The burden of the Intellectual

[Kasz216]

Runa216 said:

Kasz216 said:
Except they weren't.  Some are... some aren't.

Which you would know if you followed the research, rather then go with a vague "consensus"

Circumsicion leans towards being barbaric, I know I wouldn't have my child circuimised.  There are some minor advantages though, and many medical proffesionals actually will suggest circumsicion still.  It's still something debated in the academic world... largely seen not as barbaric, but mostly pointless with maybe some negative effects, the one that matters the most to guys likely is lesser sexual enjoyment.

For example of Pro-Circ research http://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/116633/New_Circumcision_Research_Is_Changing  This is from 2011.

 

Climate Change, assuming you mean man-made climate change, has gone through quite a bit of research that if you followed it, wouldn't allow one to call it an undeniable truth.  It's simply a statistical likelyhood due to the fact that the warming the models predicted.... hasn't really shown up yet.

Most guns... aren't made to kill people, some are made to kill animals, Some handguns are made to wound people for self defense... but most are made for sport shooting. 

The only guns specifically designed to kill are ones modified to take special amunition or your bigger combat arms.   Handguns CAN kill, but aren't primarily designed for it.  While hunting rifles and shotguns were obviously not made.

They're like Bows.  Most are made for practice or hunting and target practice, though you could kill a guy with one.

 

In general, intellectuals should realize, that if a true scientist lives by one code... it's that "There are no undeniable truths."

There is nothing holy.   As scientists have learned time and time again.   Even basic scientific consensus on simple things like matter have been shattered time and time gain.  I mean... Sub atomic particles?  What's that Einstein?  Those can't exist.

Treating scientific consensus as an absoltue truth is NOT the act of an intellectual. 

That's not to say you should listen to someone who has a nonscientific arguement.  However pretending that there is a 100% chance that your right is a folly that's been made through out the ages.

If going with the scientific consensus isn't the act of an intellectual, then what is?  Shall we just make up theories for shits and giggles? We're not hippies, we're not republicans, we're not treating this as spirituality, we can't just pick and chose what we want to believe. It would be ignorant to go against the consensus unless we ourselves had done tonnes of research, but I guarantee nobody else in this thread (or on this forum) is educated enough to have the credentials to challenge scientific consensus, not even I. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733850/pdf/v030p00259.pdf

Circumcision: Even the supposed benefits are hotly debated and have not been conclusively proven.  (paraphrased, of course.)  This document also states that a pro-circumcision argument is that it's socially acceptable, but it also does the counterpoint stating that without imperative medical need, circumcision can be seen as a human right's violation, and that was the most recent report I could find.  all the 'pro-circumcision' articles I could find were from the 90's or earlier, and we've come a long way since then.

I specifically quoted a study that was pro circumscion from 2011.

Going with scientific conesus is the act of a middle ground adopter.   Sure it's better then being a luddite, but a true intellectual is someone who stays on the cutting edge of research, looks at a research project and still has questions beyond it,  wonders about the implications on other things, and realizes that often times in science, things that are considered 100% right, are often wrong... and keeps that in mind.

Having a scientific high ground no doubt should be considered a giant advantage, but pretending it means you are 100% right for sure.  Is foolish.

100% right in the context of the arguement?  You can make that arguement sure, but an undeniable truth is a claim that goes against the very nature of science and of an intellectual.  The farthest an intellectual should go, and that scientists do go in their actual journal articles, is to say that such a thing is "Highly probable based on the available data."   They teach you to phrase your worlds like that in a Scientific Methods class for a reason.  It's also why the scientific method requires you start out with the opinion that in fact.... you are wrong.  Humility is the most important virtue of a scientist.

Again, while i agree with you on circumsicion, I think one would be stupid to call it bad as an undeiable truth. 

Intellectuals are people like Einstein.  People who shatter sceintific consesnus, and who are the first on board with those brave new discoverers.

As for later articles.  The CDC's pros and cons are all 2000 and later more or less.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm