MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
A Sample Treasure Hunt Level : Level One (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
I am not too sure about the reliability and/or discrimination of six year olds.

In Applied Epistemology, six-year-olds are the first people we turn to. Only adults can argue themselves out of the obvious.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
In Applied Epistemology, six-year-olds are the first people we turn to. Only adults can argue themselves out of the obvious.

As a grandfather with one grandson currently just coming up to six and two other grandchildren who fairly recently have been six, my experience does not match your optimism. My experience is that six-year olds have boundless imagination and can easily convince themselves (or be convinced) of almost anything.

In one post, Ishmael, you asked who did the Mongols look more like if not the Native Americans. I went back to retrieve the sentence to quote it but you seem to have edited it out.
But to answer that question: .. if you choose to swallow all the Fomenko crap then, obviously, you should expect that the Mongols will look like the Russians.

The most obvious differences between the two are:
1. The high percentage of epicanthic folds amongst Mongols compared to a very low percentage among Native Americans.
2. The aquiline nose of Native Americans in contrast to the snub nose of Mongolians.
QED it seems to me.
Send private message Send e-mail
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
The most obvious differences between the two are:
1. The high percentage of epicanthic folds amongst Mongols compared to a very low percentage among Native Americans.
2. The acquiline nose of Native Americans in contrast to the snub nose of Mongolians.
QED it seems to me
.

I think the Inuit look most like the Mongols.
http://www.sciencepoles.org/pics/people/inuit_woman_or.jpg

Maybe the Inuit are the most related to the Mongols and it got too cold for horses so they switched to wolves and whales.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How different they are. Compared to what?

Each other, of course

Wow, a whole chapter of Ludwig's Big Book of Applied Epistemology could be devoted to this one.

This is an instance of the Matter of Scale (or Measurement) again. Bernie, can you not see that things agree or differ only in a given context; and that the very same things can be the same in one respect and different in another? (That's why I asked for the context of 2 hands' variation in horses, for instance.)

It's about Family Resemblance.

My experience is that six-year olds have boundless imagination and can easily convince themselves (or be convinced) of almost anything.

I find it interesting that toddlers are never fooled by hiding something and saying "where's it gone?" They're relentlessly empirical and will check your lap and your pockets rather than believe things simply disappear.

I also find it interesting how soon they become adept liars.

Nevertheless, the 6-year-old represents straightforward understanding without guile, artifice or, as Ishmael says, self-defeating introspection. Don't try to convince them of anything: just ask them what the Emperor is wearing.

The most obvious differences between the two are:
1. The high percentage of epicanthic folds amongst Mongols compared to a very low percentage among Native Americans.
2. The acquiline nose of Native Americans in contrast to the snub nose of Mongolians.
QED it seems to me.

Quite a stark illustration of one type of brain in action.

Two traits, specific enough to have technical names, are sufficient to claim "QED"?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
In one post, Ishmael, you asked who did the Mongols look more like if not the Native Americans. I went back to retrieve the sentence to quote it but you seem to have edited it out.

Yes because I realized that the question sends us down the rabbit hole of what constitutes a distinct race or national group or...etc. ad infinitum.

But to answer that question: .. if you choose to swallow all the Fomenko crap then...

I swallow crap only in selective morsels.

...obviously, you should expect that the Mongols will look like the Russians.

I don't "expect" them to look like anyone. They simply do look like Plains Indians -- about as much as they look like Koreans or Japanese.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

EndlesslyRocking wrote:
I think the Inuit look most like the Mongols.

You'll get no argument from me. I rather suspect they are one and the same people (in so far as ethnic distinctions of this sort are rational).

No one here has said the Mongols and Native Americans (Plains Indians) are identical or more alike than any other set of Asiatics traditionally defined as separate peoples. We simply say that the Mongols and Plains Indians are clearly related -- closely related.

Statements to the effect that they look "nothing alike" are irrationally contrarian. There are more similarities between myself and an Australian Aborigine than there are differences. One could not look at us and say we look, "Nothing Alike", though we are about as different from one another as human beings may get.

Clearly, Plains Indians are more alike to Mongols than Caucasians are alike to Mongols. On that everyone must surely agree and therefore it is time to dismiss the indefensible claim that the two groups of people look "nothing alike".

Maybe the Inuit are the most related to the Mongols and it got too cold for horses so they switched to wolves and whales.

