Hey, welcome thecone137.

The incompatibility between moral responsibility and determinism is a tricky one, the latter fixed and so the idea of alternate possibilities is really that someone could have acted differently or better. That seems plausible enough, there needs to be some contrast. Frankfurt, from memory, believed that this responsibility can be taken away from us, that there can be only one, fixed and determined possibility such as being forced to commit a crime. I personally think this is distorting moral responsibility because there are a number of features that it appears to bypass (moral responsibility vs. responsibility). There is also an absence of intention, but is moral responsibility only of these subjective qualities?

This is where incompatibilists would perhaps draw the line and say that it is impossible for determinism and moral responsibility to be compatible in anyway and the objections to his nefarious neurosurgeon example as this 'irresistible force' implies Frankfurt to be begging the question, basically that the Frankfurt controller cannot stop or manipulate alternative possibilities without thinking about epistemic causality and so the neuroscientist will never know what a person will be choosing to do until at that very moment unless he had some prior knowledge. Similarly, you can read some stuff here not specifically pertaining to the problem of PAP though.

You can see some details of this objection here too.

You are doing a remarkably bad job at it. If you want people to engage with you, you would do well to be more forthcoming about what you think in support of your main idea and why. Mostly what you are doing is sparring. — Bitter Crank

You should also do well to read how others have already explained this earlier to him.

Get along better with TimeLine — T Clark

You have some ambitious items on your list, of which blood sugar, self-awareness, and cheap shots are the least — Bitter Crank

I am going to stop being so paranoid and suspicious that people think it is hard to get along with me.

For me, I see philosophy as that interface between me and the external world, an organic link that enables me to articulate reality authentically. The practice of philosophy is this negotiation that makes the world intelligible. Going back to Witt: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” So I largely agree about this broadness you speak of.

I have already said that, right at the beginning. He is all yours, though. (Y)

They are profoundly basic and whether one say's yes or no is irrelevant considering you do not even listen to the explanations.

The first step is for you to acknowledge, as anyone would, two points:

1. The majority can be wrong; and
2. Just because an idea is endorsed by the majority does not mean it is always correct or incorrect. — RepThatMerch22

Is it? So, when I said to you:

From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with you. — TimeLine

And you completely ignored it, as well as ignoring the fact that logic cannot be used to explain the type of problem you are suggesting and that the application of this problem in real-world scenarios fares differently to philosophical ones, you STILL continue.

FIRST: Regardless of whether the majority agrees with a particular idea, in this debate we should not stop our discussion simply because of what the majority thinks. — RepThatMerch22

You are not even discussing it. This so-called logical process you are attempting to convey is not actually going to rectify your previous lack thereof and does not suddenly make you look like you know what you are talking about.

SECOND: In looking at whether polygamy is a good idea, the fact that the majority may oppose it does not mean automatically that it is a bad idea. — RepThatMerch22

So, is this a moral question, an ethical question, or a political question. What does "bad idea" mean?

THIRD: Pointing out that the majority opposes polygamy is not sufficient to undermine any merits of such a proposal, and that such an issue deserves a greater depth of analysis. — RepThatMerch22

No one here is undermining it.

Lot's of words, nothing of consequence.

I am arguing that the majority can be wrong, and that we should not accept ideas as correct simply because they are endorsed by the majority. — RepThatMerch22

I am not going to ask you again. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Are you just saying that the majority can be wrong and issues like polygamy should be discussed, or do you want to go further and talk about the moral, ethical, political aspects to this problem?

It is a really simple question.

