Then I must be "mind-mindbogglingly arrogant". If I had to choose between a book that contains knowledge and a book that contains somebody's intuitions, I would choose the former. Simply put: it's better to know. — Wheatley
Could you rephrase this. I saidThat is not how either understands their act of abuse unless they are aware of being angry and wanting to hurt the other person — Athena
I think some people do frame their sexual interaction with an adult when they were a child as sexual abuse. I think they would also say they blame the person in some way or other. So, I am not sure what you mean by it not being 'how either understands their act of abuse...'I can't see a problem with someone who is sexually abused blaming someone who abused them. — Bylaw
And some of them have blame, the young men and the adults they become, especially if they were very young.I am including females as sexual predators, because of news stories of female teachers lusting for a young male student and acting on it. — Athena
I have no idea how you got here or what this has to do with what I wrote.How many men fake a climax to make the woman feel good and to stop the action that is not appealing because the hormone level is not where it needs to be to enjoy sex? — Athena
I don't think I was hysterical. I don't think your response makes much sense as a response to my post A young man who rapes someone in the way you describe is a very dangerous person but I guess I kinda hope he watches the guy who wants to be killed and eaten by that German guy before he meets you. You won't have any blame for him or complaints if he kills and eats you. He will have thought you wanted it. It would be hysterical of you to think his behavior was blameworthy even if he starts eating first before the kill.If we think of nature we might be a little less hysterical about the behavior and behave according to nature's rules, instead of flaunting the rules and then crying about the man's act of nature. :monkey: — Athena
If you have a pathologist who finds scar tissue in the heart of a deceased person and considers this natural until he also find very high amounts, unnaturally high amounts of PCBs in the body, beyond even pollution caused levels, she may decide that this was an unnatural death.if someone goes to a doctor, and say he has a liver problem, so they both are looking on liver, but he has a heart problem, nothing usefull will be done. — Nothing
Yes, I understand your position. But what happened here is you restated your original position, but didn't really interact with the ideas in my post.Premise is there is not such a thing as unnatural, all is nature, space, car, tree, human..
What do you see as the difference between blame and holding someone responsible.Both of them take responsibility for their own lives. Neither blames the people who abused them, although they do hold them responsible. — T Clark
That doesn't hold for me as a generalization. If someone shot me in the spine, I would blame them for that and certainly some of my misfortune. One can blame others AND then make the best of the situation. I don't think serfs being wiped out by Mao or Stalin would have been wrong to blame their misfortune on those guys. Of if society were to move towards a dictorship and speaking up gets you killed. I can blame justifiably those who are pulling stuff AND also do the best I can given the effects of the work of evil people.The essence of adulthood is that you don't blame other people for your misfortune. — T Clark
Question: why people say, man made things are unnatural ? — Nothing
Yes, it's an absurd term in current usage. Obviously there are conspiracies, some involving governments in collusion with other major players. There are also all sorts of conspiracy to committ type laws. So, everyone believes in conspiracies. Everyone has their theories or what in science might be called hypotheses. 9/11 was not pilot error. It was some kind of conspiracy. So, to label one group's theory ridiculous because it is a conspiracy theory, when one believes it was a conspiracy of some kind, is silly.Some conspiracy theories will turn out to be true, others false. Somehow it has come to be identified as applicable to only irrational theories. — bert1
I thought you might be arguing from, in a sense, a pragmatic viewpoint. It's not so important if you are smart, in the traditional IQ sense, but very important that you are successful. Success reflects an ability to make effective practical effects on reality. So, in instrumental terms, it is more important to have a high EQ.Research has shown that people with a high EQ tend to be more successful than compare to others who have a high IQ. So if a high EQ is the key to success why focus on Epistemology? — TheQuestion
That last bit which I highlighted is epistemology, which is about what is knowledge, how do we get it, how do we know we have it and so on.It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought.
