<p>
</p>
<p>I am quoting Karl Popper, not generally regarded as a superficial thinker.</p>
<p>Actually, I believe they were called heretical, not irrational. Correct beliefs were what mattered. I would say that the same thing is true of both Sowell and some of those he opposes.</p>
<p>The only problem Popper did not attribute attitude to mean devoid of facts and disregard for proved reality. That is as far out of context as I can even think of how he thought attitude influenced social and political structure. </p>
<p>Interesting commentary, alh. However, let’s be careful though of getting too off topic. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is correct, but that is a distinction without a difference. Their positions were considered irrational based on what was believed. At that time, the only beliefs taught to be true and rational were the church beliefs.</p>
<p>On a side note, that is quite ironic the church’s position because the first true scientists were monks and priests who were trying to get closer to understanding God. </p>
<p>
I almost lost my coffee when I read this. Thomas Sowell is an economist by training. There are thousands of economists doing very careful empirical work every day. Sowell is not one of them. Even 20 years ago, you could not have put him in front of graduate students. Doing careful empirical work is hard. The available data may require you to make adjustments, compromises and corrections. There can be self-selection problems with the data. Unlike scientists, most economists do not run field experiments, so they are stuck with the participants and “treatments” in the available data. These annoyances are of no interest to people such as Sowell. </p>
<p>Consider this snippet from Alan Barra’s review of the book “Intellectuals and Society.”
<a href=“http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/allen_barra_on_the_curious_case_of_thomas_sowell_20100326”>http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/allen_barra_on_the_curious_case_of_thomas_sowell_20100326</a><br>
I am sympathetic to many of Sowell’s positions, but he knows the answer before he asks the question, which should make one wary. </p>
<p>^^ All scholars have their critics. I just find his arguments stronger and not tinged with the politically-correct nonsense of the time. And of course, you are free to disagree.</p>
<p>I was unaware that Archimedes, Euclid, et al, were monks.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting take on the question “Who was the first modern scientist?”</p>
<p><a href=“Who Was the First Scientist? | HowStuffWorks”>http://science.howstuffworks.com/first-scientist.htm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the ‘people’ are the feds and other groups who categorize/count/conflate an unwanted/rude/face-slap-worthy butt-pinch at a packed concert the same as forcible assault in a private space, not to mention counting assaults that happen over the summer while at ‘home’…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, modern science is marked, as science that began using the scientific method, basically the 16th and 17th centuries, which are used as the dividing line. </p>
<p>Observationalists who did not form and test hypotheses are considered different in that they did not advance by elimination of causes, but formed conclusions based on observation. While generally they are also called scientists, they are not considered true scientists as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Gilbert etc. because they did not test for validity or reliability and a host other things. Serious science historians are very careful to mark the distinction. </p>
<p>The history of science is interesting and is a much deeper and rich history than on “How stuff works,” and the role of religion was instrumental in how the method of science, as we know today, was formed. However, as with all things, such as with Sowell, where you choose you to get information from greatly affects what you learn. “How stuff works” is a very limited overview of what is considered science. </p>
<p>And the major difference is I do not need to a website, as my undergrad and grad degrees are in two science fields from the very top schools with a concentration in the role of religion in science. Then followed by medical school after those. The website you chose is a weak, limited summary and eliminates mountains of information, especially the role of religion in the development of science. It is enlightening to people when they learn that their favorite “scientists” were not non-believers, but were often motivated by the fact they did believe.</p>
<p>People often ask, “How do you know they believed?” The key is not to read their science literature alone, BUT their private writings and letters. Science papers do not tell you about the person; it is their diaries and letters to others, which do that.</p>
<p>The role of monks and priests is even more interesting because of the tug-of-war they had with the church. Very cool stuff to read and learn.</p>
<p>Definitely an interesting subject for sure, and it is even more fun to debate.</p>
<p>OK, I am done on this science subject - not right to hijack the thread.</p>
<p>obviously, a lot more to the story, but this is even more complex, as the girl who was assaulted attends a different college.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140613-2-brown-university-football-players-accused-of-sexual-assault-ordered-off-campus.ece”>http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140613-2-brown-university-football-players-accused-of-sexual-assault-ordered-off-campus.ece</a></p>
<p>This is an excellent response to George Will’s article. No</p>
<p><a href=“An OB/GYN writes to George Will about college rape – Dr. Jen Gunter”>http://drjengunter.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2014/06/11/an-obgyn-writes-to-george-will-about-college-rape/</a></p>
<p>awcntdb, one is aware that a web site summary that is clearly intended to be a simple overview of the topic does not represent the sum of all knowledge. Your condescension misses the mark.</p>
<p>In order to preserve decorum, I’ve had to delete the rest of what I had to say to you. </p>
<p>@Consolation wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My post was written for others who may press the link, read the article and think that summary was useful and accurate; it is not, in several places.</p>
<p>But, you really need to think about your approach to life. It must suck to get angry simply at what others say and believe. That strikes me a rather loser way to live and expends lots of energy for nothing. </p>
<p>I am glad my Dad taught me that when you are on top of your game, it becomes natural to ignore others who say things you do not agree with and simply smile. He is right.</p>
