FDA Does Intended Use violate the First Amendment?
- Thread starter curiousJan
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I went to a good public high school around 35 years ago.
My wife went to a catholic high school around 30 years ago.
I still can't get over the classes she had available to her at that time.
She was able to study things in various classes that I was never exposed to until college.
My high school didn't have any psychology courses, or philosophy courses.
And it sure as hell didn't have any logic courses.
Don't know how things are these days though.
:shrug:
A memorable assignment in Logic (college sophomore) was grabbing commercial and political ads and naming all the logical fallacies involved. :- )
My only exposure to logic in high school was geometry -- in which I got first an A, then a C, then an F, so clearly it wasn't taught WELL. And I'm really a hopeless doofus with higher math, so trying to get me to remember things by rote which made no sense to me in the first place... not optimal. Still, I'm pretty good at logic, or so say the various IQ tests I've taken in my life.
I did have an english elective called Mass Media, which got pretty deeply into the widespread brainwashing of the public by said media, particularly advertising -- which is deeply based in psychology -- the psychology of making people want things they don't have, and maybe can't afford -- if they think they *need* something, they'll find a way to afford it. I suspect this psychology is in play with all the "global warming" crap, to sell "hybrid" or electrical cars -- which cost more than their gas-guzzling counterparts.
Andria
I did have an english elective called Mass Media, which got pretty deeply into the widespread brainwashing of the public by said media, particularly advertising -- which is deeply based in psychology -- the psychology of making people want things they don't have, and maybe can't afford -- if they think they *need* something, they'll find a way to afford it. I suspect this psychology is in play with all the "global warming" crap, to sell "hybrid" or electrical cars -- which cost more than their gas-guzzling counterparts.
Andria
Suggest "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.My only exposure to logic in high school was geometry -- in which I got first an A, then a C, then an F, so clearly it wasn't taught WELL. And I'm really a hopeless doofus with higher math, so trying to get me to remember things by rote which made no sense to me in the first place... not optimal. Still, I'm pretty good at logic, or so say the various IQ tests I've taken in my life.
I did have an english elective called Mass Media, which got pretty deeply into the widespread brainwashing of the public by said media, particularly advertising -- which is deeply based in psychology -- the psychology of making people want things they don't have, and maybe can't afford -- if they think they *need* something, they'll find a way to afford it. I suspect this psychology is in play with all the "global warming" crap, to sell "hybrid" or electrical cars -- which cost more than their gas-guzzling counterparts.
Andria
And this is the logic they're missing....
... pointing to that 'one level thinking' I've mentioned before... don't ask the next question
And this is the logic they're missing....
... pointing to that 'one level thinking' I've mentioned before... don't ask the next question
That's exactly the thought that always pops into my head when I see one of those "Leaf" car commercials... just where the hell do they think electricity comes from?????
It'll be great when it's all solar... but we don't really believe that's ever gonna happen, do we? I mean... what about all those poor coal miners that'll be out of work???
Oh the bleeding hearts will have a field day with that one. 
Andria
@Kent C apropos one of your previous posts - you ever read Mercier and Sperber's "argumentative theory of reason"? theargumentativetheoryofreasoning - hugomercier
Is there a particular post you had in mind?
I am familiar with the type of reasoning in the link.... a full handling would be another thread :- ) or PM. Basically, I disagree with the main premise - "If reasoning evolved so that we can argue with others" - it conflates two separate functions - reasoning and communicating. Reason or logic is to take perceptions of reality and form concepts to come to valid conclusions upon which to act to enable one to survive.* Communication is to be able to pass information to, or accept information from, others.
I'm not saying that they aren't both important and can be connected, just that they are separate functions. And that combining them tends to invalidate reason - one of the main intents of much of the 'modern psychology' and modern philosophy, usually for socialistic vs. individualistic aims. IOW, to get people used to thinking in 'public health' terms for example, or more generally - in utilitarian - greatest good - type morality vs. individual rights morality.
*Here, if you know your philosophy - you'll see also a different orientation from the ‘Cartesian’ view of reasoning, as well. Basically and simplistically for communicating the idea
- "I perceive, therefore I am" vs. "I think, therefore I am"... But that's another 'book'
Strongly disagree that there's a political orientation to psychology - noting that there are strong arguments within the discipline regarding the political biases of individual academics. At the end of the day, too, everything in psychology resolves down to individual differences.
Another thread indeed
Another thread indeed
I did say "modern" psychology and "usually" ....and what I was speaking to is how psychology can tend to undermine perception - the basis of reason and therefore the basis of philosophies behind politics. Modern psychology is the 'mother' of the so-called 'self-esteem' movement (actually resulting in loss of self esteem from falsifying reality) - which has political consequences as well as psychological consequences.
