My only mistake in terms of predicting the AI was that the correlation/association-based-AI aka the monkeylike AI would be as comparably different from the average human as I am... I was correct about the AI and myself, but it was revealed that mankind is in practice just the lowest level monkeys possible as chatgpt has now proven... monkeys are indistinguishable from a monkey level AI... idiotic and I give up... fuck you monkeys!

You accuse me of disrespect? I can't even tell that from your posts, your writing style camouflages any meaning or attitude save for your self-contradictions. If I am disrespectful, then what about your troll behaviour? I think that alone and by itself is the ultimate disrespect on a philosophy forum. To view others, and let them know that you don't respect them enough to make even one single solitary sensible statement. — god must be atheist

Okay... I'm starting to realize, why you are so confused and can't understand my arguments. Your brain is constantly trying to figure out my attitudes and motivations instead of just analyzing the arguments... My writing style doesn't camouflage any attitudes, because I don't really have any more attitudes or feelings towards the topic beyond the stuff I have already directly expressed. You are trying to find human factors from my writings that simply aren't there. But I am aware of how important it is for many to have clear attitudes and motives to give a perspective by which a writing is read. Maybe I should just make up a personality with easy to follow motives and attitudes to make my writing more easy to follow :P But don't worry, all the arguments and answers to others were made with respect and make logical sense, once you understand them ;)

Hmmhhh... or are you trying to argue that we should not express pro inequality arguments precisely because of respectfulness and politeness? I only use those things as examples of social rules that can help freedom of speech and they only apply to how people should express their views, but they should not trump over social rules like: within the limits of practicality, every view and argument should be able to be expressed in a polite manner... if they did, they would start limiting freedom of speech... Fundamentally, I would just like human discourse to be a well oiled machine for objective data-analysis, that produces objectively correct beliefs for people... But humans are so complex that optimal culture with optimal social rules for that would be way more complex than just politeness and respectfulness.

So you are saying that free speech should be free but not free. Furthermore you are saying that free speech is actually not free.

I am sorry, but that's precisely what you are saying.

Then you are wondering why nobody understands you, and why people are trying to nail you. It's because you utter utter self-contradicions (first utter is a verb, the second is an adjective). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously then? — god must be atheist

Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. - Wikipedia

Even wikipedia knows, that freedom of speech is not just about legal sanctions... Other kinds of retaliations, like social ones, are also factors... I don't know what's going on with the people on this thread, but the idea that the amount of freedom of speech is simply what people can in the end express and with what retaliations, is not new nor my invention.

Nor is it my invention, that you can't have absolute freedom in a society in pretty much anything without that freedom starting to interfere with the freedom of others. It's not that complex to understand that if we just gave everyone total freedom of speech with no restrictions, then some could and would use that freedom to remove other peoples freedom of speech. The simplest way would be just to yell over them. Or starting to spread harmful lies about those they want to silence. Or maybe they would simply join and make a total shitstorm of every conversation the people they want to silence are having. The options are endless.

To get the maximal amount of freedom for all people, you need to compromise on pretty much every freedom a little. You can do pretty much whatever you want with your property, but you can't do anything you want with another persons property. If you could, then your freedom would take that freedom away from others. You can do whatever you like with your life, unless it starts hurting or limiting other peoples lives too much, alhought that's a more controversial idea. And you can express whatever you like, unless that expression starts limiting too much what other people can express... That's also quite controversial, but none of these ideas are my inventions. And they have been taken seriously for hundreds of years now.

Many social rules like politeness and respectfulness protect everyones ability to have at least some freedom of expression in this very competitive and volatile field. I think it's quite a naive idea of freedom of speech to think that the maximum amount of freedom of speech for all is just to have no rules.

You seem to be generalizing freedom of speech to only mean legal freedom of speech. I disagree.

For an extreme example, let's say there is a country with legal freedom of speech, but that this country is very religious and anyone, who criticizes the religion, gets immediately labeled a witch and gets killed or at least loses his job, friends, social status and just about everything others can take away from the person. There might be legally freedom of speech, but in practice, there isn't. And many countries and legal systems have used this technicality to claim that they have legal freedom of speech, by getting the mob or secret police or something to do the enforcement of non free speech.