Well, if we find evidence that natural mechanism change over time - constants and laws - then they are challenged.I am not sure that we can successfully challenge the regularity or longevity of natural mechanism and properties. — Nickolasgaspar
I think the complaint is that qm is ontologically probablisitic, for example. Also that 'things' can be in different potential states at the same time. Of course the evidence is unbelievably strong or they never would have accepted QM and initial resistance was strong. It's that it points, as does relativity theory, to ontological ideas that went not only against common sense but against assumptions in science in general. I have no problem with this, but some do.-Well that is a misconception. After all QM is science's most successive formulations offering predictions with up to 99,999...up to 14 decimal places....accuracy. — Nickolasgaspar
Sure, though aren't they getting qm effects at larger scales.We shouldn't maintain the same expectations from matter at such an energetic state and we should take in to account the way we make observations at that scale! — Nickolasgaspar
I am not sure what 'our current paradigm would refer to' but it was Caldwell who I think has a problem with QM. I think, but I am not sure, he sees it as having concluded (a little anthropomorphism tossed in) that classical causation does not hold (at least in some processes or at a certain scaleThe only point I don't really get is your position on QM. What observation in QM do you think creates the biggest trouble for our current paradigm? — Nickolasgaspar
Sure, but the idea that laws are timeless and universal can be challenged. Which means they weren't necessarily wrong before, but the conclusion that they were built permanently into the fabric of the whole universe could be incorrect.All scientific laws are descriptive...this means that if they stop describing our observations accurately they are challenged by default. — Nickolasgaspar
Our frameworks were never considered as "absolute truths", again science doesn't play the "absolute truth" game. — Nickolasgaspar
What you just presented here is a position that some scientists have (only humans can have biases and positions) but others do not. I'd say I am a kind of Pragmatist so I don't have a problem with your position here, in fact, I would say I agree with it. More than that I think that was what I was saying to Caldwell, though I am not sure exactly what his position is. But it seems to be that QM includes theories (or hypotheses that he considers unjustly accepted) that go against things like clearcut causal laws, so this is decay.Science produces data and offers descriptive law like generalizations based on Naturalistic principles...not because of a philosophical bias but due to Pragmatic Necessity since they are the only testable and objectively falsifiable. — Nickolasgaspar
I'll just say you seem to be assuming things about my beliefs or the position I presented which are not the case. And again, Science can't have goals. Only living organisms can. (with a proviso that future evidence might alter my position on this:joke:)I understand that absolute knowledge or truth as Science's goals are popular beliefs,but they couldn't be further from the truth. — Nickolasgaspar
Ah, OK, I hadn't gotten this far yet. Thanks for the clarification.The above remarks are not necessary in conflict with what you stated, I only included them as additional information in the discussion. — Nickolasgaspar
I claim no expertise about Newton, but it has been presented to me from hundreds of (perhaps weak) sources that he did in fact believe in absolute time and space.-Well to be fair towards Newton, he never included any ontology in his mathematical formulations. To be more precise he never published a theory, his Theory of Gravity is not a theory! Its a law in the form of a mathematical description!. There is even an anecdote informing people to call the phenomenon whatever they want (energy, force etc)...
Others rushed in to ad their narrative on what his equations implied. — Nickolasgaspar
Some going so far, as here, arguing where he got his ideas from and then quoting Newton.Newtonian Time
According to its most famous proponent, Sir Isaac Newton, for example, absolute time (which is also sometimes known as “Newtonian time”) exists independently of any perceiver, progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe, is measurable but imperceptible, and can only be truly understood mathematically. For Newton, absolute time and space were independent and separate aspects of objective reality, and not dependent on physical events or on each other.
Time, in this conception, was external to the universe, and so must be measured independently of the universe. It would continue even if the universe were completely empty of all matter and objects, and essentially represented a kind of container or stage setting within which physical phenomena occur in a completely deterministic way. In Newton’s own words: “absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external”.
Newton’s ideas about absolute time were largely borrowed from Isaac Barrow, his predecessor at Cambridge. Barrow himself described time as a mathematical concept, analogous to a line in that it has length, is similar in all its parts, and can be looked on either as a simple addition of continuous instants, or alternatively as the continuous flow on one instant.
Great. I have to add that I really wish this was the way scientists, in general, acted. You are talking about 'the default position' Science can't have a default position, people have them. And the people I see and interact with do not withold beliefs to unfounded (or even partially founded or even merely mentioned) claims. In fact ironically Caldwell's reaction (which I may be misinterpreting) to QM seems like what I experience in my interaction with the majority of scientists I've met: they don't withhold beliefs. They evaluate intuitively or deductively beliefs that contradict or seem to contradict or might contradict or just seem weird based on their sene of current models, ontologies and theories. And they often rapidly dismiss things that, were your sense of the default in praxis accurate IRL, they should not given what science is. And they do this with peers also. To bring back Newton, there is a lot of inertia when encountering new and 'strange' ideas. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that....So the default position is to accept the ontology we know it is possible and withhold belief to any unfounded claim. — Nickolasgaspar
I appreciate the points you are making here and elsewhere similar to this one.This is the covid issue in a nutshell. The fanatics say "you must believe X because look at what's at stake", but the evidence for what's at stake invariably comes from aforementioned X, so it's a nonsense argument. — Isaac
And yes, I was referring to economic and then political practices allowing them to present, for example, poor methodolgies and research practices as science. And then effectively paint critics, including scientists, as against science through media that they have much more contol over as a mouthpiece. The specific epistemologies they present are often highlighted by critics and part of their criticisms, but since these are hard for the general public to follow, and even other scientists conflate corporate sponsered research as following The Set of Methodologies and Standards of Theoretical evaluations AND who assume that 'of course' regulatory bodies including scientists would not allow terrible epistemologies (demonstrated in specific examples of poorly done research that supports positions corporations want) to be approvedDoes that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science,, no they can not.
