Re: Staggering Death rate for black pregnant women

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxx> 08/31/99 09:56AM >>>
At 06:36 PM 8/30/99 -0400, Andy wrote:

>Your notions of "grievance industries" and what-not are high rhetoric on
>right-wing radio programs like Rush Limbaugh or the Doctor Laura show, but
>they don't cut muster on a listserv where the participants know better --
>and know you should know better.


Well, even the bible says soemthing about seeing a saw dust in the eyes of
your brethern but not seeing a plank in one's own - if that means anything
to you.  It's easy to criticize others, much harder to be self-reflexive.

((((((((((((

Charles: Since you are championing self-criticism, what is your self-criticism ?

((((((((9


Unless of course you assume that you "know better" because you have some
sort of divive connection to the "right" ideas and ultimately - the truth.

((((((((

Charles: It could be Andy has an atheist scientist connection to the correct ideas and truth.

The notion of "knowing better" and having the right idea is not the monopoly of deists. For example, evolutionists assert that they have the right ideas, contra many Christian deists. Right now it in Kansas it is the deists who are playing the phony responsible role of skeptics.  All kinds of atheist scientists claim to have the right idea and know better than others about all kinds of subjects. Skepticism is not the central epistemological truth, except in Hume or freshman bourgeois philosophy classes.

((((((((((



>
>So you have not honestly answered my question. Since the facts and logic
>are not on your side,

sez who?

(((((((((((

Charles: Sez lots of people.

(((((((((((


I ask you again: what is your motive in denying the
>racist structure of the United States? It must be an ulterior one, and all
>I ask for is some straight shooting. Why cloak your ideology in
>scientistic obfuscation?



OK, Andy if that makes you happy.....

I've sinned, I am a scientaholics, guilty of following the imperialist path
and being the Reagan incarnate. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.   I
beg for your forgiveness and ask for leniency in your punishment.  I am
ready to follow your twelve-step program to the end and renounce all
alegiances except that to the Party.

(((((((((((

Charles: Not that easy. As someone said to me the other day. You need a reeduation camp. :>). Not only that an apology (sarcastic and insincere at that)  is nothing. You need to change your conduct .

((((((((((



Are you satisfied now?

((((((((((

Charles: I'm satisfied that you have made a ridiculous "defense" of your statements. It is satisfying that your form and content are in unity: ridiculous substantive arguments ridiculously argued by you.


(((((((((((


>I believe you must have a very low opinion of our
>intelligence (or a very high opinion of your own).
>

I would not phrase it in such a way, i do not like the word "intelligence"
or using the plural form when taking about oneself  - but that is what it
boils down to.  Frankly, most what you have written to this thread would
not pass Research Methods 101, as far as I can tell.  Lest you wonder -
scientific research is about constant questonning of provisionally accepted
facts (the falsification thing, if you will) - not ex cathedra
pronouncements of politically correct truths.

((((((((

Charles: So much the worse for (bourgeois) Research Methods 101. Science ( which is a unity of research and practice) does not just question its theoretical foundations. Science does not start from scratch constantly or continuously, but accumulates a body of theory upon which it relies and presumes to be true in much of its activities. The theory is not beyond questioning, but your implication that the main relation of science to its theories is questioning them is NONSENSE. Most of the practice of physics is based upon treating its main theories as true, not questioning them. Your reduction of science to skepticism is a misrepresentation. Science has critical thinking, which can be negative or positive criticism.

The theories you are questioning on this thread have been questioned before you did, and they stood up to that questioning well, just as they are standing up to your questions swimmingly.

Charles Brown