The ‘Occupy’ movement
- This topic has 355 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Evidently, no one is allowed to say anything without supplying evidence. No one is on trial here you know.
freetimes3x wrote:Evidently, no one is allowed to say anything without supplying evidence. No one is on trial here you know.OK; the earth is flat………..No one is on trial here but as ‘scientific’ socialists we take the view that in its broadest sense evidence includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the validity of an assertion. Giving evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, in order to demonstrate an assertion’s validity.
So, you never say anything without providing evidence then? You never give your opinion without first researching and obtaining evidence that can be used to substantiate your point of view? I doubt it, but I can’t provide any evidence ;~)
After the EC Meeting on Saturday two of us went to St Pauls to see how the general assemblies there work. While waiting we got into a discussion with a couple of supporters of Henry George’s plan for a single tax on land values. Immediately a few other people gathered round to listen. It’s like that there.There were about 300 or so people seated on the steps of St Pauls. The meeting was opened by a “facilitator” who explained the hand signals involved in “consensus decision-making” and introduced someone to report on the attempted march on parliament (which didn’t seem to have been all that satisfactory). He then called on someone to introduce the topic for discussion, which turned out to be the not all that interesting one of how to welcome visitors to the camp. The participants then formed into groups of 20 or so to discuss the topic and make suggestions (the two of us had to sit on the ground to take part/follow the discussion). After 20 minutes the spokespersons for the groups reported from the podium, addressing those present as “Fellow Occupiers”. No conclusion was drawn so no decision was made on this occasion. Reports from various working groups (environment, future vision, cleaning, etc) follow. Then anybody who wanted to could speak for a minute and a dozen or so did announcing various events.The whole thing was run democratically, though I’m still not sure what happens in the event of a consensus not been able to reached, as must happen, surely? In any event, a temporary forum for democratic debate has been opened up in the centre of London and seems to have been the conscious aim of some of the original organisers.The embarrassing “What Would Jesus Do?” banner has been taken down and replaced by “Real Democracy Now”. There were a few SWPers there who had been on the march to parliament still carrying their placards saying “He [Cameron] Has To Go”. Pathetic for people who see themselves as a “vanguard”. Actually they’re more a rearguard. Most, maybe all, the “occupiers” are way ahead of them realising that a change of prime minister would make no difference whatsoever. In fact, is there anyone who thinks it would?
freetimes3x wrote:Evidently, no one is allowed to say anything without supplying evidence. No one is on trial here you know.Jim, I have read through the posts before and after this comment and can’t see what you’re referring to? Has anyone said anything like that I have missed?
freetimes3x wrote:So, you never say anything without providing evidence then? You never give your opinion without first researching and obtaining evidence that can be used to substantiate your point of view?Oh yes; I once told a woman I loved her!
But I’m not talking about subjective feelings as well you know.The development of the scientific method has made a significant contribution to our understanding of knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.What is the alternative ‘method’ to the above? It generally comes under the umbrella term of ‘belief’ which is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true without feeling the need to provide substantiation. An earlier post containing the phrase “socialist consciousness is……more prevalent outside the party than inside it”, in the absence of any supporting verification whatever appears to fall neatly into this category.SussexSocialist wrote:freetimes3x wrote:Evidently, no one is allowed to say anything without supplying evidence. No one is on trial here you know.
Jim, I have read through the posts before and after this comment and can’t see what you’re referring to? Has anyone said anything like that I have missed?gnome said in a post almost entirely in answer to one of mine “A comment made earlier in this thread “that socialist consciousness is……more prevalent outside the party than inside it” is just another bald assertion without, unfortunately, a single shred of evidence advanced to support it.”
I have highlighted the word ‘another’ because it led me to believe that he was saying that I also should have supplied evidence despite the fact that no one had asked for evidence from me.gnome wrote:freetimes3x wrote:So, you never say anything without providing evidence then? You never give your opinion without first researching and obtaining evidence that can be used to substantiate your point of view?
Oh yes; I once told a woman I loved her! But I’m not talking about subjective feelings as well you know.
The development of the scientific method has made a significant contribution to our understanding of knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
What is the alternative ‘method’ to the above? It generally comes under comes the umbrella term of ‘belief’ which is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true without feeling the need to provide substantiation. An earlier post containing the phrase “socialist consciousness is……more prevalent outside the party than inside it”, in the absence of any supporting verification whatever appears to fall neatly into this category.Yes, and when one of the guys down the pub asks you if you’re having the same again you don’t pull out dossiers of emprical research into every drink’s chemical makeup before giving your reply ;~)
If, when we’re all just discussing an issue, you feel you need someone to substantiate what they have said you could just ask them.freetimes3x wrote:I have highlighted the word ‘another’ because it led me to believe that he was saying that I also should have supplied evidence despite the fact that no one had asked for evidence from me.You’re making exceedingly heavy weather of all this. The phrase in question was:-“A comment made earlier in this thread “that socialist consciousness is……more prevalent outside the party than inside it” is just another bald assertion without, unfortunately, a single shred of evidence advanced to support it.””Another” means “being one more or more of the same; further; additional”; it was an unspecific remark intended to cover the many occasions when there have been assertions made in posts without corroboration. It was not, neither was it intended to be, a reference, direct or otherwise, to anything you had said.
gnome wrote:freetimes3x wrote:I have highlighted the word ‘another’ because it led me to believe that he was saying that I also should have supplied evidence despite the fact that no one had asked for evidence from me.You’re making exceedingly heavy weather of all this. The phrase in question was:-“A comment made earlier in this thread “that socialist consciousness is……more prevalent outside the party than inside it” is just another bald assertion without, unfortunately, a single shred of evidence advanced to support it.””Another” means “being one more or more of the same; further; additional”; it was an unspecific remark intended to cover the many occasions when there have been assertions made in posts without corroboration. It did not, neither was it intended to be, a reference, direct or otherwise, to anything you had said.
Well in that case I apologise unreservedly. I thought you were referring to me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.