Once upon a time there were anti-semites who wanted to promote their ideas in public and get away with it, but open anti-semitism was frowned on.

They needed some way to deny being anti-semites, while verbally attacking Jews.

One option they might consider is to say, "We don't hate Jews, we just hate Israel." This would let them say all the nasty stuff they want about the Jewish state, and the Jews there, while pretending not to be anti-semites.

This would get them a larger number of TV appearances, newspaper articles, etc, than if they introduced themselves as anti-semites.

No organization or cooperation or central planning is needed for this to become commonplace. Once a couple people try it out, and get publicity, then others will see its effectiveness and can copy the technique.

Today this technique is a daily occurrence. It's used to repeat traditional anti-semitic propaganda with only slight changes.

For example, "Jews murder Gentiles for pleasure or ritual" becomes "Israelis murder Palestinians for no reason" (except that, apparently, they wanted to).

"Jews kill babies" becomes "Israel is a child-killer state."

"Jews cheat at business and steal" becomes "Israeli settlers, especially right-wing orthodox Jews, steal land and water."

"Jews (via conspiracy) orchestrate major world events" becomes "the influential Jewish lobby is behind X"

Blaming Jewish victims for provoking their murderers is a staple of traditional anti-semitism, and of the "anti-Israel" rhetoric today, which finds ways to blame the Jews that Hamas kills.

So when someone says "I'm not anti-semitic, I'm just saying there are legitimate criticisms of Israel," and then says exactly the same things he would say if he was anti-semitic, he is either anti-semitic, willfully closing his eyes to anti-semitism, or extremely naive or ignorant.

step 1: disregard equally all news from A) Israeli government and free press B) Hamas

thinking those are equally unreliable is biased.

step 2: dismiss sites that say positive things about Israel as biased. Insist sites that persuaded you that Israel is evil are neutral.

this is very common. how can it be neutral if it persuaded you that israel is evil? sigh.

step 3: declare the UN to be fair and neutral and unbiased even though it has declared israel is evil several million times

the UN is fair, therefore israel must have deserved those condemnations, therefore condemnations of israel are evidence of its lack of bias.

step 4: analyze things in terms of accusing various parties of bias instead of thinking about what explanations of events are plausible.

example: israel attacks hamas fighters who are firing from a school. so take whatever the israeli govt says happened and call that biased. say its doubtful. but don't think about questions like, "why would israel fire on a school where hamas wasn't?" because then you'd get into the uncomfortable realm of blood libels.

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

"Cargo Cult Science", by Richard Feynman

But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep going down -- or hardly going up -- in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress -- lots of theory, but no progress -- in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.

Schools say they know how to educate people. Feynman says they don't! They are like witch doctors who claim powers they can never demonstrate if you investigate it carefully.

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

There *is* a single correct parenting strategy, and anyone who says otherwise is denying that truth exists.

The right way to parent works something like this:

def how_to_parent(situation)

it can't return an answer unless you give a situation as input.

the situation includes the location, the details of the problem, a list of the people involved, etc

the people are complex data structures, including physical characteristics, their history, and their minds.

their minds are complex data structures with all their ideas.

if you change any of the people, or even change one idea in one person's mind, then you are calling how_to_parent with a different input, so you might not get the same answer.

when we say "there is one right way to parent" we mean that for one input, there is one correct output.

what does the how_to_parent function do with its input? it looks at the input and then calls a sub-module depending on what type of problem it is. it has lots of sub-modules that are specialized for different sorts of problems, and it just directs the question to the right one.


it's the same with morality. if we say "there is one moral truth" we mean for a given input situation, including every last detail, there is an answer, and it doesn't change if you ask the exact same question again, with the exact same inputs.



this explanation has a problem. people think it's so trivial and obvious that they get bored and tune out. it seems pedantic, and unnecessarily precise.

however, those same people constantly make mistakes about the exact issues i just covered.

then there is also the legitimate issue that the same situation never happens twice. so what use is it that there is one truth, one right way, if it's not re-usable? if i find a truth, and use it, why would you want to know it, since you'll never face exactly the same problem?

the answer to that has to do with the reach of knowledge. but that is advanced epistemology that people don't know about.

Schools used to hit people who got an answer wrong.

Hitting people for being wrong is very un-Popperian!