It might, however, be a sign of something that will cause you problems. You may or may not notice those problems. Even if, let's assume for argument, empathy for insects is misplaced, you might have a more general empathy deficit which will after your other relationships.I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying. — IanBlain
They manage to rather well. I get your point: scientific methodologies/epistemology cannot decay. But here on earth what gets called science can decay, and money is effectively doing that. Given the increase in wealth at the top and decrease in the number of media companies (that reach significant numbers), I am not seeing an easy way for us to break free from this.Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science, — Nickolasgaspar
I think statements can be ambiguous and therefore cannot be neatly categorizes as true or false. I think some statements can be nonsense and again true and false are off the table. But then I think there are many sentences that are not, for example, 100% true, that it would be false to say they were false.But to say some statements are neither true or false, therefore they are both seems to express a bland superfluity. — Tom Storm
A saying is an assertion. Can you explain what assertions are not under the purview of true and false? As far as 'being the case' they are somewhat true, somewhat false. And an assertion, at least according to many, such as 'a virus is a lifeform' is neither true nor false. It has within it a category 'lifeform' that has been treated for a long term as part of a binary pair, but it may not be a binary pair, there may be combinations or a spectrum.If any of these is the case then they are true. If they are not the case they are false. 'Look before you leap' is a saying and does not have this kind of truth value. I don't know what 'trusting people is a problem' means. — Tom Storm
Here also:So a claim can never be true or not true at the same time because it is a judgment based on facts at that specific moment. — Nickolasgaspar
I have seen criticism of QM mainly and relativity perhaps a bit and then that physics is reductionistic (though the reductionism charge I have tended to see aimed more at the biological sciences). But I am not sure how that relates to empirical critiques. Relativity has had many types of empirical confirmation, as has QM. In general. Specific interpretations of qm phenomena are seen as unjustified, but the data does not support seeing particles as tiny balls. IOW common sense metaphysics and the traditional sense of matter are contradicted by QM empirical data.If you notice in your reading that the physicists are mostly the culprit of the tradi tional science-decline sentiments, though they're not the only target of the critics. Quantum theory, relativity theory, reductionist physics, and oh, alternative knowing. — Caldwell
I am still stuck here. If my first summation of part of your position is off, please let me know.So, the decay in science is coming from people who believe science is slighting (the existence of) things outside our perception? Can you give me a recent example of this? — Bylaw
Right, or so I would guess, not having read much of Putnam, but philosophy often focuses on what's on paper, the ideal science, say epistemology. Not real world application of science where politics and money influence every stage from what gets investigated, by whom, how it is investigated, who confirms results, what results are found, how this is applied in the world and nowadays who in the scientific community even gets to talk. Peer review can be silenced. Counterevidence can be eliminated from public view not because it is false, but because it might cause someone to doubt. Well, that's what counter or new evidence ought to do. That is an incredibly complicated set of phenomena and a lot of academic philosophers want to focus on one topic at a time. And they very well may lack the training to evaluateYet squabbles about what's science and what's pseudo science in testing vaccines and efficacy of drugs and pandemic hardly become permanent inhabitants of scholarly books that get attacked by the likes of Hilary Putnam — Caldwell
from the GuardianJeff Bezos, whose net worth is currently estimated at over $190bn, didn’t pay any federal income taxes in 2007. The stock value for his company, Amazon, more than doubled that same year.
Bezos also didn’t pay federal income taxes in 2011.
That same year, he apparently claimed a $4,000 tax credit for his kids.
Necessary to whom and what does that person or those people have as values?I believe that emotions have become unnecessary in this modern world, and that the future doesn't need it anymore. — Kinglord1090
So, the decay in science is coming from people who believe science is slighting (the existence of) things outside our perception? Can you give me a recent example of this? (and I am not saying this is not a significant phenomenon or that you are incorrect, I just find it hard to know exactly what is meant at this level of abstraction.)Empirical science which puts sensation and observation on a pedestal. Which, according to critics, is done to the detriment of things outside of our perception -- thing in itself. — Caldwell
People say somebody is a vegetable, or in a vegetative state, when they have no conscious awareness, generally because of injury or disease. — Daemon
Actually we don't. We don't know the mechanism that causes conssciousness. We know a lot of about mechanisms that cause various cognitive functions, but we know little about awareness itself. About why some matter experiences, that we know nothing about?It's produced by highly specific and exceptionally complex mechanisms and processes in the brain (and body). We know an astonishing amount about those mechanisms and processes. — Daemon
This debunking would work on humans also. The only reason it doesn't is because each of us experiences. It would work on debunking animal consciousness, since one could reduce an animals seeing to a mechanistic process and throw in chemical names. But we no longer assume that animals are not conscious. You have demonstrated nothing with this reduction.The phototropic response occurs because greater quantities of auxin are distributed to the side away from the light than to the side toward it, causing the shaded side to elongate more strongly and thus curve the stem toward the light. — https://www.britannica.com/science/auxin#ref1279053
So a plant doesn't need to be able to see light in order to respond to it. And it doesn't have the kind of mechanisms and processes you have, the ones that make you conscious. So there isn't any good reason to think that plants are conscious.
↪Thunderballs
I was asking questions about decay. I am not sure if you are seconding my questions or disagreeing with something or.....
I agree, though strangely it was scientific practice to do precisely that until the 70s within science. Not doing it could cause you problems professionally.The planning and introspective type behaviour is evidence of consciousness, especially in light of the fact non-human animals have brains which are used for thinking, just-like-us. It doesn't make sense to say these non-human animals are by default not conscious, and we certainly shouldn't wait until we are overwhelmed by evidence to treat them as such. — Down The Rabbit Hole