If objectivity isn’t possible, the why should we listen to your commentary on anything? Are you more empowered to speak, whereas others are less empowered? If so, why is this the case?
No one is more or less empowered, as is demonstrated by your freedom to comment and question. And, the presenter did not exclude themself from the ;'objectivity trap.' However, your questions and posture is not curious, but contrarian. So, chill.
What a shit take. A moment of silence for those naive souls who still think “diversity” is just about simple things like new foods, and not about things as fundamental as removing objectivity (and therefore to an extent, order) from society.
Except that the scientific method (and its focus on the value of objectivity) has a pretty good track record as an effective tool for us (certainly flawed and biased) humans to make sense of our world. Simply look at the technology around us. Meanwhile, the worldview that centers power dynamics and associated discourses over objectivity has pretty much no track record for: 1) creating long lasting positive change 2) making sense of much.
@Morrison Donovan According to Howard A. Doughty’s 2006 article Critical Thinking vs. Critical Consciousness: “A third [form of critical thinning] are the analytical techniques that comprise a set of instructions about "how to think" in accordance with the scientific method and technological rationality. Finally, there is radical criticism that interrogates every kind of inquiry and knowledge (including science) to reveal the human interests that they serve.” To care about objectivity is not to dismiss the individual biases of each scientist, but rather, to value viewpoint diversity, empiricism and academic freedom as ways to counteract individual biases. Those who subscribe to the later radical skepticism appear to value “lived experiences” over more empirical sources of knowledge and seem to have no qualms about emphasizing politics and their brand of activism over objectivity, indeed. In other words, those who favor the “critical consciousness” will be very critical of science and our inability as humans to understand objective truth, but are not so critical about their own power dynamics-centered view of the world. They are quick to dismiss dissenting opinions based on bogus and difficult to quantify claims about implicit biases (including claims about internalized oppression). By relying on standpoint epistemology but dismissing those from marginalized communities with dissenting opinions as internalized oppressors, they render their claims unfalsifiable.
My argument is that if you value objectivity you also value viewpoint diversity and empiricism as part of the skepticism already built into the scientific process. While no scientist (or human!) is immune to biases, the scientific process takes this into account. The “critical consciousness” perspective as applied today-in contrast-lacks the ability to be self-corrective. To start with, the implicit association test has very poor validity and reliability, and this is in a lab setting. To dismiss views that do not align with the critical consciousness based on claims related to implicit biases or “internalized oppression” (as has happened multiple times in academia in the last half decade or so) is problematic. I think it is valuable to attempt to understand and study topics related to oppression/marginalization, of course. But talking about standpoint theory specifically, who is allowed to challenge claims if authority is based on identity but members of marginalized communities with dissenting views are just as likely to be dismissed? In other words, if authority is based on: a) identity b) the acceptance of the main premises surrounding this worldview-in practice, who is allowed to challenge this worldview? In that regard, the scientific method is superior due to the fact that-in spite of the biases of individual scientists-it has the ability to self-correct. With regards to paradigm shifts: you may think this highlights scientists’ tendency to make mistakes, but it also says much about the scientific method’s flexibility.
The Bible reveals that the dark Black people (Ham) destroy the Europeans (Japheth) in the end! Ezekiel 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, Ham Ezekiel 39:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamongog. Ezekiel 39:15 And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog. Ezekiel 39:16 And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land. Ham was not cursed. He triumphs along with the Hebrew Israelites in the end. Japheth's menstealer descendants [Gog and Magog] are destroyed forever!
I’m confused. Are you arguing that objectivity is inherently a myth and nothing is ever truly objective or are you arguing that some things are framed as objective but truly aren’t and serve to perpetuate inequality? The latter I agree with, the former I don’t. Some things are true whether or not someone chooses to believe them and regardless of their social and political implications.
Decisions involving serious situations should be done with little emotion. Doing the correct thing does not always align with your experiences and "your truth". That's why you see some people making mistake after mistake and wonder why they got where they are. For example, you take an easy job over a more challenging position. The requirements for each position are the same, and you are qualified for both. The easy job pays less and you get more time off, so less pay. The other has long hours, weekend overtime, and is physically demanding, pays a lot. You pick the easy one, now you mad because your friend took the hard position and is driving a new car and has a new house. You chose poorly.
objectivity is the foundation of spiritual progress and emotional healing. it's totally necessary. emotions are important, but those alone don't always tell us the truth about a situation. seeking objectivity (taking on another viewpoint, examining all sides) can, for instance, inform us we're being abused / mistreated / misled when our emotions are clouded.
TAMU Core Values · EXCELLENCE · INTEGRITY · LEADERSHIP · LOYALTY · RESPECT · SELFLESS SERVICE. Our current profane and racially slurred team entrance song (Power/Kanye W) at Kyle Field best represents which of these? Should Texas A&M not strive to be part of the solution and not the problem?
@@MALLYGEEZ1 have you not seen people get fired for not wearing masks or taking the vaccine. Their anti white narrative. Kids going to drag shows defunding the police rising crime in places like Detroit Los Angeles Chicago to name a few. Rising inflation when it comes to gas food and many other things. Their have even been good plants that were destroyed
Another installment in the say nothing video series brought to you by the makers of vomit bags
Haha yes! These videos are so empty of substance. It's such nonsense I love them!
Yes, I was curious how she was going to tie all she said to white supremacy. Still waiting 😂
If objectivity isn’t possible, the why should we listen to your commentary on anything?
Are you more empowered to speak, whereas others are less empowered? If so, why is this the case?
No one is more or less empowered, as is demonstrated by your freedom to comment and question. And, the presenter did not exclude themself from the ;'objectivity trap.'
However, your questions and posture is not curious, but contrarian.
So, chill.
