Episode 2 - Fathers and Suns

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by Urgamanix, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. Fairfax

    Fairfax Catering Officer

    Messages:
    362
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Many skills yes. But all?

    Can I make a genuine and constructive comment? I can completely appreciate and respect your views on things like Krytie TV and Fathers and Suns and everything else even if I don`t always agree with them. As you`ve said, people are a mixture of nature and nurture and it will be partly due to our `nurturing` that we hold the opinions that we do. Neither of us is wrong or right. This board is completely different to a sociology lesson imo and I don`t think debates have to be carried out in the same way. I think you could take a step back sometimes and admit that other people`s opinions can be completely valid even if they contradict with yours. I`m sure I could do the same sometimes.

    That is a genuine comment and meant with the best intentions.
     
  2. tanjuanchine

    tanjuanchine First Technician

    Messages:
    153
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Chinese food machine...
     
  3. danatblair

    danatblair Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Personal stories are terrible evidence for scientific arguments. if you want me to verify my claims with current documented science then i ask that you do the same, please. Show me a peer reviewed journal that proves that biology is the determing factor for gender. It wasn't that long ago where racial biological differences (no matter how slight) were thought to determine the role and ability of ethnic groups. Phrenology being one example. Science that is more deterministic is not as current and is often looked on (at least in sociological circles) as being kind of embarrassing and out of date. Funtionalism isn't overly in vogue.

    And no, your 26 year old friend is not raised on what sociologists have taught her. First, the world is not as "pc" as you claim. it never really has been. New ideas have challenged old ones, but the old ones have been dominant for the most part. Change has been extremely slow. Society 25 to 30 years ago was not the product of social engineering. Heckyl and Jeckyl were still on tv. My elementary school played song of the south as a special treat for us. Yes, I was raised in the enlightened eighties were political correctness was out of control. If you are really suggesting that the media and cultural influences given to kids has been free of the prudjedices that sociology opposes you have either not watched a cartoon in the past thirty years or are remembering them with very rose colored glasses. Funny thing, the game where the conversation changes over time was called "telephone". That particular bit of racism was not something society tried to teach me. Anyway, you are imagining a world where she grew up. The fact of the matter is, society still teaches women many of the same things. Sociologists haven't really changed much of anything. Where are we the ones setting the social agenda for the past 30 years. I'd love to see how you can claim we live in a world sociology built. I would love to try to find some actual sociologists that hold that belief. We are fairly used to being ignored by people who assert (purely on belief) that we are wrong and dangerous.

    And really, not knowing women who feel as though society has influenced them doesn't mean much. You see, if society influenced them then they would not necessarily see how society influenced them. Your argument is both unscientific and beside the point. But as i am an evil corrupter of society that has magical powers to influence the world according to my pc whims I doubt you will be convinced. Instead you will continue to believe that my disciple is dangerous and not being interested in any evidence to the contrary.

    Though really, if you want evidence from me i would like to see actual scientific evidence presented by you that says there are biological differences in humans that can create statistically significant repeatable difference in performance that impacts learning and development. If you cannot do that, you are attacking my entire discipline based on a belief that is not supported by evidence.
     
  4. danatblair

    danatblair Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    I have been called dangerous. As I tend to see that a direct personal attack based on nothing more than a belief I would like to ask that the people who disagree with me consider that dismissing what i have devoted my life to based on a gut feeling is sorta calling my life "wrong".

    there was A study i recall that tested men as having a slightly (and i mean a barely measurable fraction of a second) faster reaction time. What does it mean in terms of development or performance ... not really much of anything. Is that difference biological or social ... we don't know. And if we did know, the difference wouldn't necessarily actual mean anything in practical terms. And yet, sometimes that study will get cited to prove men react faster than women. What really frustrates me right now is that there is a nuance to scientific findings that is often lost. Saying a difference was statistically detected is not the same thing as saying there is well known source of biological difference.
     
  5. simulant37

    simulant37 Science Officer

    Messages:
    11,946
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Please can you provide a direct link to this study.
     
  6. talkie3000

    talkie3000 Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,120
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Location:
    Red Dwarf, Deep space
    krytie tv was written by paul alexander and doug just through in a few jokes for it
     
  7. Fairfax

    Fairfax Catering Officer

    Messages:
    362
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Sorry but I couldn`t understand all that you were saying in your first paragraph there due to some typos I think.

    I really don`t understand though how a thread about the second episode of the new series can have degenerated to this though. This thread was not created to discuss sociology surely and I suddenly feel like the Cat in that somebody just turned over 2 pages at once.:-D
     
  8. Fairfax

    Fairfax Catering Officer

    Messages:
    362
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Back talking about Dwarf. Thank goodness. :-D

    Am I right in thinking that originally the problem was that Lister and Rimmer weren`t really in it? I guess Doug contributed a fair bit to that too.
     
