Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pocahontas and DNA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Your first source states:

    "Thus, the objectivity of any particular knowledge is (subjectively) rooted in
    the belief of a certain community of individuals that the knowledge they share
    describes reality objectively. According to modern understanding, e.g., [23], science
    is characterized by rigor of the methods and openness and exposition of the results
    for critical inspection and discussion. Thus, objectivity is interpreted as “having reality
    independent of the individual mind”. This is achieved by a continuous effort of
    inspecting the information by the “community mind”. Rigor and openness aspire to
    achieve this objectivity. There is no need to specifically define the community of
    people we are talking about. The community defines itself. It comprises those persons
    who choose to associate themselves with it. It is clear, however, that this community
    includes the scientists, who are the watchdog of objectivity. A common and accepted
    way to test a description for its objectivity is to call for a “scientist” in a related area (be
    it a physician, mechanic or weatherperson) to give his (objective) opinion. Although
    disagreements occur, a general consensus is the usual outcome.
    Although we can never understand reality completely, the traditional view of
    science which posited the existence of an objective world that could be known, has
    contributed to a better understanding of the world – the mythological explanations of
    natural phenomena do not hold the same sway among us. The advance in science,
    technology and thence in standard of living, is proof that an understanding of reality
    in objective terms was, at least partially, attained. It is no surprise that science now
    encompasses not only natural phenomena but social and cultural as well. What makes
    an area of investigation a science is the existence of a community of people who accept
    the scientific methods of rigor and openness so that other people in the community
    can share the results."

    Notice, the authors are careful to differentiate between the subjectivity of a shared belief in scientific method that rests on objectivity, and subjectivity "-- mythological explanations of natural phenomena do not hold the same sway among us." They support my statement while discounting your subjective (biased) approach to understanding this particular aspect of reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    Even so, starting with the subjective cannot render an objective solution. It is the equivalent of using a faith based principle to try and determine the veracity of the Newtonian Laws of Motion.
    Scholars would disagree

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ba9...5d63b7a54b.pdf

    https://corporatefinanceinstitute.co...ctive-trading/

    http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-...tent-section-1

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    It's a starting point, not the finish line.
    Even so, starting with the subjective cannot render an objective solution. It is the equivalent of using a faith based principle to try and determine the veracity of the Newtonian Laws of Motion.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    You claim objectivity and immediately pivot to explaining your rationale of adjusting for "bias" by arbitrarily moving "points" left and right to reflect an entirely subjective opinion, thereby confirming your own bias. And the source you cite is, in fact, an opinion. This is not a recipe for sifting fact from fiction.

    It's a starting point, not the finish line.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    That's like saying sources with opposing opinions disagree with Breitbart. I try to look objectively at these things. Breitbart is obviously slanted to the Right some, and that puts them in the minority as a position and source. The Left normally will vilify any Right leaning source automatically. Look how FOX regularly gets dismissed as BS without even consideration.

    If you look at the overall scoring Factcheck does (along with Politifact) they both regularly, and consistently, find Republicans less credible and reliable than Democrats.

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...st-republicans

    One way this bias can be handled initially is to move their scoring system one or two points towards truth for the Republicans and one or two points towards false for Democrats automatically, before reading the article. You can then judge for yourself based on the factual information they present.
    You claim objectivity and immediately pivot to explaining your rationale of adjusting for "bias" by arbitrarily moving "points" left and right to reflect an entirely subjective opinion, thereby confirming your own bias. And the source you cite is, in fact, an opinion. This is not a recipe for sifting fact from fiction.


    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Yea, sure....

    Documents emerged Thursday that showed a conflicting picture of how Elizabeth Warren’s ethnicity has been defined throughout her years as a student and prominent academic.

    Several newly unearthed student and personnel records from the schools at which she taught or attended show that Warren either listed herself as white, or did not mention ethnicity at all. But the University of Pennsylvania, where Warren intermittently taught law school from 1987 through 1995, touted Warren as a minority faculty member in an official school publication, according to an online document obtained by The Boston Globe.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...vGM/story.html

    It would seem that this change in ethnicity occurred in the late 80's or early 90's as in the 70's she was listing herself as White. This would coincide with the period where being a minority began to be advantageous under affirmative action.

    https://www.boston.com/uncategorized...inority-status

    Here’s a paragraph from a Harvard Crimson story in October 1996:

    “Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

    Score one for conventional wisdom.

