Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Israel vs genocide

2009-02-27T21:33:23Z

ConservaCollege: /* My viewpoints */ new section

This looks a lot like an essay page. Would someone mind changing it to say that? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)

== My viewpoints ==

being a bit of an Israeli myself I hope I don't come off as biased but I just wanted to nitpick some things:

* Israel had some part in the cause of the Qassam rocket fire, now I know this is a pretty weak argument but the overall rejection of Gaza given it's opportunities for breading Terrorism is kinda negligent on Israel's part.

* The lack of Israel to send money to rebuild Gaza after it's raid is also pretty silly because that only helps to breed more hate and terrorism

I don't know the essay just seemed to portray Israel in some sort of eternal struggle and being completely innocent which isn't really the case :/

--[[User:ConservaCollege|ConservaCollege]] 16:33, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Sigmund Freud

2009-02-27T21:04:27Z

ConservaCollege: /* Regarding some Errors */

Not sure how important it is that he was an atheist, though it could be mentioned in relation to that debate he had with C.S. Lewis. Also, a citation about the euthanasia thing would be useful.

== Prof R C Tallis ==

Can you explain how a Professor of Geriatric Medicine is an expert in psychology( or even science--as opposed to medicine or geriatrics)? If not I really think that reference is inappropriate and should be removed. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:39, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Now he is being used to support mere gossip. Weakening the claim does not make him a better source for its veracity, but it does make the claim entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. “Some have charged X with Y” is nothing but gossip and should be immediately removed as it violates the commandments. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Seeing no explanation, I will remove it as gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Popper ==

Actually now that I look at it I think the comment about Popper should also be removed, since the opinions of philosophers are not relevant to what is or is not science (as per this comment [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Isaac_Newton&diff=prev&oldid=26137] ), but to be clear that I am acting in good faith I figured I’d put this on the talk page to avoid any appearance that I was engaging in an edit war or some other forbidden behavior.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:If Popper isn't a good source on what is or is not science I'm not sure who would be. Some of the end of this article is a bit of a stretch, at least the part about no experiments showing any merit of his work. There are many studies showing that psychoanalysis can be a useful treatment. But that has little to do with Freud's ideas about psychosexual stages or id/ego/superego. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tried cleaning it up a bit to reflect reality. Popper is defiantly a worthy source for the discussion of what is and is not science. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That's much better. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I, personally, would tend to agree with both of you, Popper should be usable as a source for what is or is not science. But, I don’t make the rules here. See the comment I linked to above . Philosophers of science are not relevant sources when dealing with science. The views of philosophers are opinions when it comes to science (see here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Isaac_Newton&diff=next&oldid=27318] ). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Eh we make the rules on pages that have yet to be discovered and put through the CP intellectual downgrade. Let Schlafly come and say Popper doesn't know anything first, I don't want to proactively dumb down articles myself :).[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: The Popper reference is useful because it helps explain that Freud's work was never scientific. Otherwise, people might think that it was scientific, but has merely been superceded by modern brain research. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why is Popper, a philosopher and not a scientist, an appropriate reference here? Or is it now the case that philosophers of science are relevant sources when it comes to science? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Freud was not a scientist either. Freud was a charlatan. Popper is cited for a point in the philosophy of science, and he was an expert on that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Last time I cited a philosopher of science for a point about just that I was told that it was not relevant, in fact I was told that it was not relevant by you. Why is philosophy of science relevant for the current (or past) state of science here, but not in the case of Newton? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Popper is usually accepted to have created one of the better definitions of science - although personally, I prefer Lakatos. But it's probably fair to say that Freudianism isn't science. However, I disagree with the implication that this makes Freud's work useless. Psychology is a social science, and most social sciences aren't scientific in the strictly Popperesque sense, but they're still useful. And strictly speaking, medicine often isn't exactly falsifiable, either. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:Bah, 99 percent of the work that I do in psychology is more closely aligned with [[Karl Popper]] and the [[scientific method]] then a great deal of the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry :). [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of psychology is useful. I am not putting down psychology. But Freud's work was crap, and caused more harm than good. His theories aren't useful for anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::Freud’s work may or may not have value, but that doesn’t explain why Popper’s view is relevant here. If you have a source for the claim Freud’s work “caused more harm than good” or that “His theories aren't useful for anything”, I’d love to see them. But, your dislike for the man or his theory’s does not justify your use of this source.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:24, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Newton was a real scientist, Freud was not. Popper was a respected philosopher of science who lived at the same time as Freud. Popper's view tells what knowledgeable people thought of Freud while he was alive. I don't get your analogy to Newton. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Your evidence for Freud was not a scientist is a philosopher of science. You are appealing to the authority of a philosopher of science. You have in the past said philosophers of science are irrelevant as an authority when dealing with science (that Freud is not a scientist is a claim about science). Unless Popper is relevant because what philosophers of science have to say about science is relevant, he is not relevant here (what smart people think about science is even less relevant than what philosophers of science think about science). Is what philosophers of science have to say about science relevant?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know what you are arguing about. The article says, "Freud's theories are viewed as unscientific because they lack falsifiability". That is a correct statement, and it belongs in the article. Popper is a good source to support that statement. If you dispute the statement, then tell us why and provide us with sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I’m not arguing, I’m asking a question, one which I have yet to see an answer to. I’ve tried asking it in context, to explain why I’m asking, but it seems to get lost when I try to do it that way, so let me drop the context and ask the question straight out: Are philosophers of science appropriate sources to use as support for claims about science?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: If you want an expert opinion on quantum chromodynamics, I wouldn't pay much attention to the philosophers. If the question is some scientific claim related to Freudian theory, such as whether the symbolic interpretation of dreams can predict behavior, then that is not really a question that philosophy answers. But Popper is being used her for a question of philosophy, not the merits of any scientific ideas. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Popper is being used here to pass judgment on whether or not something (actually a number of somethings) is sciencntific. Not a question of philosophy. A question of philosophy would be “is falsifiability a necessary feature of a scientific theory? or “What is falsifiability?” (neither of which are settled questions). You could write, “Popper said falsifiability is a necessary feature of science, and under his definition Freud’s theories were not falsifiable” – but that would be about Popper not Freud. To say X is unscientific as evidenced by Popper’s claims is to say that Popper is a good source for what is science, not what some philosophers believe science to be. He is being used here to make a claim about science not about philosophy. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: I think that whether or not something is scientific is a philosophical question, so I guess we disagree on that. But whether it is or not, the cite to Popper is proper. You've strayed from the topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Thank you for taking the time to try to explain your position to me. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Unconscious Before Freud ==
Reginod, why did you remove this?
:See also: Whyte, Lancelot Law: [http://www.amazon.com/Unconscious-Before-Freud-Lancelot-Whyte/dp/0312828705 ''The Unconscious Before Freud''] (Palgrave Macmillan, 1979)
It is a respectable book, and seems like a good source to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::i think he thought the citation was the book review on amazon.com which it links to, not the book. I was going to add it back.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::That’s exactly why I removed it, a link to an amazon.com page about a book is not a good way to support a claim—a cite to the book (along with a page number) would be fine, or a link to a page which actually has the claim on it. But, as it stood the link did not support the claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I removed the claims that some of Freud's new ideas have been shown to be correct. If it were really true, then some book or paper could be cited where the ideas were shown to be correct. The available references say the opposite. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I’m not sure why this was addressed to me (or if it was, but it seems to have been), but I think that’s great—I’m all for removing unsourced claims and I think a healthy dose of that would do many articles here a great deal of good. Actually I’m fairly happy with how the article looks now. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Religions and Freud ==
Freud has imaginative theories about religions and there they are comming from (Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics). Should these be critisized here? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 10:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding some Errors ==