1. The majority can be wrong.
2. For example, suppose there are 10 people in a room.
3. 6 of them think that 2+2=5.
4. 4 of them think that 2+2=4.
5. The majority in that example is wrong. — RepThatMerch22

We get that. The majority can also be right, so the problem is why you are saying it. What is your point? You then say this:

Bringing that example back to the topic of this thread:

1. The majority of people in Australia have voted in favour of gay marriage.
2. Polygamy is not legal in Australia, in the sense that three or more people who live in Australia cannot get married in Australia.
3. The fact that the majority of people in Australia have not yet voted for polygamy to be legalised.
4. The fact that the majority of people in Australia have not yet voted for polygamy to be legalised does not mean that:
(a) we should shy away from debating the idea; and/or
(b) we should assume that polygamy is a bad idea just because it has not been endorsed by the majority. — RepThatMerch22

When you said this earlier:

Wrong. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5. — RepThatMerch22

So, now what you are trying to say is that we should debate the idea? I already agreed with that, hence the democracy, voting system, paradoxes, why freedom and equality are mutually exclusive that may result in laws contradicting rights. These are the types of conversations that occur when you bring such a contentious issue to discussion and debate. Where exactly, other than saying "wrong" have you had this debate?

What I want to say is that we have no way of knowing the consequences of our actions. The May be story brings that out very clearly. And Consequentialism is based on knowledge of the effects of our actions. So, doesn't the story undermine Consequentialism? — TheMadFool

It reinforces consequentialism rather than undermines it; determinism implies that only one result will occur out of a number of probable outcomes - this outcome being the consequence - and since there is no (clear) way one can with either facts or even awareness of the probable outcomes change this, there is no way one can control that outcome. The statement is trying to show the yin and yang between positive and negative irrelevant to consequences.

Your comment represents the height of anti-philosophy and intellectual dishonesty. — RepThatMerch22

Alright, listen here. The one thing that I have very little patience for are those who do not listen and just assume that they know the answer; so stubborn that they actually trick themselves into thinking things that do not exist, playing word games assuming others are playing along with them so as to ensure that whatever they are telling themselves remains believable enough to continue and they can sleep better at night.

If you are fixed in your opinion, if there is no possible method of me actually being able to have a conversation with you because your opinion is set or solid, then what is this exchange between us other than you talking to yourself? If I do not exist, there is nothing there but your imagination and you may think that this is an actual discussion we are having, but it is really just me talking to a wall.

There are some people that lead a very happy and content existence when they have stupid people around them who will agree to every bullshit that they say so that they can go on thinking they are magnificent. Other times, these stupid people are not actually good people that they have around them and they are playing a different game which is to nourish your narcissism with compliments erstwhile doing all sorts of shit behind your back as you go on thinking that you are magnificent.

If you do not seek to improve, you will remain the same for the rest of your life, you will be stuck and immovable. You will hurt people who are good for you and remain close to people who are bad for you and you will do that happily so that the continuity of your self-deceit remains steadfast and you can sleep better at night. But, not really, the misery deep within will merely be suppressed for as long as one continues playing this game.

You will never experience a world that could be exponentially better than what you are currently experiencing, so limited is your understanding that the real pleasures and real happiness in life will pass you by.

Make friends with people who are not afraid to tell you that you are wrong, not people who will agree with you tooth and nail. Do not project your own faults and problems onto these people when they expose to you that you are wrong and claim that it is them doing what you are actually doing. The word forum implies a medium where ideas can be exchanged. It is a community of people that communicate. Education, communication, it is this exchange that roots out the ego and all those narcissistic self-defence mechanisms to enable progress and improvement.

I instantly thought of Pierce regarding signs and semiotics. Our values are really just symbols that remain dependent on either, but we have given them properties that separate it and ultimately translate this separation by giving it meaning as something representative of other than what it actually is. It doesn't mean that everything is neither empirical nor conceptual. His picture-theory is a 'correspondence' and while he doesn't really offer a solution, I like this: "[a] pictorial view on the connection between the word (or sign) and the world (or object) partakes of indexicality (or secondness) in addition to iconicity. If the word is supposed to refer immediately outside itself to its alter ego, the object signified, this pointing function renders the representation clearly indexical. This is also implied in Wittgenstein's "ostensive definition" (eg PI:1:38),"

I pointed out that the majority can be wrong. If you disagree with that statement, and you also think that the majority is always right, that is an instantly refutable position. — RepThatMerch22

You have started with a fallacy of assuming that the majority are saying 2+2=5 and so you have instantly made it a wrong. Comparatively, you are instantly claiming that the illegality of polygamy as also wrong. You have demonstrated nothing but faulty reasoning. The really disturbing part about that is that you project your own failures by claiming that "there is nothing more to add" and yet you say this:

Simply stopping the analysis and saying that the majority thinks it is true is unscientific, profoundly mistaken and intellectually dishonest. — RepThatMerch22

Sorry, buddy. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and so we are done.

