Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I completely agree and like to think I am just as aware, also constantly challenging myself and all the rest, but...
We probably disagree more than we agree about much you have otherwise commented in this thread. Again to the question, how do two people who truly believe they are objective critical thinkers determine right from wrong when despite their best reason and logic, they don't agree? About religion, the Earth being flat, politics, government, on and on...
I also got into this question some time ago in this forum, revolving more around questions related to religion. We don't all share the same criteria or process to establish truth, so we differ in our conclusions. We are also not all equal when it comes to the ability to reason and apply logic, even though we personally think we can do so as well as anyone else. Not true, so how do we really know if we're making the sort of sense we think we're making? That are arguments are sound rather than actually pretty weak?
You tell me...
That's what philosophy is. It's a methodology for finding truth using logic and reason...deductive reasoning, a lot of the time. That's where science comes from, for example. Science is a methodology for finding an objectively correct answer to something.
So, it doesn't matter if a lot of people disagree on something. Someone is right and someone is wrong. It's like math...someone says 1+1=2, someone says 1+1=11. The first person is objectively correct, even if the second person disagrees and says they're not looking at things properly. Even if 99% of the population agrees with person #2, it's still incorrect...although person #1 would be wise to ask why so few people agree, and test/think through it over and over.
Philosophy is something you learn and practice. You learn how to start with a foundational idea and follow an unbroken chain of logic. You learn logical fallacies and how to recognize them in yourself and others. You can even learn psychology to help understand what people's brains do when confronted with certain information.
So long story short, there are ways to find objective truth. You follow the methodology the best you can and constantly be open to the idea that you're wrong. Being unbiased and objective is a skill you have to consciously develop. It takes a bit of courage too, because you're guaranteed to end up with some conclusions that other people won't respond well to...ideas people are attached to, even if they're irrational.
That's what philosophy is. It's a methodology for finding truth using logic and reason...deductive reasoning, a lot of the time. That's where science comes from, for example. Science is a methodology for finding an objectively correct answer to something.
So, it doesn't matter if a lot of people disagree on something. Someone is right and someone is wrong. It's like math...someone says 1+1=2, someone says 1+1=11. The first person is objectively correct, even if the second person disagrees and says they're not looking at things properly. Even if 99% of the population agrees with person #2, it's still incorrect...although person #1 would be wise to ask why so few people agree, and test/think through it over and over.
Philosophy is something you learn and practice. You learn how to start with a foundational idea and follow an unbroken chain of logic. You learn logical fallacies and how to recognize them in yourself and others. You can even learn psychology to help understand what people's brains do when confronted with certain information.
So long story short, there are ways to find objective truth. You follow the methodology the best you can and constantly be open to the idea that you're wrong. Being unbiased and objective is a skill you have to consciously develop. It takes a bit of courage too, because you're guaranteed to end up with some conclusions that other people won't respond well to...ideas people are attached to, even if they're irrational.
Again I agree and/or no need to explain any of this to me, but the question remains...
Needless to say philosophy doesn't require or lead to everyone being in agreement. Two well experienced critically thinking philosophers may not agree about their philosophies or even the necessary criteria with which to establish truth. How can one really know whether they are truly correct with respect to their reason and logic as compared to someone who thinks they are but actually not correct? Maybe their reason and logic is very badly flawed in fact, but they don't recognize the flaw? How many ways do we see this dilemma played out in this forum every day?
Then too there is all the additional challenges of ego, emotion, confirmation bias and information overload that all work to undermine objective rationale. Odds are, we're probably missing something.
Your math reminds me of a joke...
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand the binary system and those who don't.
You should do as you wish, but I do my very best to back up my opinion with facts and information provided in links, sources of reference, that help justify my opinion beyond just my say so.
Wow. No. You actually object to facts others post even when they share corroborating links. Your own "opinion" rules your head. You do not think rationally. Just an observation, not a judgment.
One child born in a poor area where classrooms are little more than romper rooms, where teachers are little more than baby sitters, those willing to "teach" in these schools.