I'm a firm believer that freedom of speech is a functional tool, when it happens in practice. Whether it's law or culture or space aliens that prevent it from happening in practice, it's usually a bad thing, because that usually distorts the public discourse on the subject and the public becomes less connected to reality.

As I have said many times in this thread: I do agree that people should be polite and respectful and such, when they discuss controversial issues. I don't think "free for all freedom of speech" where everything should be allowed to be said in any way, works or even is true freedom of speech, since then only those who are the loudest and most abusive of such freedom would be heard.

I quite simply think that the subject of equality has become such a taboo topic nowadays, that it distorts the public and scientific discourse on the subject. And that such is harmful, whether it's called freedom of speech or not. I don't even care what results the scientific or public discourse on equality end up with... I just care that the discourse is done with good methodology.

This is rather specific. Is this what you have in mind primarily, but are avoiding discussing outright? — Cheshire

Examples tend to be rather specific by their nature... I improvised those examples when I wrote that.

Now, that is a topic I would enjoy discussing. What is it that possessed him to post this topic? — god must be atheist

It's an attempt to justify inequality with genetic basis. Instead of saying a minority group is disadvantaged from centuries of oppression OP would prefer to suggest that the present is truly representative of an individual's merit and nothing else. They test drive these racist "dog whistle" arguments periodically. Its quaint. — Cheshire

If you want to find some ulterior motives for me making this thread, you will be disappointed, since pretty much my only motive for this thread was described in my original text: I don't like how taboo the subject of inequality is in the modern world and how it's being discussed. I don't even care what results the scientific or public discourse on equality end up with... I just care that the discourse is done with good methodology.

One of the main ways this taboo is enforced in our current culture is by instantly suspecting ulterior, racist motives and painting such a story without evidence. This is something many people in this thread have demonstrated continuously. Most of my posts are just answers to peoples unjustified suspicions. And when I answered to these suspicions by explaining some of my thoughts and arguments about equality, then I was accused of secretly starting this thread just to spread those arguments, even when they were just answers that people forced out of me as I thought that stuff was off topic.

This is a very toxic way to talk about any issue... And justifies my stance of criticizing it. A non toxic discussion critical of how equality is being talked about was never a realistic possibility, it turned out. Our current culture gives way too cheap ways to invalidate others without arguments on this subject. It is mainly obsessed with the person saying critical stuff and his motives rather than what he says.

The modern way to win in an argument about the methodologies of discourse on equality:
1. Ask the opponent to give some pro inequality arguments to justify, why inequality side of the debate should even deserve to be listened to.
2. Listen, as he is forced to give arguments that support inequality.
3. Use this very specialized set of arguments he gave to extrapolate that he is a racist, who wanted to talk about the methodologies of discourse only to spread pro inequality arguments.
4. Profit.

Works every time in our current culture. You can use that formula to win anytime someone wants any taboo subject to be more open to discourse.

If you insist that we talk about how people talk about equality without introducing the topic of how equality is treated or not, then you are asking to run a race but first we must cut off our legs at the hip. — god must be atheist

You are continuously forcing this discussion to be about what equality actually is, how it relates to science, law and morality and such. And while those things are related closely enough to the topic, that they could be used as arguments for ideas about how and why people talk about the topic of equality, you are not using them like that... You are not talking about the methodologies of discourse on equality. — Qmeri

As I have said above, I don't have a problem in this thread with people talking about equality in the context of how people talk about equality as it's of course a related thing... To me, from the beginning, people seemed to misunderstand this thread to be directly about equality and started to just talk about equality without making any points about the methodologies of discourse and that is why I have tried to steer this thread to talking about how equality is talked about. I don't have any ulterior motives.

If you go through the thread, you can see that most posts are not about how people talk about equality.

From time immemorial. But then it's not genetics any more but value systems and arguments and their uses and misuses. It's tempting to say we live in a nasty piece of history at the moment when values and arguments are perverted. But a closer reading of history shows that's nothing new. — tim wood

While it's true that racism and stuff like that has existed since time immemorial and that this has been a very controversial issue even in scientific community since the beginning... Historically it was often taboo to be on the equality side of this debate even in the scientific community... Then we had a few decades of both sides being allowed to express their views... Nowadays the pendulum has swung to the other side and the inequality side is a taboo to be expressed.

Is it your position that value judgements based on genetics are invalid as to the genetics itself - perhaps that no value judgments should be based on genetics? — tim wood

I want to keep science not being subject to value judgments because that would distort it, but for me, people are free to use the results of science as a basis for their value judgments... I for example, use psychology and history very much in my value judgments.

And you want to determine their sameness? Or just place arbitrary value judgements on differences that you find appealing? Somewhere in-between perhaps? — Cheshire

Well, let's say I want to reproduce with someone, but it turns out that 80% of that persons family has a very serious genetic disorder. That would most certainly be a factor in my value judgment of whether I want to reproduce with that person.

And in terms of political value judgments... For example knowing whether or not and how much the differences in school test scores is affected by genetics makes a huge difference on what is the best way to deal with such differences.

In your subject of genetics, taking you to be able to speak with at least minimum authority on that topic, what even does equality mean? Or is it the whole ball game to say that equality in this (your) case means exactly equivalence with respect to some well-defined parameter or standard, and nothing else?

The idea being that value judgments of any kind no part of genetics. — tim wood

I don't think value judgments are or should be a part of genetics... But genetics can be used and is being used as justifications and arguments for value judgments in the topic of equality.

The title says the modern equality movement. A movement is not a methodology of discourse. I'm not sure what a methodology for discourse would be outside of legislative order and process. If you can figure out what your talking about; perhaps we can discuss it. — Cheshire

Ps. This is a subject about the modern equality movement and its methodologies and how the discourse on the subject of equality has changed. It is not trying to argue or make claims about whether or not people are equal nor does it describe my views on that subject. — Qmeri

↪180 Proof its just a term I have come up with to describe how in modern western countries equality is fought for and defended... Everytime anyone does anything that promotes equality, he is technically a part of that equality movement... This subject is about the most usual methods equality is fought for and defended... And how some methods werent used that much in the past. — Qmeri

I did specify what I meant with the modern equality movement in the original text and subsequent posts. But I do agree that that term I have come up with is probably not the best one and was not defined well enough in the original text. I will note these things in the future.

Perhaps you have a certain kind of equality in mind. Do you? If you do, what kind do you have in mind? — tim wood

I don't really have a specific kind of equality in mind, when I talk about the methodologies of discourse on equality. Most of my expertise related to that discourse is on genetics, but I'm fine with talking about the discourse on equality from the point of view of morality or the law or culture for example.

Name two different human genetic populations. — Cheshire

Finns and the swedes, texans and new yorkers, ancient people in britain and ancient people in china, your family and the family next door... Any two different populations are two different genetic populations... And depending on what you study... For example trying to find possible genetic causes for a disease, or using ancient dna to figure out peoples movements and such about history... It is often very useful to compare the genetics of different populations.

Hmmhhh... I was talking about the controversy, that has been going since at least Darwins times of whether there are differences in capability between human populations (Back then, they called them "races", which term doesn't make that much sense in modern science.)

Probably the most controversial and well known part of that debate has been whether different populations have the same intelligence potentials. A well known scientific phenomenon that is for example used as evidence that intelligence or at least IQ is not determined by genetics, is the Flynn effect. Different twin studies are often cited as well on both sides of the debate.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but I think you're talking more about the application of expression in freedom of speech, and how certain notions of thought are generally frowned upon, therefore not equalizing all forms of expression, and hence not a "freedom" of speech. Yeah, I think you would be correct on that, but is that especially bad? In my opinion there's just some things that should be considered "wrong" and deserve a lack of respect, because it has no merit to society to fuel those kind of thoughts. — john27

Yeah... I get that... And I agree that "free for all freedom of speech" is not possible or even particularly desirable in society. Humans are humans and our psychology seems to have huge tendencies to react badly to some ideas and abuse them. That's why it's good that we limit people from doing hate speech or promoting violent crimes and such... I don't have a problem with that.