  9. danatblair

    danatblair Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/courses/1230jbasey/abstracts%202005/21.htm
    http://biology.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm
    I believe these references the original study.

    a more recent study
    http://www.seeingthefield.com/GenderInfluenceOnResponseTime.pdf

    their conslusion: a difference exists in reaction time, but the way genders respond to stimuli is not understood and could impact it. So why the difference exists (biological or learned social) is up in the air. Is it because genders naturally process information differently or because they are taught differently - the study can't really say.

    also
    http://www.ehow.com/info_8750069_gender-affect-reflexes.html
    in a 2006 study it was found that the differences detected were decreasing. the possible cause is that women recieve more training or support for athletics now. If the difference was not influenced by social effects there should have been no statistically significant distance. Other studies have found no difference.


    now, may i please have he studies that conclusively prove that the differences are biological and are unchanging...
     
  10. Fairfax

    Fairfax Catering Officer

    Messages:
    362
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Shouldn`t this be taken to the Garpage Pod now as it`s so off topic.
     
  11. danatblair

    danatblair Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    I have literally been called dangerous based on a belief. that was the point of my first paragraph. I think that trying to say that the discipline that I have studied is somehow insidious without any actual factual and documented scientific evidence is basically just saying that I am outright wrong. I was asking the same courtesy be extended to me that you requested. you were not the one who directly called me that, but i do feel that if my life's work is going to be labeled as some sneaky evil trying to control society i am not exactly receiving the same respect you feel i have not given others.
     
  12. danatblair

    danatblair Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    I replied with the information requested. This is my first thread and have not even heard of garage pod. If noone insults sociology and paints it as evil i'll let it go. however, i don't feel it is particularly fair to be requested to just take hits in this thread and defend myself elsewhere. Don't demean my work and i'll let it be.


     
  13. Fairfax

    Fairfax Catering Officer

    Messages:
    362
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    I can understand that. I obviously don`t agree with the post saying that your comments are `harmful` and can appreciate why you would feel peeved about it. I doubt any sensible person has an issue with sociology.

    I do think again it shows though that sociology debates and discussions on a message board are very different. This is just my opinion and others may completely disagree but I think ought to be considered in future.

    You`ve contributed some very interesting viewpoints so far anyway so welcome and feel free to ignore all of my twaddle. :-)
     
  14. danatblair

    danatblair Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Like I said, i'm willing to move on. As to the point that sociology doesn't really fit in a message board conversation, i would say that I feel sociology offers a different view point that is not always present in discussions. Though it did get a bit off topic at the end. As I said, this is my first discussion here. I don't don't know that the two are opposed, they just need refinement.

    back to dwarf: yeah, cat wasn't in it much. Rimmer, really should have had the screen time Kryten did. I love Kryten, but he did nothing for me this episode. Aside from the installing Preee scene and the wrap-up (sorta) he could have been absent this episode for the better. The episode is really a missed opportunity. If it had focused more on the crew reacting to Pree or Lister trying to be a decent father it might be one of my favorites. The base idea was good.
     
  15. Seymour_Clufley

    Seymour_Clufley First Technician

    Messages:
    197
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Valen200,

    I am sorry that what I said offended you. I really didn't mean to debase your life's work. I am sure that your own work is perfectly objective - you don't seem an ideologue to me - but you must realise that Sociology is a field with a reputation?

    But I am not making a scientific argument. I am reporting that the arguments and results put forward by social scientists bear no relation to what I have seen with my own eyes for 30 years.


    But you're the sociologist, not me! What do I know about "current documented science"? Nothing.

    Now clearly, training is important and may well equip a person to use techniques to decipher society etc. But it may also equip them to avoid seeing the obvious.

    I don't like the implication in your words that only "documented science" (sociological research) is valid for discussion of this. Sociology is a very shaky science. It's not as if sociologists are free from bias, free from desire, and are bound to come out with objective results.

    Why is it that Sociology departments are renowned for being left-wing/Marxist? Is that just a myth? If so, how/why has it developed?

    Again from personal experience (though I know that in this age of social science I'm supposed to discount personal experience), the only sociologist I know is a 22 year-old guy who asked me to explain why not everyone can become an astrophysicist, because he couldn't understand the idea of natural limitation, so wrapped was he in the Marxist notion that society oppresses people. He's a utopian, in other words.

