Quote:
|
As commonly understand, anthropology does not involve experiments.
|
The logic employed involves the testing of hypotheses. Is it pure scientific method? No. But again, it's the only science we have for this sort of thing. (And as someone else noted, if you quibble with it, you quibble with evolution and much of climate change science.)
Quote:
|
Now you're censoring me, right?
|
Not in the least. You have every right to argue that invisible aliens are potential inputs. And I have every right to attack that, which I did.
This is how ideas are tested, as opposed to yours and Klein's view that some statements should not be challenged. I'm engaging the debate, rather than attempting to squelch it. And since the inclusion of invisible aliens as a potential cause of anything is absurd on its face, the idea has been rejected. This is how debate works. There's a back and forth, rather than a handicapper at the gate, saying, "Your skepticism is offensive and should not be offered, regardless of its merit."
Quote:
|
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?
|
My point is abstract and deals with how people communicate and exchange ideas. Arguing the social value of particular ideas, inquiries, or forms of skepticism is a different discussion.
You have advocated that, in certain situations, we should not entertain challenges. Klein argued something similar. This could apply to any subject, but as to the one we're dealing with here, you have asserted that once a group has been oppressed and consequently suffered disadvantages, inquiry regarding whether the continuation of those disadvantages is partly the group's fault is invalid. You have argued that such inquiry should not be given a platform, and should be avoided, even where it demonstrates merit.
This is, to come full circle to my earliest point, a form of sly censorship. It is an attempt to foreclose discussion and inquiry. And to the extent it bars an accused from arguing the victim's plight may not be entirely the accused's fault, it converts an allegation to a judgment, a verdict.
You are stating that you have the right to make a broad allegation about society, "This country has caused oppressed groups to be disadvantaged." That is a true statement. No problem with that. After that, however, you go off the rails into authoritarian-land. When you say that in response to that statement, no one may offer the reply, "But do the disadvantaged possibly bear some personal responsibility for their continued disadvantage?", you have become the judge of what speech is acceptable. You don't have that right. And if you don't see how that's drifting into authoritarianism, I fear this discussion has been a waste of time.
Actually, I know it's been waste of time. No one ever convinces another he's wrong.
Quote:
|
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?
|
That's a clever repackaging. But it's not the question on the table. It never was. Stop trying to shift the debate to a social value assessment of the inquiry. I've already conceded I'm not sure it has much. But whether it does or it doesn't, neither you nor I nor Klein nor anyone else has the right to dictate what ideas should not be discussed, or how controversial ideas should be discussed.