There seem to be some errors on this page.

Although I detest Freud's anti-religious views (and cocaine use), to say his work is considered pseudoscience is pretty outlandish. In Science there is a difference between Quantitative and Qualitative evidence. Now because of the nature of psychology, much of his work falls under the the realm of qualitative evidence, which uses characteristics instead of numbers to prove something.

The "falsifiability" lies with the results of his patients which is, quite frankly, world renowned as his work has lead to the help of many including those who were clinically ill. If his work didn't help the patients out and had left them brainwashed/traumatized etc. it would of been rejected. The massive spread of psychoanalysis is due to its effectiveness and it has gone through many scientific studies/advances etc.

Also I'm not certain the source claiming he falsified his theories is reliable because up to that point almost no one had such theories besides him :/

But hey as someone who studied Psychology and had to write a large essay on Freud I thought I could just point some things out. :)

--[[User:ConservaCollege|ConservaCollege]] 16:04, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Sigmund Freud

2009-02-27T21:03:35Z

ConservaCollege: /* Regarding some Errors */ new section

Liberal logic

2009-02-27T20:40:34Z

ConservaCollege: Typical liberal logic I keep hearing

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by [[liberal]]s that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

#assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see [[appeal to authority]])
#assuming something is false, merely because "only" a conservative said it (see [[ad hominem]])
#claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents
# frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in demanding censorship of [[intelligent design]] while simultaneously citing the resulting silence as proof against it<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]].</ref>
# insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it<ref>[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 Bryn Mawr report on marijuana]. Many commentators said the reporter had no justification for his views since he had never tried marijuana. Examples of such liberal logic included: "There are pros and cons to everything under the sun. That dosen't (sic) mean that you shouldn't try it all...Besides marijuana is so much more beneficial then everyone realizes." which was smartly replied to by another commenter with: "Following your logic, obviously there are PROS to:
*jumping off the Empire State Building
*anorexia
*drunk driving
*smoking crack or meth
*child molestation
*Shall I keep going?...
Sorry, but not only is your drug-induced logic utterly flawed, but you don't exactly exude intelligence. Forgive me if I don't join your crusade." </ref>
# personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
# criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home.</ref>
# insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.
# no matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
# belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# never admit shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often tell others they should be ashamed of themselves
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
# Highly implausible assumption like "if [[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis, then would you support it?" (without any consideration of alternatives).
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# [[free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while censorship for anything is [[Christian]]
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, but choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk
# requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, when actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# claiming that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# claiming that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.<ref>http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml</ref>
# claiming that premarital sex is fine
# claiming that increasing taxes must increase government revenue,<ref>http://capwiz.com/acu/issues/alert/?alertid=11534766</ref> when often people just work less and revenues then decline
# denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime
# Even though the [[Supreme Court]] overrules precedents every year by 5-4 votes, [[Roe v. Wade]] cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# The pronoun "he" has been used to include men and women collectively for centuries, but [[liberals]] find that illogical today.
# Getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong but stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.
# The [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
# It is a right to dissent against [[American]] policy but never take a stand if that [[logic]] moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.
# Stating "God of the gaps" to justify atheism
# The wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty. Though, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit. <ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2008/07/24/anwrs_place_in_our_energy_picture ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture] Townhall.com, July 24, 2008</ref>
# It's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459 Freedom and the View From Obamaland] American Spectator, July 1, 2008</ref>
# It is okay to demean an African-American if they are a [[conservative]], but if they are a [[liberal]] then you are a [[racist]].
#It is okay to demean a woman if they are a [[conservative]], but if they are [[liberal]] then you are [[sexist]].

==References==
<references/>

{{Liberalism}}
[[category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:oxymoron]]