The fact that a majority of people is wrong has utterly nothing to do with voting, law or politics in my example. — RepThatMerch22

Yep, we're done.

The story seems to be a damning report on consequnetialism as a moral theory. — TheMadFool

How is it damning to consequentialism? It is more like a confirmation of causal determinism and the best thing to do is pretty much say 'you never know' and letting go of holding onto the need to control; by doing so, you will find that both wrong and right, good or bad are united in a certain flow with nature.

Those are general broad-brush topics you should bring elsewhere. The fact that a majority of people can be wrong is not a concept that you seem to grasp easily. Whether democracy is a desirable political system or not is another topic. — RepThatMerch22

You are talking about the majority opinion being wrong in the context of Australian law and that will inevitably include discussions of majority rule, democracy, voting, law, politics, philosophy. There is no actual answer to your question without thinking about those broader subjects in an attempt to justify why freedom and equality are mutually exclusive that may result in laws contradicting rights. Hence why I mentioned Arrows Theorem as an example where no voting system is ever accurate. You clearly have no idea about most of what is being said here and that verifies enough for me to try and help you understand and I am making every effort to speak in plain language, but your refusal with this "I am right and you are wrong" attitude and saying it rather forcefully yet without any philosophical substance is actually really disturbing to me.

You are talking about majority rule. Read it and then maybe you may understand my response accordingly. Otherwise, stay silent if you refuse to actually have a discussion.

it is an example of when the majority is incorrect. — RepThatMerch22

So, tyranny of the majority. Explain.

Generally, laws should always be evaluated to see if they are good or not. We should not just accept that all laws are perfect, and shy away from any critical analysis of them, simply because of the fact that they were passed through Parliament in a democratic fashion. — RepThatMerch22

Democratic fashion?

Ok, look, forcefully speaking without substance and clearly failing to actually read and understand responses does not make you correct. Read what I wrote and tell me where I am incorrect, otherwise this conversation ends right now.

What is the law? How is policy formed? Are you suggesting that it has nothing to do with democracy, government or citizens?

Rep, you say this:

You said that the fact that the majority of people think something is true means that their views have merit. I gave you a simple example to refute this. If there are 10 people in a room, an 6 people think that 2+2=5 and 4 people think that 2+2=4, that does not mean the majority is correct. — RepThatMerch22

What do you think that is?

Before I start, I must inform you that I am on my phone as I have been out all day and it is also really hot in this house so my aggravation may be slightly elevated. I apologise in advance if I come across as terse.

This is not relevant. You said that the fact that the majority of people think something is true means that their views have merit. I gave you a simple example to refute this. If there are 10 people in a room, an 6 people think that 2+2=5 and 4 people think that 2+2=4, that does not mean the majority is correct. That is similar to when the majority of people (hypothetically) thinking that gay marriage ought to be legal, but polygamous marriage ought not be legal. The very topic of my thread has to do with whether that (hypothetical) majority view has any merit, not whether there is in fact a majority. — RepThatMerch22

Incorrect. The merit here is not a philosophical one, it is political, it is the very nature of democracy here that you are questioning. Why do you think I indirectly suggested you prove why tyranny of the majority is a problem and why our proportional representation system is inadequate. If you can do this, you will find yourself discussing theoretical models far beyond practical reality. You will not find a solition because there are no sufficient indices that can calculate and measure equality accurately.

