we only used the reasoning technically allowed to us by Descartes and Hume. In order to function in real life we must tacitly acknowledge that we're brushing some technical details under the carpet.Just as we cannot derive the consistency of the world from any fact and yet do so all the time, we cannot derive ethical propositions from facts and yet do so all the time.We, as a community of thinkers, seem to take on general agreement that the world is consistent and that we are not all dreaming or in the Matrix. We do this for purely pragmatic reasons. Similarly, I think it would be pragmatic to take on general agreement that suffering of sentient creatures ought to be avoided, for example. From here, all terms like "suffering", "sentient", etc are for science to examine and map out. From here we may make real and robust progress using the tools of science to critically examine behaviours and perspectives and how they relate to the suffering or well-being of sentient creatures.At any point someone can come along and say "suffering should not be avoided!", and although we can't use logic to disprove them, we can treat them as we would treat someone who says "we are all in the Matrix!" or "daemons cloud your eyes!" (whom we can also not use logic to disprove).In a sense, this ignoring of fringe and unpragmatic ideas is the "diplomacy of power", as you put it. But I think such a position has more philosophical weight than such a label seems to lend it. What I'm saying is that ignoring Matrix Theorists when it comes to science is just as much a diplomacy of power as ignoring sadists when it comes to ethics.What do you think about this? :)An interesting adjunct to this: I think the fact that it is uncontroversial​ to dismiss the Matrix or the daemon yet controversial to dismiss people who (I claim) have "wrong" ethics is itself a manifestation of this diplomacy of power. I think there is political motivation to be moral relativists where there is no such motivation to be systematic hyper-sceptics (to coin a phrase). Very good points, Niko. I think we are probably almost in agreement on everything!One point I want to press you on, though:I know it's technically impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is". However, in real life we routinely, systematically and cognisantly use incorrect derivations. One example: roughly all of science is based on inductive reasoning which is, as Hume showed, flawed. Even further, we tend to assume and act on the fact that there exists some external world which bears some resemblance to that which our senses and instruments detect, even though Descartes showed this is ill-founded. I think the logical inability to derive "ought" from "is" should be viewed in a similar way.While it is philosophically​ ill-founded, we would never get anywhere if we only used the reasoning technically allowed to us by Descartes and Hume. In order to function in real life we must tacitly acknowledge that we're brushing some technical details under the carpet.Just as we cannot derive the consistency of the world from any fact and yet do so all the time, we cannot derive ethical propositions from facts and yet do so all the time.We, as a community of thinkers, seem to take on general agreement that the world is consistent and that we are not all dreaming or in the Matrix. We do this for purely pragmatic reasons. Similarly, I think it would be pragmatic to take on general agreement that suffering of sentient creatures ought to be avoided, for example. From here, all terms like "suffering", "sentient", etc are for science to examine and map out. From here we may make real and robust progress using the tools of science to critically examine behaviours and perspectives and how they relate to the suffering or well-being of sentient creatures.At any point someone can come along and say "suffering should not be avoided!", and although we can't use logic to disprove them, we can treat them as we would treat someone who says "we are all in the Matrix!" or "daemons cloud your eyes!" (whom we can also not use logic to disprove).In a sense, this ignoring of fringe and unpragmatic ideas is the "diplomacy of power", as you put it. But I think such a position has more philosophical weight than such a label seems to lend it. What I'm saying is that ignoring Matrix Theorists when it comes to science is just as much a diplomacy of power as ignoring sadists when it comes to ethics.What do you think about this? :)An interesting adjunct to this: I think the fact that it is uncontroversial​ to dismiss the Matrix or the daemon yet controversial to dismiss people who (I claim) have "wrong" ethics is itself a manifestation of this diplomacy of power. I think there is political motivation to be moral relativists where there is no such motivation to be systematic hyper-sceptics (to coin a phrase).

