The GOP's Fake Doctor Council

[elganned]

You're talking to a wall, rb336. One of the defining characteristics of the conservative mind is it's incapacity to accommodate ambiguity. Certainty and constancy are vital in all things; uncertainty and mutability are anathama and utterly abhorrent. They only deal in "absolutes" because they are constitutionally unable to operate in the world without them--even when they aren't absolute.

There was a famous psychological experiment conducted years ago in which a drawing of what was clearly a dog was subtly changed over many frames until it was clearly a cat. Shape of the ears, tail, whiskers, snout, etc. were altered ever so slightly from frame to frame.

The series of pictures were shown to several groups of students, each time asking the test subjects to answer the question, "Is this a dog or a cat?"

Those students which were previously identified as "conservative" held onto the category of "dog" long past the point where those previously identified as "liberal" had abandoned it in favor of "cat", and at almost no time did any conservative student say, "I can't tell", which was a common response among liberal students in the middle course of the series.

The point of the example is that for the conservatives, it had to be one or the other. There was no middle ground to which they could comfortably retreat, and when in doubt they tended to resolve the problem in favor of precedent. It clearly wasn't a cat, yet, so it must still be a dog, even though it was impossible to ascertain any of the visually defining characteristics of "dog" which are generally accepted in the general population.

This outcome is not unexpected; after all, they are called conservatives because their first impulse is to conserve what currently exists, to preserve the status quo. Change is uncertain, and uncertainty is deadly and to be avoided at all cost.

[ccbatson]

Existents exist....A is a. The prime and irrefutable examples of absolutes. These axioms are the basis for all critical thinking [[and science).

[Lorax]

Problem is, you cannot extend this thinking [[or lack thereof) to interpersonal relationships, i.e. dealing with people.

This is yet another reason you cannot be a doctor. You could never administer proper medical care without weighing the gray areas of a diagnosis. Variables and a complex set of reactions to actions taken render this form of "thinking" in absolutes unacceptable.

With this metric, all cancers are identical, with identical reactions to identical forms of treatment. You see where this is leading.

[elganned]

Existents exist....A is a. The prime and irrefutable examples of absolutes. These axioms are the basis for all critical thinking [[and science).

The problem is that such "prime and irrefutable" axioms are few in number and only exist within a narrow range of fields, such as mathematics and physics, which is why you constantly refer back to them.

The rest of life wherein we spend our existence is broad, messy, ill-defined, ambiguous, and filled with contradiction. But we must move and reason as best we can in this soup of "maybes", because that's where we live.

Absolutes are fine, in their place. But that place is very small, and we can't live there.

[rb336]

The problem is that such "prime and irrefutable" axioms are few in number and only exist within a narrow range of fields, such as mathematics and physics, which is why you constantly refer back to them.

and why so many of his contemporaries despised Heisenberg, even before WWII, even while admitting to the correctness of his work

[[I am one who thinks it is likely that the guy whose equations made the atomic bomb possible was sabotoging the Nazi bomb effort, this due to some post-war reports that the efforts were stymied by a number of his minute mathematical errors throughout the project, and I find it hard to believe that Heisenberg made them accidentally)

[ccbatson]

That is not a problem at all, that is the basis for a rational argument. Start with the axioms and build from there.

[ccbatson]

Oh...btw, you realize that you just conceded the key point regarding absolutes, don't you?

[elganned]

Oh, they exist, Cc. But they are very few in number, exist only in very esoteric fields, and don't help with any of the issues we've been discussing.

But thank you for playing, and you win our home version.

[ccbatson]

A major concession on your part Elganned as most libs/progressives have the core conviction that there are NO absolutes. Apply the foundational nature of these axioms and you are on your way to rational objective critical thinking

[Lorax]

A major concession on your part Elganned as most libs/progressives have the core conviction that there are NO absolutes. Apply the foundational nature of these axioms and you are on your way to rational objective critical thinking

Liberals/progressives have at their core a conviction that there are no absolutes?

LOL!!!

Where do I begin?

How about evolution? How about science in general?