The thing I have a big problem with is, when science and genetics become part of the debate. Scientific knowledge of genetics is useful for society and I guess scientific knowledge just in general seems like a good thing to pursue. But while science only has probabilities and evidence to offer currently on the topic of genetics... It seems that in our current culture, you are only allowed to be on one side of that scientific debate: "Genetics do not affect peoples performance or potential. And there absolutely are not even slight differences in the average capabilities of any human populations." Which would simply be an extraordinary and rare observation about a biological species, since evolution pretty much needs variation in capability to work and for many other reasons.

Also inequality and hierarchy are functional things in many political and cultural systems, and we should be allowed to argue and compare their benefits and harms. If only the equality side is allowed to be argued for, everyone will inevitably become "genes affect nothing and anarchism is the only way" kind of people irregardless of what science or political history and such say.

It's not a scientific statement. It's an a priori for a legal framework. It has an implication that all people are owed a reasonable degree of fairness as a result or implication of personhood. Which is in line with the concept of equitable. — Cheshire

You seem to be simplifying the modern discourse about equality to be only about legal or moral equality, which is of course not a scientific question, although scientific evidence and facts are quite usually used as arguments and evidence even in legal and moral questions. Quite a large portion of the "equality debate" at least in the internet seems to be about the scientific questions of how genes affect us, our performance and how different are we because of genetics.

I wasn't talking about legal or moral equality, when I specifically said that this "genetic equality" is a scientific question. Most certainly its not a legal one. While things like equality of opportunity and such in legal sense and in society in general can be simply chosen by us, we can't just choose everyone to have the same potentials in everything... In terms of genetics, that is determined by nature, not us. (Unless you are planning to do some genetic engineering or something.)

But that is another topic... This thread is about how people talk about equality... You are continuously forcing this discussion to be about what equality actually is, how it relates to science, law and morality and such. And while those things are related closely enough to the topic, that they could be used as arguments for ideas about how and why people talk about the topic of equality, you are not using them like that... You are not talking about the methodologies of discourse on equality.

Exactly the point. Clearly ftrom a scientific POV, no two things are the same or equal, ever. So were left with whatever the OP's point is, and I suspect he has no point because he has no real science. — tim wood

If you want to talk about equality, how it relates to law, morality or science and genetics and such... Start a new thread about that subject. This thread is about the modern discourse on that subject, not the subject itself. I will gladly give you scientific data and arguments at least in things that are about biology and genetics and such, since I have some degree of expertise on that stuff. But not in this thread.

I mean no disrespect, but could you please refrain from making this discussion about specifically american politics?... Covid in america and Trump seem to usually distract the topic completely from its trails. I'm sure there are threads that are specifically about those things.

Here you already assume, by letting it be said by people at the top and the bottom, that we can assign values to genes. Like superior and inferior. Which is nonsense. — Goldyluck

Well... I used quite simple and short terms to express that people have a tendency to attribute things that are considered "success" to their genes and a tendency to avoid attributing "failure" to their genes... Its a whole different discussion whether there are objective standards for success or failure... I was talking about the socially perceived "top" to be those with wealth and power and such... and the perceived "bottom" to be those without. I myself don't perceive those things to be that important, but it does seem to be somewhat the way the world sees things and we need to use the expressions that are at least mostly understandable.

But yes, we can assign values to genes... many do and many have done in the past... You can do it right now, if you want... But I did not do such a thing in my text... Nor am I claiming it to be the right thing to do. But just to demonstrate... I will now assign a value of mine to your genes... I like them, whatever they are... I just do... Don't worry about it ;)

To me, your methodology would have steered this thread into talking about, what equality is, which is not the point of this thread... This is a thread about how people talk about equality... not about what equality actually is like.

Would have been nice to have started with some basic understandings - bad, bad OP. Or maybe some intelligent questions instead of just kneejerk reactions that presuppose understanding - bad, bad replies. Maybe a few questions, if even this thread is salvageable or worth saving.

What is the idea behind "genetically equal"? What exactly does it mean? And in this context, what does "equal" mean? — tim wood

Well, I couldn't start to make any definitions or claims or even questions about what things like equality or genetic differences mean, because I was talking about the methodologies of discourse on this subject in general. And since in that discourse people have their own different definitions and views on these issues, if I had given my definitions or views or understanding, then I would have limited this discussion to be about how the methodologies of discourse work when talking about my particular views on the subject. So, I had to just give examples without definitions to avoid this discussion being about my or someone elses particular views on equality. That's a different topic. Unintentionally, the bad responses kind of did demonstrate what my text was trying to say - that the methodologies of discourse on this topic are not good nowadays.

I'm pretty sure, that if I started a discussion about whether we should be able to freely argue about when breaking the law is the correct thing to do or something like that... Even if I used as similar wording as possible as in my text for this discussion, I wouldn't automatically be assumed so much about and met with such hostility... Although this kind of reaction is pretty much the thing I'm talking about in my text about how the methodologies of discourse on this issue have gotten so bad.

Another snowflake out to limit free speech I see. Just because your feelings are hurt doesn't mean you should try and limit my freeze peach. — StreetlightX

Oh, don't worry... With a person like you, who can't make arguments and just spits out random accusations, ad hominems, strawmans and assumptions, the only feeling I get is to feel sorry for you. For some reason, it doesn't feel that bad.

But anyways... I'm only going to react to your comments from now on, if you actually make a logical, non naive argument.

Speech should be free. It is the evil pharmaceutical industrial-military complex that curtails individual freedom in the UNITED STATES, if you are left-winger, and it is the pasty-assed liberal fuckboys (I've been called that on social media) if you ask the right wingers, that curtails free speech in America, by putting a price tag on it. — god must be atheist

There could also be a culture barrier here. I'm from Finland and Finland has relatively little bad history with things like colonialism, slavery, non equal rights and such... So to us, this suddenly being such a volatile and taboo issue is a relatively new thing... Which could be the explanation for me perceiving a change in the methodologies of the equality movement. Although, I do think social media has changed the way discourse of controversial issues is done in the whole world. I have been using english part of the internet since my childhood.

For me, as I used to be a biology student, especially the genetic side of things seems like a science issue... And since there isin't a scientific consensus for the obvious reasons that genetics is quite a new and developing field of study and for many reasons, some amount of variation in capability caused by genetics is not only plausible, but according to surveys of scientists and professors and such, seems to be the most popular idea with the experts on the issue. It does happen in other species for the simple reason that evolution pretty much needs variation in capability of individuals to work. Why magically not in humans?

So, for me, this issue has seemed like culture and human needs stepping on the area of science and wanting to bruteforce a specific result out of it, irregardless of whether we have nearly enough data to make any such conclusions. And in a situation, where this quite extreme view of no variation in capability in biological beings, should somehow be considered the most plausible option, when it very simply would be one of the rarer things ever observed in biology.

But because of the volatility of the issue, I'm not allowed to just do data analysis of the science and believe the probabilities it gives... In the current culture, I'm supposed to accept a ready made answer before it has been proven to even be the most plausible... That does sound like medieval dogma to me... The idea of no god was too disgusting for many cultures to even argue about for many centuries... The idea of different "races" or men and women being equal was too disgusting for many cultures to even argue about... Too disgusting to consider has very bad connotations with freedom of speech and history. And every side of every issue has the capability to violate the freedom of speech.

Free speech is free speech. If you want to whine about people using their free speech to oppose your peddling of pseudo-scientific gene garbage, then you don't care about free speech. You just want free speech for the speech you like, while you ramble endlessly about speech you don't. That's the thing about free speech - it cuts both ways. You don't get to whine about free speech while whining about being called out for peddling discrimination. You can do one or the other, but not both. Frankly you should be celebrating me. If you don't you clearly don't like free speech. — StreetlightX

This is the classic naive idea of free speech that those who have been against free speech have used since the beginning of that debate: "Oh, you want free speech? Then let us make personal attacks and harrasment on you and destroy your personal reputation with made up shit with that free speech!" Classic.