From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with you. Tocqueville and Mill both showed how there are disadvantages to democratic governance, with the former in particular discussing the effects of majoritarianism and the potential authoritarian implications.This despotism can work in many different ways; consider, the American populace promotes the idea of 'individualism' but can blindly move in masses and rather forcefully too whereby these ideas are subtly given rather than formed by this so-called individualism (and thus it is really just ideological and imagined). It could be the bureaucratic government has weakened civil society that blindly support them. Repeat enough times and you have the Erich Fromm' Sane Society where capitalism alienates people to a point where conformity is almost commercialised and the more continuous this repetition the more we lack any conscious identification to it as though it becomes a part of us, like language. JS Mill, from memory, spoke of this 'will' where the majority forces the minority to do what it wants and thus exercising tyrannical power. That is why we have a thing called 'Human Rights' - it is to empower the minority and safeguard their rights in the instance where the majority may not take responsibility for their behaviour.

One thing that I remember Tocqueville correctly outlining is the very limitations of the legislature, or at the very least imposing limitations on the legislature to ensure individual freedoms are not infringed; what we refer to as the separation of powers. Both, however, are warnings. To actually and practically apply 'democracy' at a political level is indeed much more difficult. While philosophers for centuries have offered suggestions to avoid this, no one - quite literally - has been able to provide an effective implementation or design of a just society. Essentially, democracy itself is just an ideal and even voting cannot adequate calculate (have a look at Arrows Paradox).

We are forced to safeguard justice from potential cracks or loopholes including, as I already mentioned, things like separating the legislature, executive and judiciary, offering plebiscites and referendums, voting. These cannot be fundamentally reduced to an actual egalitarian practice because there is a conflict between freedom and equality. You cannot have both. So, the activity of engaging citizens in political affairs is about safeguarding that individual 'freedom' and preventing that 'blind mob mentality'. Not sure if you were around during the Howard Government, but he fell because the Australian people were vehemently against IR laws that would have destroyed fair working arrangements. There have been a number of instances where our governments - mainly the liberals - have tried to breach that trust (Abbott and freedom of information for instance). There are multiple safeguards and the majority vis-a-vis citizenry is another form of power and that too needs ensure there are adequate protections to avoid despotism. It was not just the people that helped changed the law of marriage in Australia, there were many organisations including the Human Rights Commission as well as comparative studies on countries like Canada prior to such passing. It is not simply 'this is what we want' and that's that.

There is no real solution to equality save for perhaps the economic distribution of wealth and welfare ect, but not really this will or moral equality. Practically, it is impossible except for equality before the law. This, I gather, is where you are annoyed. Fair, distributive justice is about preventing inequalities and citizens - the right citizens, those 'individuals' who value freedom - will ultimately have different opinions. It is a fact that because of this freedom, we will occasionally find ourselves creating inequalities. There are situations where the outcome is not equal. Whether there is any moral liability here is questionable; if it were black and white, we would not be having this discussion.


I am going home now, I will write again soon.

No. The point is that that just because the majority thinks something is correct (that gay marriage should be allowed, but polygamy not) does not mean that they are correct. That was in response to your statement that: "If gay marriage is put to a vote, and more people support it than reject it -- for whatever reasons -- then that is sufficient. It is sufficient because that is the way up or down voting works". You should admit you are simply wrong here. — RepThatMerch22

This is a political question, so you were somewhat factitious by beginning the discussion on legislative grounds. Essentially, your complaint is not about marriage laws but about this movement and whether Australians are either blindly moving in masses or their values - which you consider to be hypocritical - are aligned. It is an absolutely farcical statement to say Australians are hypocritical considering that you have no way to justify it and the reason why we had a plebiscite was to assist the government in ascertaining the legitimacy behind all the contentious arguments raised both for and against gay marriage. The result clearly exemplified that there still remains a sharp dichotomy of opinions related to this in addition to the fact that not everyone voted.

It is sufficient in a country that adheres to democratic principles to view majority vote as adequate to ascertain a proportional representation system. You need to provide an argument here that can prove why the majority vote is a form of tyranny and while it is clear that there are shortcomings, overall - the bigger picture - to show to me whether the balance of majority rule is insufficient.

As for admitting I am simply wrong, I will absolutely do no such thing. This discussion is elementary at best and I am trying to help you elucidate it and not prove some position that I do not even hold.

The word "plurality" means multiple in this context, in case you did not know. If you think it means "two people", then you are creating an arbitrary definition (much like people who oppose gay marriage, who arbitrarily define it as a union for life between a man and a woman). — RepThatMerch22

Comical. And, what?