The disconnect is where so-called conservatives start from this position, and fan it out to include everything in life. This translates into a narrowmindedness and entrenched absolutism.

It's precisely this thinking that gives us Christofascism, or any other form of religious fundamentalism, including the Taliban amongst others.

It's by nature exclusionary- an exclusive world of haves against the have-nots.

Just chalk it up to another shape-shifting explaination for racism, elitism, and class warfare.

Not a good scene for anyone, especially a "doctor".

[elganned]

Apply the foundational nature of these axioms and you are on your way to rational objective critical thinking

What part of "exist only in very esoteric fields, and don't help with any of the [current] issues" was unclear to you? Point out the parts that puzzle you, so I can illuminate your benighted view.

[rb336]

A major concession on your part Elganned as most libs/progressives have the core conviction that there are NO absolutes. Apply the foundational nature of these axioms and you are on your way to rational objective critical thinking

Dictionary of Batsonia:

"rational objective critical thinking " -- thinking is only rational, objective, or critical if it upholds the preconceived ideas [[see Dictionary of Batsonia definition of "axiom") put forth by the Church of Objectivism, regardless of the factual accuracy

[Lorax]

Does anyone wonder what "Dr. Batts" does between posts?

I think he's objectifying his patient's charts and prescribing a dose of moral outrage with a partisan procedure calling for acrimony.

[ccbatson]

Ad hominem attack without a point to be made Lorax?

[Lorax]

Have you ever noticed that I address your "doctor" status in quotations?

What does that mean to you?

Thrill me with your acumen.

[ccbatson]

It means you are making a personal attack by questioning my credentials and competence...a violation of the forum rules in my opinion.

[Lorax]

It means you are making a personal attack by questioning my credentials and competence...a violation of the forum rules in my opinion.

Trust me, if I were going to verbally attack you, you'd know it.

You take it as an attack, I say you haven't proven you have any credentials by what you post here.

Nothing personal or "attack mode" about using quotations.

Even with your clipped, pedantic responses, you expose more and more of what kind of person you really are.

Thank you.

[ccbatson]

What is it that you have proven yourself to be Lorax, and how? Maybe I can follow your lead. As far as I can tell, the answer is nothing at all...but that is something you should disclose if you choose to.

[Lorax]

What is it that you have proven yourself to be Lorax, and how? Maybe I can follow your lead. As far as I can tell, the answer is nothing at all...but that is something you should disclose if you choose to.

This isn't about me, and I don't have anything to prove to anyone, least of all you.

You think I've proven myself to be "nothing" in your words.

Take a good look at yourself, "Doc" and turn that high-powered spotlight on yourself and take a look. Or are your afraid to?

You don't want to follow me- you're already following something that is far beyond hope.

[ccbatson]

You obviously choose not to disclose what I asked about...fair enough...though I wonder why, and what you fear.

[Lorax]

What's with the circular conversation?

What on earth are you talking about? Proving what?

That I know you're one of the forum moderators?

Everyone knows that.

You've taken it upon yourself to remove posts of mine you find offensive.

What role do you play?

The rare right wing viewpoint on an otherwise liberal forum?

Talk about honesty, let's get to it.

[ccbatson]

Hilarious...couple this [[your post #96) to the thread where I inquire about why you assume so much and we have proof positive of the folly of making assumptions and the consequences/toll it takes....Me, a moderator here...it is not as if the truth [[that I am not) isn't readily available for you to check before making yet another assumption.

[Lorax]

So your point, brought out by a longwinded diatribe of circular logic, professes to accuse me of assumptions? LOL!!

Show me one.

What you perceive to be an "assumption" is more like a reality check against what you've posted as pure nonsense.

If for no other reason, you could never round out a conversation on any topic by virtue of the pedantic, one-line drive by posting parade.

Quantity does not equate with quality. Try spending half as much time posting complete paragraphs, links, and, for chrissakes, a quote from the poster you're responding to ten posts back, if you want to be taken seriously.

But then again, you relish the odd-man out position you find yourself in, so I'm wasting my time.

[ccbatson]

Too easy Lorax...you assume me to be a moderator on Dyes...LOL.