<p>My recommendation is just ignore whatever I write, which you do not like, and have a glass or two of wine confidently knowing you are much smarter and better than I. I am cool with that; you should be too, since you get some wine out it.</p>
<p>awcntdb, your Dad may think it’s cool to ignore other people and drink is solitude, but most people at the “top of their game” work to engage others in thoughtful, constructive ways. In doing so, they learn, create cultural and intellectual change, and builds community, friendships, alliances, and knowledge It is clear he did not teach you this, but taught you to divide the world into “losers” and “top of the gamers.” What a sad way to think of him on this day . . . </p>
<p>This whole topic about preserving one’s couth is contradictory boat swimming in a hypocritical lagoon.</p>
<p>Time for another group hug? </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No…?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said drink in solitude? I just said have wine. At dinner with the wife and kids is much better.</p>
<p>Well anyway - There is a point when one should realize you are not going to change another’s mind and best to just leave it alone.</p>
<p>And there is huge difference between ignoring and not listening. For example, unlike the students at Swarthmore, Haverford, Rutgers etc., I do listen and engage; my posts on CC are proof of that. Those students are the type who do not even listen openly to the other side. Something that I could never be accused of, ever.</p>
<p>However, one should realize when the other person and you are so far apart that even engagement is not warranted and simply leads in circles. And worse, leads to the other person or you being angry. When that point is reached, the better thing to do is just be cool about it, accept the differences, then ignore the difference and, yes, possibly have some wine. And, please note, I never said have the wine in solitude, and I never said do not engage or not to respect or not to learn. </p>
<p>As for my dad’s advice, it was one of the best pieces of advice he gave me for I never get angry at what others say. Plus, the advice allows me to live a life respecting others who have different views and lead to my understanding that others’ views are nothing to ever be upset about; and, most of all, it is not my job to try and change other people because they can only change themselves. The best I can do it present my point-of-view.</p>
<p>So, yes, smart people know when to ignore people and situations because no effective impact or change will be made except a negative one. Best to avoid the negative. </p>
<p>He is correct there, and I am happy to remember him that way - Ignore, when necessary, in order to avoid the negative is definitely great advice. </p>
<p>@Niquii77 - Yes, group hug time again it seems. >:D< </p>
<p>^^I got your point!</p>
<p>For example earlier in this thread, when an opposing pov was suggested, others – instead of engaging in “thoughtful, constructive” discussion – inferred that those who held that pov were ‘apologists’ and enablers (i.e., an ad hominem).</p>
<p>No need to have further discussion (obviously) since not everyone is open to hearing other pov’s that do not match their own world view.</p>
<p>We used to fight about Sowell all the time on the old Politics subforum–which is probably one of the reasons it was closed.</p>
<p>In reading back over this, I think one of the problems with this whole issue is that the processes and procedures are almost inherently unable to adequately address the problem while at the same time protecting important rights. That causes frustration for everybody, whatever priorities they bring to the situation. Personally, I’m big into civil liberties, and so reduced standards of proof, presumed guilt, and the like bother me a lot. On the other hand, I’m bothered by people escaping punishment for serious crimes.</p>
<p>@Hunt
You are absolutely correct about the key problem. </p>
<p>Fact 1: In individual cases, it is difficult to be sure that an individual alleged rapist is guilty, so few are convicted.
Fact 2: In aggregate, it is clear that a significant number of alleged rapists are guilty.
Fact 3: Failure to convict the guilty leads to more rapes (many are serial rapists).
Fact 4: In an effort to avoid negative publicity, many Universities have tried to prevent women from filing charges.
Fact 5: The female victims in most of these cases are often interrogated and distrusted more than the perpetrator.
Fact 6: In contrast to say a murder, the perpetrator in these cases is often protected by those around them, even when they are guilty.</p>
<p>There is not an easy solution. That is clear. However, what I find infuriating is that there are still so many people continuing to argue that this is an imagined problem that does not really exist.</p>
<p>It is very difficult to have a discussion of the problem when comments are consistently made arguing that it is not real. As I mentioned before, it is like teaching a class about Ancient Rome, where some students keep asking you to prove that the Romans were real. “How do you know they existed, you weren’t there?” “Prove it.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, the skepticism that is occurring in the face of consistent studies and reports never comes from those directly involved: not from people who spend time with real victims, not from Gynecologists, and not from school administrators who are involved. Instead, it seems to primarily come from politically motivated people who have not taken the time to meet with victims and Gynecologists who complete the rape kits. The George Will article is a perfect example. He asserts this idea of women wanting victim status without taking the time to really investigate the problem and get informed. People believe what they want to believe, and what George Will and his ilk want to believe is that anything that the Obama administration supports is bad or false. Therefore, they assert that this problem is not real without bothering to actually investigate the issue. </p>
<p>Nope. No-one on this thread or anywhere else is arguing that rape isn’t real. Rather, the unresolved questions seem to be, “What is rape?” And, “Should we require evidence before convicting someone of a crime?”</p>
<p>FYI- Many rapists are convicted. That was a problem in the 1960’s. This may be another classic case of over-correction. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of that going around, these days. Personally, I like this article. It’s too easy to disagree with political commentators for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject being debated. And, how the heck is a gynecologist supposed to know if a girl said yes, no, maybe, whatever, or was too drunk or tired to say anything? What?</p>
<p><a href=“Campuses must distinguish between assault and youthful bad judgment”>http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0610-banks-campus-assaults-20140610-column.html</a></p>