Some here might say that you are close to "the truth". You're certainly on the cusp of grasping their model.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
Quite a stark illustration of one type of brain in action.

I thought the same.

We saw a shadow of this earlier with the importance Bernie expressly gave to "precision". And we saw something of my own approach when I suggested imprecision had its own value..

Unfortunately, the Thought Police deleted that revealing conversation.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'd be very happy to return the Thought Police to their box if you will all promise not to indulge in philosophical argy-bargy. And, Bernie, you have not been here quite long enough to be permitted usages such as

if you choose to swallow all the Fomenko crap

though you'd be welcome to say the same thing amusingly.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, quite agree Mick. Out of order. Apologies to Ishmael.

It came about, I guess, because I had just spent several exhausting hours reading Konstantin Sheiko's doctoral thesis which really does expose not merely the ludicrousness of Fomenko's pseudo-historical writing but also his underlying political agenda. I recommend it to all who may be even slightly inclined to think kindly of Gospodin Fomenko. Wiki has the URL. Just google Sheiko if you are interested.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Now there, Mr Crisp. Before you start making clever comments, I do think you should look back through the relevant posts. Had you done so you would have been very aware that Messrs Harper and Ishmael were maintaining that the Plains Indians and the Mongolian Nomads resembled each other. NB we are not talking here about any other characteristics - just plain physical resemblance.

So when I say that I had wanted to show the images side-by-side to show that they are different, it is quite clear that in this context I mean from each other.

Thus when you say

Bernie, can you not see that things agree or differ only in a given context;

My reply is : Of course I can. Do you take me for a fool?
That was the point of my reply to Ishmael "To each other", the implication being that he was ignoring the previous context.

Now when I went to school QED not only meant Quod erat demonstrandum but also "Quite Enough Done". It was in the second joking sense that I used it meaning to indicate that I felt that there was little to be gained from pursuing the issue further.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Quite a stark illustration of one type of brain in action.

One could also apply that comment to the following:

The Clarity of Imprecision
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
I recommend it to all who may be even slightly inclined to think kindly of Gospodin Fomenko. Wiki has the URL. Just google Sheiko if you are interested.

It's a funny sort of man who lets other people make up his mind, then encourages others to do the same.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
I had just spent several exhausting hours reading Konstantin Sheiko's doctoral thesis....

I too am finding the paper tiresome. No doubt your effort proved exhausting.

Was hard for me to just get past this sentence from the introduction;

"I conclude that Fomenko's version of the past is popular because he finds in history a simple and usable answer to the question of who the Russians are."

Now. There are a number of problems with this statement (aside from its poor grammatical construction). Here are two substantive problems.

    1. This explanation cannot possibly explain Fomenko's popularity in the West.
    2. The same critique can be made of conventional histories (doubtless, the same motive lies behind conventional histories)
.
Mick. I recomend you have a glance at this piece. I find much within it that smells. Take for instance this throw-away remark on page 12;

"Fonenko's interest in astronomy and its application to chronology caused him to undertake what would prove to be a commercially successful journey into popular history writing." [italics added]


Paragraph after paragraph denigrates Fomenko for no reason other than his popular success.

What a bunch of whiners.

Ok. It's getting boring.

Bernie. Can you tell me on what page I will find the author's substantive critique of Fomenko's findings and methods?

I'm on page 74 and I've yet to find it. Lost my stomach for the hunt.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick,

You will find a statement sure to interest you on page 76.

http://www.library.uow.edu.au/adt-NWU/uploads/approved/adt-NWU20050120.113353/public/02Whole.pdf

I can't copy paste the sentence. The text refers to a claim of Fomenko's with which I am not yet familiar. The paper states that Fomenko claims Judea and Israel were castes within a single state.

Interest you?

I thought so.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Just realized that this is a philosophy paper though, to my eyes, its content seems more appropriate to the sociology department.

What value can such a paper possibly have to what we discuss here? It takes as its premise that Fomenko has nothing of value to say on the subject of history. No time is spent establishing this claim.

How then can its content be invoked with the goal of dismissing Fomenko's arguments?

This paper epitomises all that is corrupt and irredeemable about the academy. I have less than no use for it. It is contemptible.

And this earns its author a Doctorate???

Indeed.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Page 5 of 6

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group