I think I have a better grasp of this in terms of scientific knowledge, because with art it can be a matter of subjectivity, interpretation, opinion, etc.

To me, scientific knowledge includes & entails me, myself, conducting and observing the test, study, experiment, and/or analysis; scientific knowledge is not anyone else dictating to me what it is, whether it's religion, the government, some award involving fame and monetary reward (e.g. Nobel prize), corporations, wealthy individuals, celebrities, or the media.

Even that's not enough, though; for example, there needs to be repetition producing the same results, or a statistical trend or value, comparison to results from other sources & peer review, guidance from subject matter experts (e.g. taking a college course in the scientific field or area), it essentially has to be something that's falsifiable, and - in general - the application of the scientific method. This, of course, also involves logical, valid, and sound arguments, an understanding and awareness of what axioms are involved, etc.

Reasonable People™ would be wrong.  I'm from the american south.  We're big on jesus down there.  That was the indoctrination I received.  It just never took.  Too well educated.

By catholics, no less. Reckon it made me a nicer or kinder person. Is this what that looks like in your estimation? Cunt.

(January 19, 2024 at 10:18 pm)neil Wrote: I think I have a better grasp of this in terms of scientific knowledge, because with art it can be a matter of subjectivity, interpretation, opinion, etc.

To me, scientific knowledge includes & entails me, myself, conducting and observing the test, study, experiment, and/or analysis; scientific knowledge is not anyone else dictating to me what it is, whether it's religion, the government, some award involving fame and monetary reward (e.g. Nobel prize), corporations, wealthy individuals, celebrities, or the media.

Even that's not enough, though; for example, there needs to be repetition producing the same results, or a statistical trend or value, comparison to results from other sources & peer review, guidance from subject matter experts (e.g. taking a college course in the scientific field or area), it essentially has to be something that's falsifiable, and - in general - the application of the scientific method. This, of course, also involves logical, valid, and sound arguments, an understanding and awareness of what axioms are involved, etc.

I certainly hope that scientific knowledge can rise to the level you describe. That's the ideal.

Sad to say, in the world we have now science is often done with commercial ends in mind. Or political. I read a long article recently on the science behind anti-depressant medication and the theory of serotonin imbalance as a cause of depression. In recent years it has come out that for-profit companies were shockingly dishonest about the results of their research. Millions of people are on drugs which have serious side-effects and perform just as well as placebos. This was intentional deceit. 

Likewise all the Covid stuff, although bringing that up is likely to open a can of ideological worms. 

So anyway, I agree that science-type knowledge has the potential to be objective. Perhaps someday society will allow that. 

As for me and myself conducting and observing the test -- how many times does this really happen? I mean, what percentage of scientific results widely accepted as true do we really test at home? 

As for the arts -- I agree completely that the kinds of things we learn from them are not the empirical reproducible type of data that science gives. Nonetheless I feel quite sure that subjective, interpretative, opinion-based input is pretty much essential for understanding the world and, in particular, oneself.

(January 19, 2024 at 11:59 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Millions of people are on drugs which have serious side-effects and perform just as well as placebos. This was intentional deceit.

Evidence please.

(January 19, 2024 at 9:49 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(January 19, 2024 at 9:35 pm)Ahriman Wrote: Why would education teach people to be more kind and compassionate? And what's wrong with pain?

As for pain, I'd say that's intrinsically a bad thing, which we always want to avoid. It is good insofar as it's a warning sign that something is going wrong. But the ability to endure it when necessary is also a sign of strength. 

Remember that in Greek mythology there is a good Eris and a bad Eris -- the goddess of conflict. How we go about this conflict is important. Even if there's no chance of improving the other person's thinking, it is important to me that we engage in a way which shows our own best qualities. 

Do you have any arguments as to why it's better not to be kind?

None that would make me not sound like an asshole. But pain is inevitable. It has nothing to do with being nice to people. If being hateful helps mitigate suffering (whether in the short term or long term) then it's better to be hateful.

(January 19, 2024 at 1:39 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Education is teaching a person how to think.  Indoctrination has a specific goal in what it wants a person to think/believe.

Indoctrination has it's place in education. Math, geography, spelling are a few examples.

(January 20, 2024 at 11:17 am)brewer Wrote:

(January 19, 2024 at 11:59 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Millions of people are on drugs which have serious side-effects and perform just as well as placebos. This was intentional deceit.

Evidence please.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/01/17/...nt-coffin/

(January 19, 2024 at 2:43 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Education opens doors; indoctrination slams them shut

Not true.    Much of the useful things people learn, in addition to questionable things, are inculcated through indoctrination.


Education is required to validate substances of  indoctrination.     but IMHO majority of the people have neither the time nor the inclination for that kind of education, and accept indoctrination as a necessity under their circumstances to achieve the goals they seek through “education”.

I think a third element often overlooked is self indoctrination.    Many people condition themselves to think in a way that seems to be in congruence with their preferred belief system, or reassuringly reinforce their preferred belief system, without any external source of indoctrination.    This kind of self indoctrination often masquades as “independent thinking”.

(January 20, 2024 at 2:11 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(January 19, 2024 at 1:39 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Education is teaching a person how to think.  Indoctrination has a specific goal in what it wants a person to think/believe.

Indoctrination has it's place in education. Math, geography, spelling are a few examples.

I checked the definition on Merriam Webster and was a little surprised.

Quote:1
: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
2
: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH

Indoctrinate means "brainwash" to many people, but its meaning isn't always so negative. When the verb first appeared in English in the 17th century, it simply meant "to teach"—a meaning linked closely to its source, the Latin verb docēre, which also means "to teach." (Other offspring of docēre include docile, doctor, document, and, of course, doctrine). By the 19th century, indoctrinate was being used in the sense of teaching someone to fully accept only the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group.

I have always used it in the first sense, which is close to "brainwash." But in the second sense it's certainly necessary for education. Memorizing one's multiplication tables is good indoctrination.

(January 20, 2024 at 7:49 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(January 20, 2024 at 11:17 am)brewer Wrote: Evidence please.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/01/17/...nt-coffin/

Wow, try again with something not limited to psychiatry and with someone (Robert Whitaker) that holds actual medical degrees and does not approach the issue with bias. I thought you were a critical thinker.

https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/myths/ma...erica.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_in_America#Reception

From the site that you provided, the article by Robert Whitaker, why did he focus on only one study (and you only one article)? Um.. maybe because it supported his bias? The authors do this repeatedly in multiple articles/study reviews.  

From the site that you provided, Joanna Moncrieff, MD  talks about side effects "Thankfully the more severe effects are probably rare" (note probably, no statistic): https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/02/cha...pressants/

One link in the counterpunch article refers to treatment with St Johns wort when discussing 'less effective than placebo'. Do I need to point out why this is ridiculous? : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11939866/

A comparison of blood letting to medication for depression treatment, false equivalence.

I didn't read much more, it was not worth my time. I'll also counter with this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK361016/

Since you picked psychiatric medications I'll admit that there are some research issues and potential side effect issues. If Whitaker (and his camp) are attempting to say the mental illness medication should not be the only vehicle used for treatment, I agree. I would expect that from psychologists (most of his cohorts).

Your claim that drugs which have serious side-effects and perform just as well as placebos was quite broad. Would you like to select some other drug classes where the effect is not a subjective measurement (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression), like reducing blood pressure, reducing heart fibrillation, eliminating infection, ...........