As for the rest of your garbage, I really have no time to nourish your ego on a subject you clearly have very little knowledge of.

This is obvious. But it is not sufficient in the sense that it does not provide a cogent and logical justification. If there are 10 people in a room, and 6 people think that 2+2=4, and the other 4 think that 2+2=5, the 6 people are not right because they are the majority. — RepThatMerch22

Are you comparing polygamy to a mathematical fact? You are also seemingly ignoring the fundamental argument against polygamy here, which is that marriage is a plurality. Anything more than a union of two, it is no longer "marriage" and so what would this actually be legislatively speaking? I think that Australia has done well enough to remain flexible to permit the small portion of our society willing to practice bigamy due to cultural reasons to do this outside of the country and return accordingly. Gay marriage is actually not just about rights, but about defining "marriage" which was previously a union between a man and a woman, which they changed.

It is very far-reaching and even then the article of concern draws some specificity. When you think of technology vis-a-vis the impact on our environment, we could draw focus on farming technology, or the technology that requires disposal or forms by-products etc, then you have deforestation, manufacturing, pollution and a number of others. It could be that when you search for "science" it would assume a positive - such as the scientific study of ecological degradation - rather than how science itself is causing the ecological degradation. Technology is probably the better word.

I know of I=PAT and I remember learning of it - it was very difficult managing the multiple variables.

And "science".

I want to know the environmental impact of a specific enterprise: science. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What I am trying to say to you is that there are certainly sources, but you would need to condense what you mean when you say science because the subject is so broad it will yield either too much or none at all. There is no specific enterprise "science" but that science is a term that explains a number of things and thus you would need to condense that search to those things. So, the impact on the environment and energy consumption, even then you will have oil, gas, agriculture, supply chain, even further still politics, economics, law etc. When I said that you had not answered the question, what I was attempting to ascertain is what you mean by Science.

You really have not answered the question, what exactly are you looking for? Do you want google to find an all-encompassing result on the environmental impact of technology or do you want information about specific things like electricity or gasoline having a negative impact on the environment? It is a huge subject that requires condensing.

I am simply talking about the everyday conduct of science. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What do you mean by everyday conduct of science? You are probably not yielding results because it is so broad. Are you talking about the environmental impact of technology?

So if three women want to get married to each other in a three-way relationship, it is right to deny them that freedom even though they don't affect anyone else's freedoms? — RepThatMerch22

There is no such thing, buddy. You can come up with all sorts of scenarios but you will only find yourself fabricating points to justify a moot argument. So, yes, there are restrictions necessary; it is the same complex restrictions you'll find in freedom of speech and hate speech.

If you use personal values to deny them that opportunity, but then support gay marriage because it accords with your own personal values, you are hypocritical.

Religious people may object to gay marriage because it infringes their personal values. — RepThatMerch22

It is not my values that matter, but ours, when it comes to the law and democracy. I have no qualms with polygamy because I don't give a crap what people do in private as long as it is between consenting adults. But, marriage is a plurality in our culture and a predominate one. More than two, it is no longer marriage but something else.

You have not provided an adequate defence for polygamy, you just seem to be harping the same song.

Wow, you must have an amazing memory! — Purple Pond

No, he has mummy issues.

They do not violate the rights of women. Those terms are gender-neutral, so I do not see why you have brought women into this. — RepThatMerch22

The terms? Wait, are you suggesting that because polygamy is gender-neutral as a word, then the practice is gender-neutral?

That's just.. :-|

In Australia, you cannot be married to two Australian residents at once. — RepThatMerch22

Why do you support polygamy? What is your reasoning behind it?

First of all, if people oppose it because it infringes their values, the same objection could be raised to gay marriage. Are we using personal values to justify law, or are we saying that gay marriage (like bigamy or polygamy) can be justified on the ground that it promotes freedom whilst minimally (if at all) infringing the rights of others? For the record, I do support gay marriage, but I also support polygamy and bigamy. — RepThatMerch22

Not at all. Every nation-state has values and ideals that it broadly adheres to and the difficulty that we experience in a multicultural country like Australia is that sometimes there are ethical clashes, particularly religiously where something like polygamy is permitted and gay marriage is not. What we do in those instances is strike a balance and Australia has core values that we expect civic society to adhere to; these principles are both politically as a democracy as well as in law.