    Thinking back to art college, the social sciences were so pervasive that hardly any of the lectures related to art history, but instead were of a pseudo-Marxist bent claiming new understandings of society (eg. institutionalised oppression).

    Sociologists are notorious utopians. What about Havelock Ellis? What about Margaret Mead? What about John Money, for that matter? All people who claimed to be objective and "scientific", yet in the end the stuff they came out with was damaging, blinkered and ideological (and, in the case of Havelock Ellis, propelled by his own personal issues, which could also be said of many feminists).

    Now, Valen, I am not accusing you of being damaging, blinkered or ideological, so please don't think that. All I am saying is that the social sciences are not revered for their objectivity, and historically, have been wrong just as often as they've been right.

    You say yourself that this stuff evolves, that modern experts would be embarrassed by the claims of earlier experts. But that points to a crucial fact about modern experts: they may be wrong as well, so we should not think that, just because their findings contradict everyday experience, it is everyday experience which is at fault.


    Actually I didn't know that had been disproven. Why is it that south-east Asians are so good at maths, if not because of racial biological differences from whites and blacks? I mean, it is obvious that black people tend to be more athletic than whites, and that whites tend to be taller than Japanese etc. If we can accept differences in physicality, why not differences in mental capacity? Why is it that the Japanese are so much more passive than, say, whites?

    Just on the thing about maths, I have a friend who has taught in England, Australia and Taiwan, where he's currently living, and he said that, even though the Taiwanese education system is a disaster, the pupils have a natural talent for maths that far exceeds that of the kids he taught in Australia and England.

    But of course, that's just anecdotal and I'm sure there's a study somewhere that will show my friend that he is mistaken. ;-)


    Sociologists write books that influence academics who influence students who vote for politicians who try to please them. Sociologists write books that influence policy gurus who influence politicians. Sociologists write books that influence media students who get jobs where they shape news coverage which influences politicians.

    Surely you are not denying that feminism, for example, has had an effect? What about neo-Marxist educational ideas like "whole word reading", tried out with disastrous results from the 80s onwards? I mean, how did this happen if academics are not influential?

    I remember seeing Germaine Greer denying that she had any influence. If she really believed that, I wonder why she would bother writing anything. But of course, she doesn't really believe it; she is just posturing.


    I sympathise with your position, but don't you think people might have their reasons for believing that?


    Surely the opposite is also true? Namely, if society hadn't influenced them, sociologists could still claim that it had?

    What you seem to be doing there is putting words into the mouths of people who aren't saying what you want them to say (ie that society, unmoderated by sociologists, moulded them).


    I am not against Sociology per se. I am simply very dubious about its claims to objectivity, and the claims of its practitioners to be unbiased. I mean, it would be interesting to know the distribution of how sociologists self-identified as left-wing or right-wing. I bet it's heavily slanted to the left. We could start with you as an example: are you left-wing?

    Of course we can benefit from Sociology, and I would be the last person to slight academia. I don't want to come across as a boorish Philistine, because I really do value high culture, education, cultivation and so on.

    However, I believe that academics often flatter themselves by coming up with ideas that are counter-intuitive, so as to show how clever they are because they can understand things "untrained" people can't. So the more their findings contradict everyday experience, the more clever and groundbreaking the academic must be.

    There's also a more expedient reason for academics coming up with surprising findings: if they don't, then they are redundant, because everyone already knows the unsurprising stuff.

    A great example of that is the surprising claim, contradicted by any day observing normal life, that men and women are not inherently different. I mean, it's so ludicrous I don't know how anyone could take such a claim seriously.

    It doesn't even seem like a sensible idea. Men and women have different reproductive and child-rearing roles, as evidenced by their very different anatomies. What are the odds that evolution would lump people with specialised anatomy without giving them specialised mental furniture to use it with?

    So men have muscles and can produce sperm indefinitely, while women have breasts to wean babies with and a finite number of eggs. Is it just a coincidence that men are more aggressive and enjoy a variety of sexual partners, while women are more nurturing and crave security/stability/safety?

    Do you really believe that this is just a coincidence, or something ordained by social forces?

    I mean, if you do, I can only suggest that you are trying to elevate yourself above non-academics by believing stuff that they find bafflingly preposterous.
     
  16. dodgebizkit

    dodgebizkit Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,321
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    In that case he's taking up more of the episode than he should with a third subplot when there should be no more than two. By should I mean in my opinion when talking about red dwarf based on the evidence shown by what works best, not as a law for all TV.
     
  17. Seymour_Clufley

    Seymour_Clufley First Technician

    Messages:
    197
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    I thought somebody might say that, and on first glance it's a good point.

    Last week, I visited my nephew. My sister-in-law and my mother were the only other people there. They talked constantly about the baby, and nothing else.