    In January 1998, a story in the Crimson described Warren as “the first woman with a minority background to be tenured.”

    And what would that “minority” status be? Why, Native American.
    https://newbostonpost.com/2018/02/14...lays-charades/

    Taking the Harvard example, it doesn't matter if Warren herself used her self-described status as Native American to get ahead, it is clear Harvard knew about it, was looking for minorities, and made Warren out to be one. That is something that wouldn't have happened had she not made the claims of Native heritage and being a minority. It is also clear that Warren did nothing to correct Harvard's beliefs, and did not try to correct their misbelief if indeed it was a misbelief and not of Warren's doing.

    Essentially, Warren at Harvard was using a Lie by omission ( https://www.reference.com/government...740e1f75e5556c ) to further her career.

    If this is the case at the University of Pennsylvania too, then she was doing it on an ongoing basis.

    It is disingenuous to claim that just because she didn't directly use her claimed status that she's not guilty of furthering her career by it. She is just as guilty letting others believe her status from statements or claims she made in the past stand that advanced her career, as she clearly did at Harvard.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    That's like saying sources with opposing opinions disagree with Breitbart. I try to look objectively at these things. Breitbart is obviously slanted to the Right some, and that puts them in the minority as a position and source. The Left normally will vilify any Right leaning source automatically. Look how FOX regularly gets dismissed as BS without even consideration.

    If you look at the overall scoring Factcheck does (along with Politifact) they both regularly, and consistently, find Republicans less credible and reliable than Democrats.


    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...st-republicans

    One way this bias can be handled initially is to move their scoring system one or two points towards truth for the Republicans and one or two points towards false for Democrats automatically, before reading the article. You can then judge for yourself based on the factual information they present.

    Right now, I consider CNN and the WaPo on political matters to be so badly biased that their credibility is automatically nil until proven otherwise on some story.

    In the case of this thread, Breitbart shows very clearly that Warren did and said the things I claimed. That she has extensively used the Native American story, along with other clear falsehoods and embellishments to advance her career. When caught, she has offered a proverbial fig leaf defense then expected everyone to simply forget she ever said or did those things. Sort of a "That's in the past. What matters is the present. Ignore what I did back then, it isn't important or relevant."


    Apparently you did not read the link I provided which contradicts the claim that she used her heritage to advance her career. And unlike Breitbart, my link gives specific dates regarding when the decision was made to hire Warren and when she was shown as a minority professor together with specific interviews with people who were involved in the hiring process and the people who recorded her as a minority professor.

    Right now your double standards when you automatically reject CNN and WaPo sources while you automatically accept Breitbart's claim that Warren used her heritage to advance her career DESPITE the fact that I presented a much more serious and in-depth investigation with specific details which contradict this claim. The hypocrisy is obvious, especially when you have admitted in previous threads that Breitbart is "automatically" a "fake news" site, just like CNN and that it is fallacious to dismiss any source on the basis of who that source is

    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...92#post4520692

    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Breitbart, no more than CNN, is automatically a "fake news" site. Both have a heavy political slant, as do many other news outlets. Attacking the source rather than addressing what they said or reported is simply applying the Genetic Fallacy to it. So, dismissing Breitbart, CNN, the WaPo, the Huffington Post, or any other source on the basis of who that source is, is simply fallacious on the face of it.

    So, I addressed your source with the link I provided.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...O0K/story.html

    Do you have to say anything about the information that was presented there, or are you just not interested in making any evaluation about it because you automatically accept everything you read @ Bretbart?
    Last edited by pamak; 21 Oct 18, 18:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Interesting development - turns out her DNA was never compared to that of any American Indians, but to a sample from Central America.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    Factcheck.org mentions Breitbart as a source of false claims on numerous occasions. So does Snopes.com. And the same can be said for news outlets on the other end of the political spectrum. The sad fact is that confirmation bias is commonplace and we are all guilty of it to varying degrees.