]]> Comment on Cultural Relativism and Technology by Cai Wingfield http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/03/cultural-relativism/comment-page-1/#comment-4049 Cai Wingfield Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=480#comment-4049 Very good points, Niko. I think we are probably almost in agreement on everything!One point I want to press you on, though:I know it's technically impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is". However, in real life we routinely, systematically and cognisantly use incorrect derivations. One example: roughly all of science is based on inductive reasoning which is, as Hume showed, flawed. Even further, we tend to assume and act on the fact that there exists some external world which bears some resemblance to that which our senses and instruments detect, even though Descartes showed this is ill-founded. I think the logical inability to derive "ought" from "is" should be viewed in a similar way.While it is philosophically ill-founded, we would never get anywhere if we only used the reasoning technically allowed to us by Descartes and Hume. In order to function in real life we must tacitly acknowledge that we're brushing some technical details under the carpet.Just as we cannot derive the consistency of the world from any fact and yet do so all the time, we cannot derive ethical propositions from facts and yet do so all the time.We, as a community of thinkers, seem to take on general agreement that the world is consistent and that we are not all dreaming or in the Matrix. We do this for purely pragmatic reasons. Similarly, I think it would be pragmatic to take on general agreement that suffering of sentient creatures ought to be avoided, for example. From here, all terms like "suffering", "sentient", etc are for science to examine and map out. From here we may make real and robust progress using the tools of science to critically examine behaviours and perspectives and how they relate to the suffering or well-being of sentient creatures.At any point someone can come along and say "suffering should not be avoided!", and although we can't use logic to disprove them, we can treat them as we would treat someone who says "we are all in the Matrix!" or "daemons cloud your eyes!" (whom we can also not use logic to disprove).In a sense, this ignoring of fringe and unpragmatic ideas is the "diplomacy of power", as you put it. But I think such a position has more philosophical weight than such a label seems to lend it. What I'm saying is that ignoring Matrix Theorists when it comes to science is just as much a diplomacy of power as ignoring sadists when it comes to ethics.What do you think about this? :)An interesting adjunct to this: I think the fact that it is uncontroversial to dismiss the Matrix or the daemon yet controversial to dismiss people who (I claim) have "wrong" ethics is itself a manifestation of this diplomacy of power. I think there is political motivation to be moral relativists where there is no such motivation to be systematic hyper-sceptics (to coin a phrase). Very good points, Niko. I think we are probably almost in agreement on everything!One point I want to press you on, though:I know it's technically impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is". However, in real life we routinely, systematically and cognisantly use incorrect derivations. One example: roughly all of science is based on inductive reasoning which is, as Hume showed, flawed. Even further, we tend to assume and act on the fact that there exists some external world which bears some resemblance to that which our senses and instruments detect, even though Descartes showed this is ill-founded. I think the logical inability to derive "ought" from "is" should be viewed in a similar way.While it is philosophically ill-founded, we would never get anywhere if we only used the reasoning technically allowed to us by Descartes and Hume. In order to function in real life we must tacitly acknowledge that we're brushing some technical details under the carpet.Just as we cannot derive the consistency of the world from any fact and yet do so all the time, we cannot derive ethical propositions from facts and yet do so all the time.We, as a community of thinkers, seem to take on general agreement that the world is consistent and that we are not all dreaming or in the Matrix. We do this for purely pragmatic reasons. Similarly, I think it would be pragmatic to take on general agreement that suffering of sentient creatures ought to be avoided, for example. From here, all terms like "suffering", "sentient", etc are for science to examine and map out. From here we may make real and robust progress using the tools of science to critically examine behaviours and perspectives and how they relate to the suffering or well-being of sentient creatures.At any point someone can come along and say "suffering should not be avoided!", and although we can't use logic to disprove them, we can treat them as we would treat someone who says "we are all in the Matrix!" or "daemons cloud your eyes!" (whom we can also not use logic to disprove).In a sense, this ignoring of fringe and unpragmatic ideas is the "diplomacy of power", as you put it. But I think such a position has more philosophical weight than such a label seems to lend it. What I'm saying is that ignoring Matrix Theorists when it comes to science is just as much a diplomacy of power as ignoring sadists when it comes to ethics.What do you think about this? :)An interesting adjunct to this: I think the fact that it is uncontroversial to dismiss the Matrix or the daemon yet controversial to dismiss people who (I claim) have "wrong" ethics is itself a manifestation of this diplomacy of power. I think there is political motivation to be moral relativists where there is no such motivation to be systematic hyper-sceptics (to coin a phrase).

]]> Comment on Cultural Relativism and Technology by Marios Richards http://caiwingfield.com/cms/2011/03/cultural-relativism/comment-page-1/#comment-4051 Marios Richards Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000 http://caiwingfield.com/cms/?p=480#comment-4051 'we cannot derive ethical propositions from facts and yet do so all the time.' Can you give us an example of what you're thinking of? 'we cannot derive ethical propositions from facts and yet do so all the time.' Can you give us an example of what you're thinking of?

]]>