The problem of defining "marriage" vis-a-vis our core values and the law was that - while it was only with one other person - whether it should be considered between a 'man and a woman' and so same-sex marriage is really a question of defining person as all people should be equal before the law. That is human rights. The growing voice forced in support of gay marriage left democracy to allow citizens to choose because the law could not strike that balance; it was too complicated particularly for the reason that people like you would stand up and start saying, "well, what about polygamy?"

It is about the union of two people and therefore a plurality, not about gender. The content here is vastly different to polygamy where the cultural practice - for instance in some sects of Islam - is one man and four women. That is not about human rights, neither is it about personhood but it is a cultural practice that could in our terms and according to our values infringe on the rights of women which is in contravention of gender equality. If you put polygamy to a vote in Australia, it would get knocked off pretty easily because of this, this and because the communities that practice polygamy are so small.

You have actually not addressed the merits of what I have said. — RepThatMerch22

Because there is no merits, buddy. I cannot address something that I cannot address.

Are we using personal values to justify law, or are we saying that gay marriage (like bigamy or polygamy) can be justified on the ground that it promotes freedom whilst minimally (if at all) infringing the rights of others? For the record, I do support gay marriage, but I also support polygamy and bigamy. — RepThatMerch22

Why do you think the law exists?

Merry xxx-mas Prax :D

Clucky is attractive on you. (L) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Everyone thinks I would be an awesome mum because I am so good with kids being so playful as a person, but that is not going to happen. I'm actually on the adoption list as a candidate given my professional history with kids so I think in about a year or two I may have an adopted bub. I want a little boy, raise him as a feminist. :D

1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22

There is some freedom in Australian law that allows polygamous marriage. The extremity of the offence of bigamy is, indeed, quite overwhelming (level 6) and there certainly is room to question whether polygamy should be a crime considering the rarity, but we do have room for relativism given that the practice does occur all over the world. You can be married to more than one person if the marriage is done internationally in a country that accept bigamy, but they will encounter some difficulties with the Migrations Act. However, unlike gay marriage, I doubt there will be manoeuvrability or any chance of this law relaxing in Australia. A large portion of Australians would not fight for bigamy primarily because it infringes on the rights of women and the custom is very peculiar to paternalistic cultures that challenges our liberal attitude. It is a great discussion to have in the philosophy of law, but the wider Australian population would likely see it as an infringement of rights and freedoms rather than the other way around.

Some people in Australia oppose s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This section prohibits people from using offensive or insulting language. People oppose it because it restricts free speech. Why do they not oppose sections in the Summary Offences Act which prohibit offensive language or offensive language? What about the Criminal Code in Queensland, which sets out leaving offensive material with someone as an example of stalking? — RepThatMerch22

First of all, most people probably don't know about the Summary Offences Act, it is certainly not as well known as 18c and not as controversial; we all seem to accept that public decency laws are necessary to keep social order and so a person raving swear words and offensive language without sufficient reason in front of children or in public places near or around children would result in a fine, just as much as someone who decides to take their clothes off in a shopping centre. It is an isolated incident and the psychological harm is minimal in comparison to repeated harassment and particularly one directed at a person due to their race or religion that is often threatening.

This is the same as stalking. If someone I know is pretending to be someone else - say here online - and yet contacts me and I know that it is them, that increases my level of fear and psychological harm because I would be questioning why he or she would be doing that and will feel threatened accordingly. Indirect behaviour - such as leaving offensive material, say porn magazines - in a place where they know the victim will find it and the victim would know that it was the perpetrator that left it, it only increases psychological harm because they cannot prove what is happening but feel threatened (why would they do that?) and so the relevance to 18c here is the psychological harm.

