Total posts: 5
-->
@zedvictor4
Just look up feminism and its definition is quite specific.
I did say that "I don't want this conversation to devolve into semantics." I already know what Feminism is and have read quite a lot about it and identify as one. I was really addressing that to you because your responses were lacking in content and instead of answering the question "should feminism be falsifiable in our political discourse?" you proceeded to ask "what are you asking?" I felt like my question was fairly easy to understand. And the "narrative" that you claimed I wrote actually explained in '2' what I meant by falsifiable. I stated:
"Feminism falls under gender studies which falls under the social science
of Sociology. There are criteria to determine if an idea is scientific
or not. In particular, an idea/theory must be falsifiable. In other
words, it must be refutable or quite simply, have the capacity to be
proven wrong."
This seems like someone who did not read in entirety what I wrote or did not spend the time to understand what I wrote and instead of thinking of a thoughtful response, quickly pumped out 2 questions and 3 statements, 4 of which argued for nothing and one making an assertion without reason. This was done all while not answering my question.
Of course, any clever clogs or not so clever clogs can expand upon a basic tenet.
No one was speaking about expanding a basic tenet. Again my question was asking "should feminism be falsifiable?" it's only four words. There is no deeper meaning or metaphorical significance.
Especially if the sole purpose of the exercise is to generate a contentious discussion.
1. I thought this was 'Debate.org'
2. My intent was actually to generate critical thinking and a solid discussion of ideas and differing opinions. Some of which I would agree and some of which I would disagree with. So you have literally missed every target on this. You don't answer the question. You don't define anything and completely missed the goal of what I was asking.
Here is what I want and not just what i want, this is just simple logic. I want 2 or more premises (Statements) that lead necessarily to or support a conclusion. For example:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion ∴ Socrates is Mortal.
This is a simple argument. No insults, personal attacks, no rhetoric, just raw logic. It is easy to agree with premise 1 and premise 2 so I have to believe the conclusion. This is what I wanted. Again your format can look like:
Reason 1 for or against
Reason 2 for or against
Conclusion: answer to the question that is supported by reason 1 and 2.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
This is the kind of discourse that we need in our society. People think this is a joke, but it is destroying our democracy and I think it's time for regular common sense Americans to step away from the ideologues of the far left and the far right and to root ourselves in reason. This is why people are becoming distraught with the political process. I think most Americans know and feel this. Most normal Americans know there is something very off about the far right and White Supremacy, neo-nazis etc and something very off about death to police and the idea that pronouns are the biggest violence against humanity etc. These ideologies are mere assertions of absurdities that has never been rooted in practicality or any form of reason.
I think it should be a requirement that before people begin to address a disagreeing viewpoint in any public context, that they should be very knowledgeable about the opposing side and give the strongest argument of the opposing side before they open their mouths. I know this is not practical and extreme, but it would do our country so much good.
I think it should be a requirement that before people begin to address a disagreeing viewpoint in any public context, that they should be very knowledgeable about the opposing side and give the strongest argument of the opposing side before they open their mouths. I know this is not practical and extreme, but it would do our country so much good.
Created:
-->
@Athias
What's the "other side" to feminism? Antifeminism? Why would one not make it a point to shut down arguments which stem from the antipode of one's own philosophy?
1. What is the "other side" of white supremacy? Anti-White Supremacy? See how ridiculous that sounds. Feminism is the ideology. You can either be an adherent or not. Non-adherents do not need a term of description outside of a personal statement of "I don't believe in ___ ideology." I don't label myself as "anti-greek religion" or "Anti-authoritarinism" or "anti-cucumbers" just because I don't like or adhere to an ideology or thing. I just don't believe them. I think we have enough bullshit language in our speech that hardly helps in clarity and only causes confusion. It becomes so easy to set up straw man arguments using this silly idea. For example, if I am anti-authoritarianism, does that mean I am against authority figures? These easy semantic confusions arise for no reason. Saying that you are anti-feminist could be mis-construed as being "against women", when you just may not agree with how current feminist ideologies want to help women. Again, hardly seems helpful in serious discourse.
2. There is a difference between, disagreeing/opposing a view point and shutting it down. The former gives reason, engages with the other side and quite honestly, expands the knowledge of the other side and even your own views. The latter is rude, usually poorly informed and hardly leads to a better understanding of the other side or your own view.
2. There is a difference between, disagreeing/opposing a view point and shutting it down. The former gives reason, engages with the other side and quite honestly, expands the knowledge of the other side and even your own views. The latter is rude, usually poorly informed and hardly leads to a better understanding of the other side or your own view.
I suppose. But consider it in the context of political discourse. "Rational disagreement" means the absence of votes, or votes against.
And this is a failure of society. Your statement just acknowledged that votes took precedence over rational discourse. Democracy does not run on mindless votes. It runs on making educated, rational and moral political decisions. This is why America is where it is now politically and socially.
What can feminism prove and/or deduce from empirical observation and data?
Nothing. I'm happy you asked because understanding that it is a philosophical idea gives us reason to see why it should be dealt with as a philosophical idea. Law is not a scientific concept either it is a mix between moral, political and social philosophies, but still, Law is deeply concerned with evidence and argumentation. I think Feminism is not and cannot be exempt from this scrutiny.
If it's not dogma, then what is it?
I think that if you steal, you should be evaluated by the law and be given an appropriate punishment. This is not a scientific statement, but it is not dogma either. It is a value judgement. One that many believe to be correct because we can all argue that not doing so is morally unjust, causes harm to others and their property etc etc. I believe that women should be able to go to school, learn to read, marry whoever they want. I don't think it is dogmatic to say so. I think there are very good reasons to not only believe but do so. I am not merely asserting this idea. Just like the former value judgement being some sort of social, moral and political philosophy about law, rooted in reason and arguments, so do I think that women being able to go to school, learn to read and marry whoever they want is a sort of social, moral and political philosophy rooted in reason and not mere assertions and dogma about women, that you should just accept because I said so. I think reasonable, rational people can see why I said that those things should be done in society.