Agree with the your other comments, though, although still interesting on what you chose to reply to
... perhaps because it may take another thread. lol....
Strongly disagree that there's a political orientation to psychology - noting that there are strong arguments within the discipline regarding the political biases of individual academics. At the end of the day, too, everything in psychology resolves down to individual differences.
Another thread indeed
Gentlemen this is all well and good in the general consideration of things. However in the realI did say "modern" psychology and "usually" ....and what I was speaking to is how psychology can tend to undermine perception - the basis of reason and therefore the basis of philosophies behind politics. Modern psychology is the 'mother' of the so-called 'self-esteem' movement (actually resulting in loss of self esteem from falsifying reality) - which has political consequences as well as psychological consequences.
Agree with the your other comments, though, although still interesting on what you chose to reply to
world it invites a punch in the nose from those who do not care about the civilizing effects
of the finer points concerning philosophy. If anything we in the trenches on the front line
need beans,ammo and, bandages. We can wax elegantly later.
regards
mike
Philosophy can be long term or it can be part of what you write your congressmen, state reps, etc. Have you written a note to the Attorney General of Iowa - Tom Miller - yet? I have. And a bunch of others as well. Informed your local vendors about the current situation? I have.
If you don't want to discuss the long term here, then don't, but don't attempt to censor those who do. And Smokey Joe would be one of that last people one should chide for 'not being in the trenches' - he dug those trenches!
I am not attempting do do no such thing. To you or Smokeyjoe.Re-read what I said.
I was not chiding anyone for anything. I was merely pointing out that when things are discussed at
a philosophical level it has to resonate enough for everyone involved. To imply I was trying to
belittle SmokeyJoe is way off base. I was merely trying to get you to realize talking over all
our heads does not help you or me.
Regards
Mike
I read what you said. The 'all well and good' and the 'real world' communicate what you intended. I disagree with the idea that what was said didn't have anything to do with 'the real world'. I reject the idea that theory and practical are unrelated.
And I was replying to SJ not you. You and someone else carried on a 'two person' conversation for quite a long time recently.... ok with me, just not interested or interested enough to attempt to comment on it either. And I don't think what I say is over anyone's head here. Although I may be mistaken - it happens
Well it is all well and good in the best meaning. I am not saying other wise. I was not calling you or anyone else out. I was implying that discussions at such a high level only make sense to thoseI read what you said. The 'all well and good' and the 'real world' communicate what you intended. I disagree with the idea that what was said didn't have anything to do with 'the real world'. I reject the idea that theory and practical are unrelated.
And I was replying to SJ not you. You and someone else carried on a 'two person' conversation for quite a long time recently.... ok with me, just not interested or interested enough to attempt to comment on it either. And I don't think what I say is over anyone's head here. Although I may be mistaken - it happens
that have the proper education to truly understand what's being implied. Descartes or Aristotle
and or Jim Beam,we still have to parse the meaning. I do not have infinite time and or resources
to to follow every rhetorical and or theoretical concept one can follow in all the byways these discussions
can branch off into.
Maybe my frustration in following the ball is taking it's toll. I certainly did not want to be insulting.
Regards
Mike
I read what you said. The 'all well and good' and the 'real world' communicate what you intended. I disagree with the idea that what was said didn't have anything to do with 'the real world'. I reject the idea that theory and practical are unrelated.
And I was replying to SJ not you. You and someone else carried on a 'two person' conversation for quite a long time recently.... ok with me, just not interested or interested enough to attempt to comment on it either. And I don't think what I say is over anyone's head here. Although I may be mistaken - it happens
Even when I don't always follow whatever conversation you're carrying on, I thoroughly enjoy your posts, and I always wonder, when I read them, if you are often accosted with the very stupid "You think too much!" I get that a lot, when I try to convey to others some of the thoughts I think.
About the only person I can speak to of some of those thoughts and NOT get that reaction, is my husband -- he looks like a biker from hell, but actually has quite a head on his shoulders. Andria
SJ's reply was @me and my reply was for him. If others find it interesting or intriguing, they will perhaps look further, perhaps learn something or ask their own questions. If others have no interest, most will just 'let it go'.
Not that much actually, and there's a difference between communicating on a philosophical level vs. a internal back and forth - think Woody Allen (or Taub in House MD. :- ) where nothing is ever decided upon, only more questions arise
I learned early on not to judge someone on looks. And I was a longshoreman. We had our share of bikers and bar brawls too, not that one begets the other :- ) but sometimes...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