The controversy with 18c is common all over the world and the executive government have been hostile to it since the very beginning, just as much as they are to Mabo v Queensland that led to a number of controversies with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities particularly during the Howard phase. We have s18d whereby prima facie there are exemptions to this law that enables fair expression particularly artistic that is of public interest that prevents the law breaching freedom of speech.

Holocaust denial is an act unacceptable viz., this law, for instance, but the law predominately works parallel to those who experience discrimination and harassment in the workplace such as repeated bullying where someone - say an indigenous employee - is called a 'coon' or 'nigger' and this increases liability due to the psychological harm it imposes. And it will stay that way, despite the recent attempt by the Turnbull government which was crushed by the Senate.

If someone dies in Queensland and does not leave adequate provision for their children in their will, those children have a legal right to sue beneficiaries to claim the estate (even though nothing or very little was given to them in the will). If Australians support gay marriage, why will they not support removing family provision legislation? — RepThatMerch22

This is weird. You are going to have to ameliorate why you compare the two.

Should there be a right to suicide? Most people would say "no", because life is a gift. But how does this make sense, given that nobody makes a choice to be born? What if you are born in a poor family and you do not like your parents? Why should there not be a right to suicide? My view is that the State should provide facilities for people to undergo voluntary euthanasia, in a painless and quick manner, provided they are of sound mind. This only makes sense. You as an individual only exist because of a decision made by others (i.e. your parents). Why should you be forced to live a life you don't want to? The human instinct is to survive, and suicide is often expensive, impracticable or scary. Thus, the State should implement means by which to end one's life. — RepThatMerch22

There are some jurisdictions that have legislated euthanasia laws for those who have a terminal illness under very specific circumstances. Other than that, the rest of what you say is nonsense.

Is psychology a real science? I do believe in the existence of certain disorders like Asperger's and antisocial personality disorder. But the discipline is very poorly defined and it allows unscrupulous individuals (such as practising psychologists) to say almost anything about anybody, and as long as it is plausible not many people will question it. For example, if you are a clinical psychologist, you could get away with telling your client to "exercise more" or "don't overthink it". I do not feel as though it is a serious or rigorous scientific discipline. I do not feel like you need a degree to practise psychology. There is also little evidence that clinical psychology is at all effective compared to talking with friends, or talking to someone who is pretending to be a psychologist (but does not have a degree). — RepThatMerch22

It is not very poorly defined, you are just very poorly educated on the subject.

There is some astrogeology going on that we know about. What are you going to learn/say/write about astrobiology, of which there is zero evidence, so far. (Or does growing asparagus on a space ship count as astrobiology?) — Bitter Crank

I have no idea. I would have asked Paul the Octopus, but he dead.

My general view is that the Earth IS our spaceship, the only one we have. We're never going to physically 'go where no man has gone before', i.e. to another life-bearing planet, because it's physically impossible. Interstellar distances are simply too vast. I see space travel as a sublimated wish to go to Heaven, now that 'the cosmos' has more or less replaced God in the popular imagination. — Wayfarer

Earth is a planet.

Indeed, interstellar distances are incredibly vast, so why exactly do you believe in something like "cosmic sperm" just because the speculation appears metaphorically compelling? There are a lot of metaphorically compelling things out there, like people bending spoons with their mind or teleportation. Unless you are conscious of it being pure speculation and make that clear that you obtained the information from dubious sources, your respectability on the subject becomes questionable.

And no, space travel is about gaining knowledge.

I'm confused as the OP did not mention panspermia let along tardigrades and octopuses. — apokrisis

The OP was about the supposition that if we as humans travelled to another planet with the same atmospheric composition would we survive, and this together with the title about aliens arriving on earth can cause - by extension - the octopus result. It could have rendered a plethora of other possibly ridiculous outcomes. It is precisely because the OP did not mention or specify - as you have - that enables absurd outcomes and it is the same when questioning metaphysics or quantum mechanics; specificity is a must and my intention with the octopus hyperbole is to show how one absurdity can possibly lead to another. It is also very difficult to argue with someone who believes in questionable theories and you should know this from metaphysics.