    I do my best to circumvent fake or misleading news by consulting as many sources as possible. It is difficult to find the truth, and becoming increasingly so. Sometimes I am disappointed to learn my preconceived bias is incorrect and I consider that outcome to be a reward for my persistence.
    That's like saying sources with opposing opinions disagree with Breitbart. I try to look objectively at these things. Breitbart is obviously slanted to the Right some, and that puts them in the minority as a position and source. The Left normally will vilify any Right leaning source automatically. Look how FOX regularly gets dismissed as BS without even consideration.

    If you look at the overall scoring Factcheck does (along with Politifact) they both regularly, and consistently, find Republicans less credible and reliable than Democrats.

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...st-republicans

    One way this bias can be handled initially is to move their scoring system one or two points towards truth for the Republicans and one or two points towards false for Democrats automatically, before reading the article. You can then judge for yourself based on the factual information they present.

    Right now, I consider CNN and the WaPo on political matters to be so badly biased that their credibility is automatically nil until proven otherwise on some story.

    In the case of this thread, Breitbart shows very clearly that Warren did and said the things I claimed. That she has extensively used the Native American story, along with other clear falsehoods and embellishments to advance her career. When caught, she has offered a proverbial fig leaf defense then expected everyone to simply forget she ever said or did those things. Sort of a "That's in the past. What matters is the present. Ignore what I did back then, it isn't important or relevant."

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Also, Breitbart is not a source requiring massive supporting proof, like say, CNN or the WaPo where bias and sloppy political reporting have become the norm do.
    Factcheck.org mentions Breitbart as a source of false claims on numerous occasions. So does Snopes.com. And the same can be said for news outlets on the other end of the political spectrum. The sad fact is that confirmation bias is commonplace and we are all guilty of it to varying degrees.

    I do my best to circumvent fake or misleading news by consulting as many sources as possible. It is difficult to find the truth, and becoming increasingly so. Sometimes I am disappointed to learn my preconceived bias is incorrect and I consider that outcome to be a reward for my persistence.



    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    This is your job since you decided to use Breitbart. I used a different link which shows much better the facts.
    I quoted sufficiently to prove my point. If you want more detail, that's on you. My job isn't necessarily to convince you and you alone. In fact, I generally don't try because of your granitic obstinance to both facts and reality. Also, Breitbart is not a source requiring massive supporting proof, like say, CNN or the WaPo where bias and sloppy political reporting have become the norm do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Being 1/1024th Native American doesn't make you Native American...
    Being born in America makes you a native American. Thus, I'm one, born in Indiana. No 1/1024th about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    Oh I fully understand. It's just that if your sources are sloppy, how can they be trusted?



    They are not sloppy at all. It is just that your reading is sloppy and you do not understand what they say. From the quoted part of the article it is OBVIOUS that it isa talking about the Americans with a European ancestry when it talks about the "European-Americans"

    How many European-Americans are like Senator Warren, with a small amount of Native American ancestry? Scientists can’t say for sure. The best clues to date come from a 2014 study carried out by researchers at 23andMe. They looked at the DNA of 160,000 customers who described themselves as being of European, African or Latino ancestry. Across all the European-Americans in the study, the average amount of Native American ancestry was 0.18 percent.

    Feel free to tell us the proper way to write the above paragraph...

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    No, there is a difference between Europeans and European Americans. I am an American. So is Senator Warren. One is either American or not. There is no European, Native, African, Irish, Italian, etc "American". This is a sloppily written piece, supported by you.

    Seems you need to vet your sources more carefully.


    If you cannot understand that the article is talking about Americans of European ancestry, then the article is not for you...

    Oh I fully understand. It's just that if your sources are sloppy, how can they be trusted?

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    No, there is a difference between Europeans and European Americans. I am an American. So is Senator Warren. One is either American or not. There is no European, Native, African, Irish, Italian, etc "American". This is a sloppily written piece, supported by you.

    Seems you need to vet your sources more carefully.


    If you cannot understand that the article is talking about Americans of European ancestry, then the article is not for you...


    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X