    Yesterday, I visited my nephew. My brother and my father were the only other people there. While they talked about the baby a lot, they also spoke at length about outboard motors, optimum ways of heating a house, good ways of organising one's finances, and the hertz rates of modern televisions.

    Do I really need to provide more evidence that men and women are different? I mean, really, it's unbelievable that anyone is denying this.


    Right... so if a woman hasn't shown interest in practical "man"-type tasks, it's because such tasks are considered unfeminine? It's not because she naturally just doesn't have any interest in these things? We seem to be back to square one.


    That's not true. Someone can have a natural propensity to something without being 100% good at it. Someone can have a natural disadvantage at something without being 100% hopeless at it.

    Agreed, but I would add that anecdotal evidence is the only defence we have against bad research.
     
  18. danatblair

    danatblair Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    1. Reputation to whom? please clarify the group you are speaking for.
    2. If am I making argument based in science, and you counter with personal stories you are basically dodging the topic. If I have to actually document my point while you can pull any viewpoint out of the the air, it is a magically convenient double standard that you have set-up. By pre framing the argument that personal evidence is equally valid and then refusing to even to consider your claims with actual evidence you are placing the entire burden on me.
    Is there some reason you feel equipped to be an armchair social scientist? Would you dare walk into the office of an architect, lawyer, engineer, doctor, etc. and then set about telling the person who has experience in the subject how to their job? I dare you to try walking into a professional's office (that is not your field) and just start explaining how you have "common-sensed" the professional out of a job. That is both arrogant and foolish.
    Wow, you can name almost a half-dozen sociologists. And you have a cursory understanding of one of the possible primary critical theories. Yes, the conflict theorists are marxists. Do you have any understanding of their views beyond that? I consider myself more of a constructivist/symbolic interactionist. But I don't have to tell you what that means, as because you are a home grown non-nonsense expert that knows my field for me. There are hundreds of theorists. Dismissing an entire field because you politically disagree with one segment of it is not even trying to make an effort. Also, i like how you demand that sociologist be objective yet have no problem using your own biases in arguments that are passed of as common knowledge.
    3. And as to your amazingly bigoted argument that because you perceive the world a certain way the sterotypes must be true ... you are joking right? This is just trolling. If you are serious then I can't really use scientifically viable data to disprove it, because you have once again avoided the essential challenge of being an essentialist- prove your work. Evidence is not a burden born by science alone. Give me something peer reviewed and then i will comment on it directly. And the smarmy little smile about peered reviewed literature that could disprove your friends argument, just shows that you are not interested in actually studying the subject in depth. You can't learn if you assume all academic knowledge is biased and wrong. You have to filter each article individually and weigh it on it's own merits.
    4.Do people have a reason for believing that? I think this goes back to point one and my more recent point about your demanding neutrality in everyone but yourself. Because of your blatantly biased views I don't think I really care anymore if sociology lives up to your own standards. You have demonstrated nothing that approximates an actual understanding or appreciation for the scientific process, let alone sociology.
    5. This is another point where you fail to understand how sociology works. I don't really have the space or time to address it in great detail. We are a very meta discipline. We constantly evaluate our own discipline by its own merits and frameworks. So we don't actually examine everyone but us. There are many debates aver the nature of the discipline and what course it should take.
    6. more claims that sociology is not objective, but that you don't need to be objective yourself. If you actually understood the peer review process of how a paper gets vetted blindly and that there are very high standards in many journals- you wouldn't say that. I understand that I am harping on about how you don't really understand the discipline as a whole (only your fictitious version of it) but you aren't giving me much room to discuss if you insist on making claims about society and the discipline based on a few personal samples and assumptions.

    now, seriously please stop. while i do feel the need to defend myself and my discipline I would rather not continue the discussion here. If you could please stop trying to bait me i would appreciate it. I could start a thread in the general tpics but if you aren't going to do anything beyond declare you know how my discipline and society works because you've looked at it for a while then there is literally no point of trying this elsewhere.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    so, anyone else feel like they maybe needed a throwaway line saying they got the medibot from the trojan. it would still be crap, but hey i think that what what they were going for.





     
  19. Bluey

    Bluey Science Officer

    Messages:
    12,933
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Is this still going?

    Just thought I'd make a brief appearance in the thread to state that Fathers and Suns is now my fourth favourite Red Dwarf episode of all time behind Back to Reality, Out of Time and Gunmen, and just pushing Marooned into fifth.
     
  20. danatblair

    danatblair Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    What about dimension jump or wax world? In what ways to you prefer F&s to them?
     

Share This Page