I was asking questions about decay. I am not sure if you are seconding my questions or disagreeing with something or.....

Ok, I see where you are coming from.

Let's skip the hard to nail down middleman Rosenfeld.

What did Bohr do, in abstract terms, that is part of the decay of science?

IOW what is the general mispractice he engaged in and what are some other examples of this?

So the first part is his mispractice at an abstract level, then the second part is

'and over here in biology with the specific case of __________ we can see who scientist _________________also engaged in the same type of mispractice and it is this that leads to decay'

Obviously the examples don't ahve to be biology.

And perhaps, now that I have laid this out, you can see that I have misunderstood you. Hopefully not, but that's more or less, how I have been taking the Rosenfeld Bohr issue.

Isn't that almost a kind of prejudice? You don't act like us, so you must be a mere object or a mechanical undirected process? — Yohan

Yes, and that's a definite bias.

There's a difference between consciousness and behavior and we can't measure consciousness (yet at least) but we look at behavior. The prejudice cuts to thinking that those things that behave like us may be conscious and there has been tremendous resistance to every acknowledgement of cognition/consciousness each step further from humans to other other primates to other mammals to birds, with the scientific consensus being No, the default as no, until overwhelmed with evidence. In recent decades a lot of evidence is coming in related to plants: plant intelligence, plant communication, plant decisions, plants having painlike reactions, some but not all of this at slower speeds than animals, but in the end not that different. This anthropomorphic bias has been almost greatest within science, while laypeople who work with animals, for example, have long known that science had an extreme bias. Only in the 70s did it begin to dissolve and a scientist could openly as a professional speak about animal decisions, cognition, desires and consciousness without causing him or herself problems.

Sure, animals, including us, have our strengths and weaknesses.

It seemed like he supported him on those, though I have trouble finding clear info.

Your quote

"The daring (not to say scandalous) character of Bohr's quantum postulate cannot be stressed too strongly: that the frequency of a radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom did not coincide with any frequency of its internal motion must have appeared to most contemporary physicists well-nigh unthinkable. Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity.""

Is not clearly taking a stand. That is was heretical, that it was scandalous could very much have to do with assmptions of the time.

So, how does this lead to the decay of science?
Also it seems from what I have seen Rosenfeld is not scathing in relation to Bohr's ideas. He seems supportive. Though I haven't really found a great source. He was his assistant wasn't he?

Or it understands, but you're not conscious of it. You think the toaster knows the numbers on its dial?

It confusing words with things. A vague general term 'machine' (which is created for a purpose by someone) is being used to cover any phenomenon and the word just then diminishes all possible claims of uniqueness. So a word used in a new way without all the usual qualities associated with that word is being used by one unbelievably complex organism to diminish potential claims of uniqueness by other unbelievably complex organisms. It should undermine itself. I mean the first organism making the value judgment would then be a machine. And a machine does what it does. It might create a good conclusion, it might now, but if it is a machine, it can't help produce it and therefore cannot be sure it is being logical or rational. It might be, but whatever self-evaluation it produces, it had to produce. And so on every meta layer onward.

The word just is a value judgment. So we think of 'machines' which are things we have made that are vastly simply than us, at least so far. Vastly.

Then we say we or dogs or whatever are just machines.

It's like saying oceans are just drops of water so what does a marine ecologist do?

As far as Lamark, I'd need a bit more. It seems it might veer your post in a new direction, but I am not sure which.

Epigenetics is what I think of instead of Lamark, but even then, not quite in this context.