Camden, NJ. Washington, DC. Etc. Some of the highest spending per pupil public school districts in the country. WHY are their results so horrendously low-quality when funding clearly ISN'T the issue?
Quote:
Regionally, trends suggest that the North East is home to some of the most wasteful school districts. Of the bottom 10 cities on the list, seven are located in that area...
At the bottom of the list is Rochester, New York, a city that is No. 2 for K-12 spending but has the lowest test scores. Jill Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for WalletHub, had this to say about the regional analysis: "As far as the Northeast goes these cities are spending upwards of $2,500 per capita and their test scores really aren’t showing that. They may have more money to spend on students but they are not using it efficiently."
Wow. No. You actually object to facts others post even when they share corroborating links. Your own "opinion" rules your head. You do not think rationally. Just an observation, not a judgment.
Obviously we don't share much in the way of common opinion or respect with regard to how we justify our opinions, so does posting such a comment seem meaningful to you? Again your simple say so makes it so?
This comment is somehow rational far as you are concerned?
This comment of yours is also nothing more than unsubstantiated bluster, for OTHERS to judge as they will. I know all about your judgement already, your opinion, repeated like a broken record stuck in a few simple grooves, over and over again.
Of course that's my opinion and my judgement based on plenty enough past experience reading all you have to offer in the way of your particular brand of reason and logic. I think even you can do better, but you continue with this sort of say nothing insulting nonsense that deserves no better in return!
Camden, NJ. Washington, DC. Etc. Some of the highest spending per pupil public school districts in the country. WHY are their results so horrendously low-quality when funding clearly ISN'T the issue?
There are many blue parts of the country where spending and quality education are both well above average, though much of the spending for many of these schools comes by way of private-donation fund raising. Ever thought to look and consider why these schools do so much better?
Not all a matter of spending of course! And your ongoing confusion about why an area might be blue despite below average results -- that correlation you forever insist upon -- is mind-boggling to me. Apparently sound rationale far as you are concerned however.
Again and again, it's far more complicated. Lots more variables than your simple blue vs red litmus test!
For example...
"American teens spend far more time on sports than they do on their studies. At least that’s how international students see it, according to a report out Wednesday from the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution."
How much time a student spends studying is not a function of how much money is spent on the school, though better quality teachers, smaller class sizes and school environment conducive to better learning obviously doesn't come free!
Because it's true. The researchers I cited in the Washington Post article, the UC system economist (in his well-researched book), and the European economist who writes for The Economist, The Times (London), and Reuters all agree. Progressive tax systems not only generate inadequate income to fund the social programs liberals claim they want, but they also exacerbate income inequalities by necessity in order to maximize tax revenue, as well.
So you believe all arguments similarly made for a progressive tax system -- given current circumstances in the United States -- are all without merit? I think you have to do better than simply pick out what studies that suit your argument. Not only do you need to understand those a little better in the context of all we must consider in terms of what system of taxes, the tax code, we're working with in the United States today, but also understand why we have a progressive tax code in the first place, essentially without any challenge of consequence.
Obviously, the question today is not whether to abandon a progressive tax code. This is not the argument being seriously considered by Congress today, in any significant way. Right? The question is what net progressive tax rate is best all considered. How can you not understand this?
How many times does it need to be explained? One thing is to wipe the tax system clean and start over. Quite another to address the reality of what we have to work with and consider from a practical matter in this country as it stands today!
True. I post factual data. You post your "feelings."
As such, I and many others disregard your "feelings"-based opinions. So be it.
More bluster and nonsense still? "Whatever works for you" as they say...
Might just add that "many others" seem more likely to agree with my opinions over yours, but I am not one to use that sort of lame argument either. Just that you do, so maybe this works for you as well.
Right. Like you're not going to ignore all that sort of contrary fact as well. Why DO I bother?
There are many blue parts of the country where spending and quality education are both well above average
Possibly true, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that 7 of the bottom 10 cities on the worst public education list are located in blue/Dem areas of the Northeast US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