What are some of these assessed facts which inform your feminism?
There are many sensible, brilliant, moral women who are capable of doing certain jobs in our society and they should be allowed to pursue their own happiness, wealth and dignity equally by being contributing members of our society. They should help society build and grow to it's full potential. As humans we should have the opportunity and liberty to do so. If a woman wants to help people who are sick to the highest degree, she should be able to devote her life and mind to medicine if she so desired. That is a noble thing to do. If a woman wants to promote justice and protect those who have been done injustice then she should be allowed to be a lawyer. If a woman wants to live with her husband and nurture their children because that is where she feels fulfilled, she should do so. If women do such things, they will help and not destroy our society. That is a fact.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@K_Michael
By falsifiability, I mean "the capacity for some proposition, statement,
theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong." This does not mean this idea
is necessarily wrong, but merely the capacity to be wrong. For example,
historical ideas are falsifiable because as new data comes out, we
constantly refine our understanding of the past because we are open to
being wrong, despite knowing that some history is true.
To K_Michael
I guess
this is a personal question and you may answer if you want, but if
Feminism is a social movement and not a theory, then why do you
subscribe to this social movement? You cannot simply state
egalitarianism as the sole reason. Some humanists are egalitarians, why
not be a humanist?
I agree that feminism is a Philosophy, as is
the idea that "all men are equal." These are political/social
philosophies. The problem here is that, philosophies must also be
defended with logic and reason. This feeling that we can assert a
philosophical belief upon someone is absurd and akin to religious
dogma(another philosophy), hence why I asked in the first place. The
only example of this open acceptance of some political or social axiom is in the constitution
"We hold these truths as self evident" these are axioms that are the
foundation to the rest of what follows in the document, everything else
needs to be argued for and reasoned out. I cannot just assert or say that "disabled people should not vote" not only is it an absurd assertion, but offering no reason for this makes it unworthy of consideration.
To zedvictor4
What does this mean?Or a more accurate question would be, what are you asking?
I explained above what I meant by falsifiability.
The above narrative doesn't really explain anything.
I wasn't giving a "narrative" I was asking for everyone's opinion on whether feminism should be falsifiable or not. I then gave my opinion on why I thought it should be and was looking for people to either agree or disagree.
Feminism is quite definitively specific and therefore is what it is within a wider social context. As a stand-alone ideology there is nothing to falsify.
This is the most circular rendition of a concept and dogmatic assertion you can possibly think of. "Feminism is quite definitively specific." Then what is it? When people say that something is specific or definitive, this means you can offer a very particular definition of what it is. For example, a dog can be defined as "a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically
has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a
barking, howling, or whining voice." I can become even more specific in my definition and add it's scientific and evolutionary past and further define it as descending from wolves. This is undoubtedly a dog. We can define liberty as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control." What is Feminism? We don't even need a robust definition any will do. However, I don't want this conversation to devolve into semantics. Defining Feminism as "is what it is" is just a redundant truism. A dog "is what it is" as is ice cream or clowns. They are what they are. Nothing enlightening in that. "As a stand alone ideology there is nothing to falsify." Do you know that this is the precise definition of what an ideologue is? "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology" For example, 'White supremacy' is a stand alone ideology. I think it is perfectly fine to describe such adherents as ideologues because they subscribe to an idea without having any particular reason for believing it. They just do. This is why I say a battle between ideologues can hardly produce anything worth noticing in society.
Created:
Disclaimer: I posted this initially on a reddit thread I won't say which and this was literally deleted and I was blocked for this very simple and actually non controversial point. So now I ask two questions. a. Should I have been blocked and b. Should feminism be falsifiable in our political discourse?
I ask this because though I identify as a feminist, I notice many women like myself who do not seem open to the idea that feminism may be incorrect (it isn't) or at minimum wrong on some things, but instead resort to a shutting down of opposing arguments from the other side. This seems to pose 2 major problems:
- Telling people to "stop talking" hardly seems productive in the current culture wars. It seems dangerous and antagonistic to other truths we hold as well, not just feminism but the freedom of speech. Disagreement and even offense cannot be grounds to dismiss speech. Simply because someone is offended that I consider their religion to be oppressive and misguided is not reason for me to stop talking about it or possibly have a healthy rational discourse/disagreement about it. The same would apply to discourses on feminism.
- Feminism falls under gender studies which falls under the social science of Sociology. There are criteria to determine if an idea is scientific or not. In particular, an idea/theory must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be refutable or quite simply, have the capacity to be proven wrong. I am not saying that it is wrong (it's what I believe) I am saying the possibility of it being so. An example in a hard science would be that of the atom, initially people thought that they were like solid balls, then they discovered electrons, then protons, then neutrons. This evolution of thought was as a result of accepting that the theory is falsifiable and "could be wrong" so it was open to criticism and refinement. Another example in the social sciences would be that Sigmund Freud's thought that cocaine was a good form of psychotherapy. Well, despite Freud being the father of modern psychology we do not believe this today because we could criticize and assess his ideas and prevent people with mental health from developing an addiction as well. If feminism is not refutable, then it is not scientific and if it is not, then how will it be different from religion or mere dogma?
As a feminist, I see neither 1 or 2 as desirable. No discourse sounds like a recipe for social strife and I don't think feminism is some dogma to be believed in. I think there are facts to be assessed that will give people good reason to believe it and even if it isn't accepted by someone, at least I know that I was rigorous and thorough in my beliefs.
Thoughts? Does anyone agree? Should feminism be falsifiable?
Created: