Thoughts, Beliefs and Feelings vs Scientific/Biological "Truth"

[knapplc]

I'm not sure we can put thoughts/beliefs/feelings at opposition to scientific/biological truth, at least not in a broad sense. In very specific cases, maybe, but I don't get the impression that's what we're talking about here.

 

I like to have facts to support my beliefs. I believe in things based on empirical evidence, which is the most reliable thing I have. It is not infallible, so when new evidence is presented that is or seems to be more accurate, I change my belief.

[Red Dead Redemption]

Girls have better handwriting and smell nicer than boys. f'ing fact.

And girls make me feel kinda funny...like when we used to climb the rope in gym class

[NM11046]

 

 

 

Those are still Scientific and biological facts. Yes you are born with a sex, but mentally you still identify as the opposite gender. There is something going on chemically in the brain which is driving you to identify that way.

Would you call that a normal function or no? scientifically speaking....

 

What's "normal"? Yours may be different than mine than someone who lives in China.

 

With regard to if a transgender person can be explained scientifically (which is what I think you were getting at) I think that answer is yes.

 

My way of thinking is, "this is scientifically proven - chemical or physical or psych" and I "believe" that all people are people I "feel" that they should be treated as they ask to be treated.

 

Well That's kind of what I was asking. Scientifically is there suppose to be a set way for brain function or does the ones that "stray" from "normal" count toward abnormal brain function even though they are still a person?

 

Trying to be clear that I'm not stating MY normal as the normal portrayed in my post.

 

I'm gonna take a stab and say no - there's no "normal". So much of what is perceived as normal is driven by culture and environment. Personality traits like being outgoing or shy aren't considered abnormal, they're just part of a different make up. What is abnormal is when it's not healthy (self harm or to others) behavior, or risky behavior - trying to think of examples that may shed light on why transgender is different than multiple personality disorder.

 

Now that I reread this it sounds like a circular comment - gotta hit the sack!

 

I understand you're just generating conversation and not platforming :-) this is going to be a fun thread to watch! Thanks for starting it.

[knapplc]

gotta hit the sack!

Hillary, is that you?

[NUance]

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

[Landlord]

Materialism, which underpins all scientific thought, places amounts of confidence in things proportionate to the amount of data and evidence available.

 

 

If you want to get a good grasp of something, start reading scientific journals about the thing. If you want to continue to be misinformed, it's pretty easy - just keep watching cable television and trusting opinions to editorials or non-experts, not diving into actual, real sources.

 

 

This doesn't mean that things without mountains of evidence can't be true, of course, but that's a reliable framework to start from.

 

 

Also there's no such thing as normal. There's no such thing as almost any kind of categorization that we give to people/living things/environments/etc. Human brains are pattern recognizing machines - nature isn't.

[Landlord]

The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

 

Men are more physically imposing and powerful than women. Most people don't have a hard time accepting this as a general, physiological statement with exceptions. This puts women in a position of vulnerability, which means that collectively, as a society, it's our responsibility to look out for them in a way that we wouldn't need to for men (again, in a general sense). We treat men and women differently because they are different, so no, those posters wouldn't have gotten bent out of shape, but that's actually a proper and good thing.

[NM11046]

 

gotta hit the sack!

Hillary, is that you?

 

Soooooooo sleepy been hitting the delete button on my computer all day. It's hard because, you know - I'm terribly sick.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

You need professional help.

[BigRedBuster]

Ignoring science is idiotic. Science explains our world around us to the best of it's ability to find facts. However, trusting science 100% is misguided also. Many times science said one thing that was later proven false. World was flat...remember?

 

So, I believe in looking at science to help explain the world...but, sometimes you have to step back and say....hmmmm.....but does that make sense with the rest of what we know or don't know?

 

There are also issues our brains try to explain but it's just impossible to explain. What existed before everything existed? How big is space?

These types of questions require beliefs and feelings to make sense of it all.

[Landlord]

Many times science said one thing that was later proven false. World was flat...remember?

 

 

Just for clarity, scientific thought has never made this claim. Rational post-enlightenment thinking was, obviously, not around before the Enlightenment, but human beings realized the Earth was a sphere since before Christ.

[knapplc]

Science is all about proving itself wrong. Sometimes the evidence leads you down a path only to find through later discoveries that it's the wrong path. This is a great scientific result because it gets us closer to the truth.

 

Science is not infallible. It is simply the organized method by which we try to find truth.

[Moiraine]

I see an interesting development among American society. My questions to everyone and this is real and genuine with NO agenda. An actual civil question. Here goes....

 

Are "thoughts, beliefs and feelings" more relevant to truth than that of "scientific and biological" origin? What side to you lean on? Is it something that doesn't stay the same across all categories?

 

If you lean scientific and biological...is that relevant to you in ALL circumstances?

 

In my opinion I feel we've developed double standards in areas of how we think. Here's the example. Someone believes in God, and takes a scientific stance on Male/Female differences. And vice versa. Someone believes in what you can see (Science/Biology) and yet when it comes to male/female differences, they believe in fluidity.

 

This isn't an "I gotcha" question....Honestly curious about some thoughts on it. I'm sure a lot of us will differ (as usual.)

Here are my unfiltered thoughts on the subject.

 

People are born with a biological sex. That's the sex they are. (Not counting those born with 2).

 

Gender is completely a social construct. I'm not saying men and women are the same. Men are probably born to be more fearless and women more nurturing. But as far as I can tell there is no biological reason for women to have long hair, wear make up, shave their legs or like the color pink. There's no biological reason for men to have short hair and wear lose clothing and not wear dresses and have bows in their hair.

 

I'm not transgender so I can't be in their heads so maybe I shouldn't have an opinion on what I can't know for sure but I dont think their issue is their biological sex. Their issue is they want to be themselves and what they want to be doesn't agree with what society thinks someone of their gender should be. They shouldn't be maiming themselves to change their sex. They should ignore society and wear a dress if they want, whether they're biologically men or women.

[Moiraine]

 

 

The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

Men are more physically imposing and powerful than women. Most people don't have a hard time accepting this as a general, physiological statement with exceptions. This puts women in a position of vulnerability, which means that collectively, as a society, it's our responsibility to look out for them in a way that we wouldn't need to for men (again, in a general sense). We treat men and women differently because they are different, so no, those posters wouldn't have gotten bent out of shape, but that's actually a proper and good thing.

This is most of it. I guess if Phillips had drug the equipment manager down 3 flights of stairs by his hair that'd almost be the equivalent?

[NUance]

 

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

 

You need professional help.

 

 

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.