The issue with dogs is considering them machines but not considering humans as machines. There was a hard line in science, even, with mammals as machines but not humans. Then it started to erode in the 70s. Even words can be, if one wanted, seen to be forms created by biochemical machinery, products of machines. — Bylaw

Right, I haven't asserted they are. They are a different mammal, running on cells, however complicatedly linked. This

Chemotaxis is the directed motion of an organism toward environmental conditions it deems attractive and/or away from surroundings it finds repellent. Movement of flagellated bacteria such as Escherichia coli can be characterized as a sequence of smooth-swimming runs punctuated by intermittent tumbles. Tumbles last only a fraction of a second, which is sufficient to effectively randomize the direction of the next run. Runs tend to be variable in length extending from a fraction of a second to several minutes.
As E. coli cells are only a few microns long, they behave essentially as point sensors, unable to measure gradients by comparing head-to-tail concentration differences. Instead, they possess a kind of memory that allows them to compare current and past chemical environments. The probability that a smooth swimming E. coli cell will stop its run and tumble is dictated by the chemistry of its immediate surroundings compared to the chemistry it encountered a few seconds previously. — https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(02)01424-0

is just as problematic for human intelligence. Words get produced, movements get produced by machines.

The issue with dogs is considering them machines but not considering humans as machines. There was a hard line in science, even, with mammals as machines but not humans. Then it started to erode in the 70s. Even words can be, if one wanted, seen to be forms created by biochemical machinery, products of machines.

Bylaw, could you perhaps search for Leon Rosenfeld, in his scathing remark to Niels Bohr's "On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules". — Caldwell

I found a Marxist defense of complementarity by him when I googled his name and Bohr.

If you could somehow explain to me how corporations influence or change science -- besides the enterprising part or profiteering -- that would be great. — Caldwell

They have managed to get people to confuse corporate generated research and conclusions with science. Here's an example. If you go to somewhere like sciforums or any other 'place' where people, including scientists, belief (current) scientific practice is the only route to knowledge, you may well (and I have) encountered people saying things like if (some form of Alternative Medicine) worked, it would be part of regular medicine. Which, implicitly, assumes the independence of the FDA, the objectivity and openness of research, the inablity of corporations to create the conclusions they want, how the incredibly high price of meeting FDA protocols requires patentability, the lack of current paradigmantic biases, the power of corporations and organizations like the AMA to attack and suppress entities they consider threatening their markets, pharmas power in relation to media and likely other things I am not thinking of at this moment. Often alternative medicine products cannot be patented (despite corporations trying to patent things like the NEEM tree). For example.

Now from your perspective, this may seem like a specific case, not really getting at the roots of science's role in general.

From my perspective, the types of products that have made it through, including nano, GMO and, yes, the current 'vaccine' products and get called scientifically demonstrated to be both healthy for us or ecosystems AND those things that did not make it through the supposedly authoritative bodies' gauntlets, means that criticism and debate are effectively silenced, including professionals concerned about products that may be globally and fundamentally dangerous.

So, what, yes, is a subset of current scientific research is actually not based on objectively carried out and objectively evaluated (by regulartory bodies or by scientist peers)
the future of any science is threatened, since humans are. I think there is a practical outcome threat.

While I don't deny this corporate reality, this is not what a true cycle theorist points to in their criticism of science. Maybe this comes as a surprise. Although, I agree that it does indirectly affect science. — Caldwell

I've read the OP and a few of your other posts and I am not quite sure what your position is. So, I may miss the mark.

I'll throw out: perhaps our positions are complementary.

The moment I see the examples of antivaxxers and creationists as the main example of the problem - even if you are saying that they are not, actually, the biggest threat, I feel the urge, now satisfied, to point out playser with much more power - thus corporations - though that's a stand-in word that I would also want aimed at bankers and intelligence communities.

My concern is not at the meme level or even the cycle level. I see the threat to continued existence of those who might use science, as coming through what I batch labelled 'corporations'.

I am not sure what your idea is around cycles - perhaps a link?. But it seems to me that the issue is not binary - not that you've said it is but it seems sometimes implicit. Science can continue, even if other forms of information/knowledge gathering and radically different paradigms come in. We often don't have to choose between tools, or even, dare I say it, metaphysics.