A) it doesn't help them create knowledge
B) mistakes are common (among everyone, adults too)
C) finding mistakes is good! they should celebrate. why connect it to pain?
D) they see the problem like this:

we KNOW the answer. the difficulty is how to suppress disagreement (which must be bad, because it's mistaken, b/c it contradicts the KNOWN TRUTH). in other words, we know what ideas should rule, and the only thing left is to enforce their rule.

of course Popper would prefer this problem: we have some ideas about the answer, and they may be mistaken, and by discussion with people who disagree, and culture clash, and self-reflection, and criticism, and by a serious effort, we may learn something about our mistakes, and come nearer to the truth.

Everyone knows a major goal of parenting is that children end up independent. TCS wants to have that goal in mind from the very start. In general, TCS is disposed to consider it good when people have control over their own lives.

Conventional parents think the way to make a child independent is to decide what the components of a person ready for independence are, make a list, and then instill each item on the list into the child, no matter what he thinks of them.

Conventional parents all defend this attitude, and everyones' right to parent this way, even though their lists of what makes a person ready for independence are very different. They disagree about what parents should do, but agree that each parent should decide for himself what's needed and do that.

This is indefensible to Popperians. We know that errors need finding and correcting, and devising a master plan, way in advance, and ignoring the child's ideas, is a recipe for mistakes not to get found or fixed. People will reply saying they do listen to their children, and take into account that feedback, and then make a final and fair decision themselves.

What's the difference between not listening to someone, and listening only to the parts you find agreeable? If the issue is changing your mind and finding ways you are mistaken, then there's no difference at all. Taking under advisement only the stuff you find reasonable is a recipe for not finding out about any of your mistakes. It will catch the very easy mistakes, like if someone points out you made a typo you'll fix it and thank them. But the hard mistakes to correct are the ones where you have a blindness, and don't see that you're wrong. In those cases, anything that contradicts you seems unreasonable, so only listening to "reasonable" stuff means never fixing those mistakes.

Mind-forg'd manacles are created by people. They are common. Blake's sensitivity to people being hurt is great. That people hurt each other, and their own children, is awful :(

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=172929

London
BY WILLIAM BLAKE

I wander thro' each charter'd street,
Near where the charter'd Thames does flow,
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infant's cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear.

How the Chimney-sweeper's cry
Every black'ning Church appalls;
And the hapless Soldier's sigh
Runs in blood down Palace walls.

But most thro' midnight streets I hear
How the youthful Harlot's curse
Blasts the new born Infant's tear,
And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse.

No.

Here is a theory of how kids are "spoiled":

1) Parents deny kids stuff the parents could easily provide.
2) Kids quite reasonably complain about this.
3) Parents feel guilty and eventually give in.
4) Parents don't know how to help kids, but do know they are messing up, so buy lots of stuff to try to make up for it.
5) Throughout it all, parents are on the neglectful side.
6) Otherwise, parents act normally.

TCS recommends doing none of these, so of course it doesn't spoil kids. There are other theories of how children are "spoiled", such as "not enough boundaries". That particular one is vague and incoherent. The theory behind it is something like, "If you get some things you want, you'll be really demanding and arrogant, so the solution is to make sure you rarely get anything you want, and then you'll be content". What?

The theory that not hurting kids spoils them, in particular, goes something like this: "Real life hurts kids. Not hurting them will give them unrealistic expectations. It creates an overly nice environment, and they get used to it, and then the real world comes along and they can't handle it."

The idea is to say to your kids, "You will be hurt later. You better get ready for it now. So just hold still while I hurt you." And parents wonder why kids don't listen!

TCS has a better attitude. Life can hurt us, but also we can try to live well and make not being hurt a goal we strive towards. This is known as "the pursuit of happiness" where you try not to be hurt all the time. The other attitude is like making kids sad all the time so when they are sad later they'll don't care anymore. That's not trying to pursue happiness; it's just giving up.

By the way, most objections to the idea of not hurting kids go something like this: if you don't hurt them, something bad will happen, which will hurt them and you.

In other words, they say "if you try a way of not hurting your kids, AND IT FAILS, that will be bad!" Well, duh. We know that. But that shouldn't stop us looking for ways of not hurting anyone that will actually work.