At no point has naive free for all free speech been true free speech, as it can easily be used to silence people just as much as it allows expression. I'm sorry for you, if you have such a black and white naive idea of free speech... Hopefully, you wont get any power in any society to ruin its actual ability for free speech.

Well, I meant that my unspecified idea of freedom of speech is always more important than equality... Of course for many reasons, you cant have total free for all freedom of speech, where those who yell the loudest and most abusively win... But in my version of freedom of speech, even in controversial subjects there should not be taboos that prevent one side from making their arguments because of the fear of being cancelled or some other repercussions... that is an example of a hostile environment. I do agree that there should be rules for politeness and such... rules that help every side to be able to express their views and arguments in a persuasive manner... but also rules that prevent as much shaming and creating hostile environments and such as possible.

But sometimes some truth might be shameful or harmful to a person or a group, so we cant make a world where harmful to some things cant be argued for... but we can require that unnecessary harmful stuff shouldnt be said. But the subject of genetics and how they influence us is an important thing to know and as its continuously being researched, we should be able to argue for different sides as to what that research and such tells us. Also inequality and hierarchy are functional things in many political and cultural systems, and we should be allowed to argue and compare their benefits and harms. If only the equality side is allowed to be argued for, everyone will inevitably become genes affect nothing and anarchism is the only way kind of people irregardless of what science or political history and such say.

Given that history and present day conditions, why is it important to you to make the case that racial differences in intelligence or other characteristics are genetic? — T Clark

I was referring to this... To me it seems like you are claiming that I'm making a case for racial differences and such to be genetic and its somehow important for me. Technically case is not a claim, so a slight error from me... But the text never says I have ever made a case for such a thing... It just says that I have witnessed some people making cases and how they were treated for such a thing... If I had said, that I left the movement because of how I was treated, I would be lying.

its just a term I have come up with to describe how in modern western countries equality is fought for and defended... Everytime anyone does anything that promotes equality, he is technically a part of that equality movement... This subject is about the most usual methods equality is fought for and defended... And how some methods werent used that much in the past.

You wrote that "arguing against people being genetically equal" is taboo. You used that as an example of lack of respect for freedom of speech, which you indicate is a bad thing. How have I misrepresented that? What am I missing? — T Clark

When I considered myself a part of the equality movement, I saw us treating people, who argued against genetic equality, very badly and in a way, that prevented them from making their arguments and practically robbed their free speech... So I left. At that point I hadn't myself I think ever argued for inequality even as a devils advocate.

As I noted, this subject gets people going. I don't think my response showed any "bad methodologies." — T Clark

You immediately started expressing assumptions about me and claiming that I made arguments that had not happened. This the most usual of the bad methodologies of the modern equality movement, I think. Immediately starting to paint anyone, who expresses anything against the movement with a ready made story with strawman views.

I think you were being knowingly provocative. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but what were you expecting? — T Clark

Arguing on this issue is a pretty new thing to me and while I know it's provocative, it always surprises me, how strong the reaction actually is.

But then again... modern equality movement often requires to take the absolute extreme position of absolute faith in genes having nothing to do with for example intelligence related things... otherwise you are a racist... making over half the scientist in all the related surveys one can easily find on the internet racists... There is no gray area... If you think genes probably influence intelligence in complex badly understood ways and that there is variation... and statistically there is probably small differences between populations... youre a racist, no matter how small or insignificant you think those differences probably are. On any other issue without a scientific consensus... we call that kind of black and white thinking and labeling fundamentalism or extremism.

It seems like, you truly think that a person who is on the equality side of the argument, but who disapproves your obviously bad methodology is impossible. Why? It is that bad methodology that turns millions of people away from the equality movement, makes peaceful discourse impossible and makes this a two extreme sides stalemate. Equality would have progressed way further if this kind of bad, disgusting methodology didnt bog it down.