What a shit take.
A moment of silence for those naive souls who still think “diversity” is just about simple things like new foods, and not about things as fundamental as removing objectivity (and therefore to an extent, order) from society.
real smooth-brains LUL
Yes, no one is truly objective but that doesn't mean one shouldn't strive for objectivity AND objectivity has absolutely nothing to do with race.
Except that the scientific method (and its focus on the value of objectivity) has a pretty good track record as an effective tool for us (certainly flawed and biased) humans to make sense of our world. Simply look at the technology around us. Meanwhile, the worldview that centers power dynamics and associated discourses over objectivity has pretty much no track record for: 1) creating long lasting positive change 2) making sense of much.
@Morrison Donovan According to Howard A. Doughty’s 2006 article Critical Thinking vs. Critical Consciousness:
“A third [form of critical thinning] are the analytical techniques that comprise a set of instructions about "how to think" in accordance with the scientific method and technological rationality. Finally, there is radical criticism that interrogates every kind of inquiry and knowledge (including science) to reveal the human interests that they serve.”
To care about objectivity is not to dismiss the individual biases of each scientist, but rather, to value viewpoint diversity, empiricism and academic freedom as ways to counteract individual biases. Those who subscribe to the later radical skepticism appear to value “lived experiences” over more empirical sources of knowledge and seem to have no qualms about emphasizing politics and their brand of activism over objectivity, indeed. In other words, those who favor the “critical consciousness” will be very critical of science and our inability as humans to understand objective truth, but are not so critical about their own power dynamics-centered view of the world. They are quick to dismiss dissenting opinions based on bogus and difficult to quantify claims about implicit biases (including claims about internalized oppression). By relying on standpoint epistemology but dismissing those from marginalized communities with dissenting opinions as internalized oppressors, they render their claims unfalsifiable.
My argument is that if you value objectivity you also value viewpoint diversity and empiricism as part of the skepticism already built into the scientific process. While no scientist (or human!) is immune to biases, the scientific process takes this into account. The “critical consciousness” perspective as applied today-in contrast-lacks the ability to be self-corrective. To start with, the implicit association test has very poor validity and reliability, and this is in a lab setting. To dismiss views that do not align with the critical consciousness based on claims related to implicit biases or “internalized oppression” (as has happened multiple times in academia in the last half decade or so) is problematic.
I think it is valuable to attempt to understand and study topics related to oppression/marginalization, of course. But talking about standpoint theory specifically, who is allowed to challenge claims if authority is based on identity but members of marginalized communities with dissenting views are just as likely to be dismissed? In other words, if authority is based on: a) identity b) the acceptance of the main premises surrounding this worldview-in practice, who is allowed to challenge this worldview?
In that regard, the scientific method is superior due to the fact that-in spite of the biases of individual scientists-it has the ability to self-correct. With regards to paradigm shifts: you may think this highlights scientists’ tendency to make mistakes, but it also says much about the scientific method’s flexibility.
@@ProkofNY very well said. Spot on.
'No one is truly objective'. Sure. 2+2=17 if you want to believe that. 4 is just so dull and racist.
Easily exceeding the meaning of madness...
R.
The Bible reveals that the dark Black people (Ham) destroy the Europeans (Japheth) in the end! Ezekiel 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, Ham
Ezekiel 39:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamongog.
Ezekiel 39:15 And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog.
Ezekiel 39:16 And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land.
Ham was not cursed. He triumphs along with the Hebrew Israelites in the end. Japheth's menstealer descendants [Gog and Magog] are destroyed forever!
I’m confused. Are you arguing that objectivity is inherently a myth and nothing is ever truly objective or are you arguing that some things are framed as objective but truly aren’t and serve to perpetuate inequality? The latter I agree with, the former I don’t. Some things are true whether or not someone chooses to believe them and regardless of their social and political implications.
the internet has given a voice to everyone.
including people who really shouldn't have one.
This! This is honestly such a genius scam!
Captain obvious. This is a long mansplain.
Hey this Woman is Anti-Science!
Decisions involving serious situations should be done with little emotion. Doing the correct thing does not always align with your experiences and "your truth". That's why you see some people making mistake after mistake and wonder why they got where they are. For example, you take an easy job over a more challenging position. The requirements for each position are the same, and you are qualified for both. The easy job pays less and you get more time off, so less pay. The other has long hours, weekend overtime, and is physically demanding, pays a lot. You pick the easy one, now you mad because your friend took the hard position and is driving a new car and has a new house. You chose poorly.
objectivity is the foundation of spiritual progress and emotional healing. it's totally necessary.
emotions are important, but those alone don't always tell us the truth about a situation. seeking objectivity (taking on another viewpoint, examining all sides) can, for instance, inform us we're being abused / mistreated / misled when our emotions are clouded.
Dismal.
TAMU Core Values · EXCELLENCE · INTEGRITY · LEADERSHIP · LOYALTY · RESPECT · SELFLESS SERVICE. Our current profane and racially slurred team entrance song (Power/Kanye W) at Kyle Field best represents which of these? Should Texas A&M not strive to be part of the solution and not the problem?
The person in the video seems like a nice fella
Kinda a jewish take imo.
You don’t have to push the democrats agenda
What is the Democrat agenda?
@@MALLYGEEZ1 do you not know have you not been paying attention?
@@robertbonds6680
No! What is it?
@@MALLYGEEZ1 have you not seen people get fired for not wearing masks or taking the vaccine. Their anti white narrative. Kids going to drag shows defunding the police rising crime in places like Detroit Los Angeles Chicago to name a few. Rising inflation when it comes to gas food and many other things. Their have even been good plants that were destroyed
Diversity can be objectively good
Thank you for creating and posting this video. ❤️❤️❤️