Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. It uses the scientific method. It’s a soft science. But the only applicable one here.
|
No. No, it doesn't. Wikipedia helpfully describes the principles of the scientific method:
Quote:
|
Scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition, which has characterized the development of natural science since at least the 17th century, involving careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept; formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental testing and measurement of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as opposed to a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
|
As commonly understand, anthropology does not involve experiments.
Similarly, your notion of "assessing" a group's "responsibility" for its own subjugation is not something that be tested through the scientific method.
Quote:
|
2. Invisible aliens are not “potential.” The actual humans involved in these issues, and their actions, are real actors and facts to examine.
|
Now you're censoring me, right?
Quote:
3. I do accept that. Who doesn’t? But that has nothing to do with the logical point made. And that members of oppressed groups may also be oppressors is of no moment here.
Stop using “victim blaming.” It’s not a valid construct in any logical assessment. It’s an appeal to emotion and an argument from authority, among other logical fallacies.
I stated my reason for concluding it matters. If blame is to be fully accorded and rigorously assessed, in ANY instance, all potential (non-invisible alien) inputs must be considered. To allow otherwise converts a complaint to a judgment (without mitigating offsets for any comparative negligence).* To allow otherwise is to determine something to finality without assessment all facts. Is that ever wise? If you see no danger in this sort of thing, I can’t discuss this any further.
ETA: You see how an allegation/narrative = judgment/proof dynamic is dangerous, and dangerously authoritarian, I’d add. The ultimate point here is that if we slide into a world where “credibly accused” becomes a standard against which mitigating factors including comparative liability may not be offered in defense - against an indindividual or society at large - we’ve conceded our most essential freedoms. An unpopular view or defense may never be squealched because it’s impolitic. It must be beaten on the merits. That may be annoying, or offensive, but it’s also the only way to be intellectually honest, logical, and preserve freedom.
|
Again: you do need to explain why you think it matters. In what actual context in the real world is one of these defenses, "unpopular" or otherwise, relevant? What is it relevant to? You keep using the language of judicial proceedings, but groups are not put on trial in judicial proceedings. Are you talking about discussion of legislation? Cable-tv opinion shows? Elevator conversations? What are you talking about?
To put it differently, where in current discourse is it a problem that a group's responsibility for its own plight is not being discussed?