When did I make a case that racial differences in intelligence or other characteristics are genetic? I havent specified my stance on the issue nor is the subject about whether people are equal or not... its about the methodologies of the discourse. These comment are proving the bad methodologies of modern equality movement way faster than I though. I wasnt trying to bait people to prove the point of my text, but wow does this seem to prove it quite fast.

It seems like you didnt understand the subject... the text clearly didnt talk about whether or not people are inequal... it talks about the methods modern equality movement uses and how discourse on the topic of equality has changed. If thats a bottomless pit... all political philosophy is as this is not a particularly large subject for political philosophy.

I didn't make any claims about people being inequal nor did i specify my stances on the issue anymore than that i do think inequality is a problem. Your immediate assumptions without evidence on my stances and you immediately starting to paint story about me without any evidence pretty much proves my point about how modern equality movement is bad. Thank you :)

i'm not actually proposing that... teaching of scientific method is actually already a part of most curriculums... i'm actually proposing of teaching about others ways of thinking of history and of course of scientific method too since its a big part of history and making students consider and compare these different methodologies to come up with their own methodologies. way more than modern curriculums do. if someone has a respectable way of thinking and he ends up with creationism, i will respect that. i will still think he is wrong, but i will still respect the person quite a lot actually. it would be hilarious to find a person who does everything right and still ends up with creationism. very nice :) i'm pretty sure that simply because of the number of people and statistics, this legendary person actually exists somewhere.

Because of the practicalities of knowledge its pretty much impossible to not know any probabilities of what results any particular methodology brings... Thats just reality... But the point of methodologism is to not care about the results even if you know their probabilities... Especially in methodologism, the results are not particularly good arguments against or for any particular methodology even if they are knowable. You still go through the methodology even if you think you know what the result is... And if its a good methodology, it will probably surprise you and show you that you actually didnt know beforehand where it eventually would lead you.

I think you are equating "a methodology to teach people methodology" which doesnt care about what methodology the students end up with... you are equating that with just generic methodology that doesnt care about the results.... it true that i worded it in a confusing way... but yeah... having a good methodologist curriculum about methodology and objectiveness just teaches students data that helps them to come up with a way to choose their methodology to choose their methodology... and one methodology for shits and giggles :P im getting confused myself at this point

I guess as a subject goes through the objective facts of what kind of methodologies are associated with certain subjects like creationism and modern science... yes... that curriculum would almost certainly in most eyes make it quite obvious that one of them is doing things way worse than another.... but thats still way more sophisticated way of teaching things than what is currently normal: when things are just taught as facts you should remember for the test... current way of teaching just says very directly: creationism is wrong, which it is... but does that actually convince indoctrinated children?... I think at least compared to the current education standards i know of the countries i know of... my system of teaching them to learn by themselves by cultivating their method and that that method would be a big part of what you would need to justify to get high scores at least in that subject... I just cant see how that would not be at least worth a very large and highly organized try.

Btw... just came up with a way to teach people stuff without any affirmation of values... just teach totally randomized things... of course the practicalities of reality do make stuff not completely random... but cmon.... it would be close enough... and very nice :P

What i have represented is a very conservative and non revolutionary idea to try... just to make a subject that concentrates as objectively and as without predefined rules on how to think as possible on the history of how people have thought and with that to see with interest into what conclusions the students end up in... if thats stalinist for you... then to me it seems like having any curriculum with any rules would be stalinist for you. Please, give me an example of teaching anything to anyone without affirming any values in any way.

Well, my main point was to not teach people strict rules on "how to think correctly"... I pretty much believe that people would in general make better decisions about how they think, if they knew more about how people have in the past thought irregardless of whether that was correct or wrong... I dont think people should be told what is correct... we should just give them as relevant and objective data as possible and let them make their own damn minds... I dont mind if they come up with different conclusions from mine... thats the point of methodologism... you just care about how it was done and is done... and just accept the results irregardless of what they ended up being.