It is not necessarily about posters and whilst it is true that the ability of reducing the prospect of these ridiculous outcomes is determined by the poster' capacity to weed out the absurdity to find something scientifically intelligible, how this is achieved is rather ambiguous and so it would be preferable if the post itself - the original post - is more appropriately aligned with mainstream research from the get-go, to say something like "Davis wrote about martian biosignatures, what do you think?" and it is easy to forget with all the rubbish that exists out there that content and context matters in both philosophy and science.

Cool. But again the OP seems utterly unproblematic in that light. It sets out a chain of reasoning in full. It asks a question that is worth answering - on moral grounds, if we are going to cart our bugs to Mars, if nothing else.

It contained a "scientific error" at the last step, in my opinion. The OP assumed that our immune system has to be evolved to recognise invasive biological threats. But we now know our immune system instead can learn because it generates a variety of antibodies on a "just in case" basis. It doesn't know what might be coming down the pipe, so it produces a range of receptors and uses these to discover what might be "alien" in terms of what it knows to be not "the usual biology out which 'I' am constructed". — apokrisis

I agree, except that the question was not a moral one at all but that is how you interpreted the broad speculation that returns back to my abovementioned issue. I guess my intention of questioning whether this was philosophy of science was really brought up because of the Wayfarer response and indeed applying this expose of faulty reasoning through a reminder of sorts. I like what you said, actually, about uncomfortable discussions; that will definitely remain something I will always remind myself of.

Davies is one of my favourite scientists. He is more prepared than most to speculate wildly because that speculation could bring great rewards.

And unlike Crick, his speculation is careful. It always has a good metaphysical grounding. — apokrisis

He is a nice guy and I am doing a subject on astrobiology next year so I would be interested to read more about the subject as a whole, despite my concessions. A close friend is studying her PhD in astrogeology and knows him pretty well.

Anyway, carry on!

However as a general issue of policing debates here, this site ought to be enforcing standards of critical thinking, not trying to enforce some mainstream belief system. It is how folk handle what seem to be extraordinary claims that matters. And going and checking the facts - is panspermia a mainstream research topic? - would be an example of critical thinking in action. — apokrisis

I have seen some amazing responses in other threads that could parallel the potential mainstream belief issue you are attempting to convey - because I agree that it is about ascertaining the scientific amidst the broad and often highly imaginative narrative - but this constraint is reliant on both on the OP and on the posters. I respect you as a poster and know you are capable of this, but when you reflect back on this thread, has there really been any critical thinking in action? An octopus is now an alien and they probably can start predicting who will win the world cup. That is not probability theory, that is just insanity. I do respectfully agree and reiterate that I will certainly be cautious before ever making a decision otherwise, but my intention really was to understand whether this subject could indeed be considered Philosophy of Science and not about moderating risks and what not.

I have actually been to a lecture by Davis, by the way, and I find his ideas on evolution and cancer research to be really compelling. His suggestions about tracing this works similarly to his ideas of Mars, of going back to a time when it may have been habitable and how this could indeed initiate the biosignatures now on Earth. It is also not without controversy.

But you're not funny? :D More to the point, when you say:

It can make your mind more powerful than your intelligence alone is. — T Clark

And then:

It is also intimately tied to intellect. — T Clark

How does that work, exactly? Are you saying humour and cognition are mutually exclusive?

I worry that if you are considering drawing a line at a point I consider pretty mainstream — T Clark

Are you done? It is not mainstream science. And clearly the thread is still here so what exactly is your point? There are just as many people who would disagree with you and say that the level of PhilSci is lacklustre at best and should be moderated.

But it remains the case that science treats it as a possibility even if an unlikely one. That seemed to be what you were asking for opinions on. — apokrisis

Because, as I said earlier, if you are attempting to form a hypothesis, then speculative theories are understandable, but it is easy to confuse speculation with experimental data and it can become a very clever way to justify unreliable and non-productive claims just like extraterrestrial life or worse, things like Would Aliens die if they visited Earth?

I thoroughly enjoy threads like this and my asking opinions from others is really to ascertain where to strike a balance because to me, the OP is one giant splatter of nonsense. Anyway, thanks and I will think about speculative theories and the boundaries to scientific method a bit more.