That is what we are facing when we are engaged in some sort of discourse against, or together with, the end-of-science theorists. Rule number one -- exactitude. If science were religion, a crippling doubt because we'd forgone causality and opted instead towards probability, is unholy. — Caldwell

I don't see that really stopping science. I am sure it is very problematic for many scientists. Makes me want to toss in Rupert Sheldrake. Whatever one thinks of his ideas, even if many turned out to be true, there's no reason scientists couldn't go on studying comets, finches and particles, and in many of the old mechanistic causal ways. There might be other research following different approaches ( a little bit a la Feyerabend) alongside.

At some point, perhaps, somehow all mechanistic type research might somehow be made moot in what turns out to be a much more flexible universe than currently realized. But I don't see that around the corner - not that you've given a timeline.

Another source of complaint is the tendency to reduce everything and anything to equation. One that could possibly fit on a surface of a thumbnail. — Caldwell

Sure, but then systems and ecological theories have been complexifying things for a long time. I agree that the scientific community still is reductionistic, problematically so, but I see a lot of integration of holistic ideas in science.

To give some perspective: I do think that science in general, or scientists really, are not fluent in philosophy and have little idea how they assumptions, metaphysical and otherwise, may be affect what they choose to research, how they choose to research it and what they dismiss.

And all the while the technocrats are gaining more and more power. For whom? And what do the endusers of the technocrats care about and have as goals?

Corporate control of research. Corporate control of scientific journals. Corporate control over regulatory bodies (IOW poor science, biased science being approved by bodies that are not objective or independent). Corporate control of media - which then can marginalize ideas, research, criticism and scientific debate that might undermine corporate research.

Well, we only know Socrates through Plato, including his 'unmasking' if he managed it. Are you really saying that Socrates was not a dualist, rationalist, advocate against democracy, etc.? And how do you know this? My point with bringing these things up is to say that his assertions include those, as far as we know, ideas that generally are not held today. Of course Socrates may not have had positions attributed by Plato, but then that would include the ones you seem to accept. And there his demonstration that those who claim to be wise are not was not based on empirical study and really comes down to opinion with some deduction thrown in. Someone who thinks they are wise and asserts it may very well have wisdom about a lot of things.

Socrates in Plato's dialogues unmasks those who claim "wisdom" as not being wise at all — 180 Proof

Well, he certainly argued that. He also argued that transcendant forms are the foundation of reality and that democracy is wrongheaded. He also was a rationalist, as opposed to an empiricist, which can be seen in his claim about wisdom. He was a dualist who believed in an immortal soul. Now some or perhaps none of these beliefs bother you be he seems to have considered his arguments effective on these, including his about wisdom (or was that one a claim). I am not sure he unmasked anyone claiming to have wisdom (a description of his positing which includes the assumption that his argument holds) as being a sophist in the pejorative sense. He certainly had that position. Whether his various arguments and claims hold water is another can of fish and perhaps a claim to his authority might no longer be so strong for many modern people basing their beliefs on science, for example.

It seems to me many people claiming to have wisdom are not that wise - just my opinion. On the other hand, at least they are openly claiming it, rather than implying it.

I used to know some Buddhist people, and some of them go to the universities and study the theories and principles of buddhism. They are a very few minority of people who then seek to become lecturers or teachers in the schools and universities. These are a tiny number of minority people among the vast number of buddhists. — Corvus

That's not relevant. I am not claiming that Buddhists have an academic expertise or relation to the religion.

They believe in eternal reincarnation after death, because that is just what buddhism is famous for. — Corvus

It's generally rebirth not reincarnation in Buddhism.

These are the beliefs based on no theories, empirical facts or principles, but their own intuitions, emotions, customs and traditions. — Corvus

Again, I said empirical not theoretical. See my post above to prothero, where even Christiany is much more empirical and based on experienced results - not arguments or faith. You seem to see the word empirical and assume that it means something like scientific methodology. I am talking about people basing their belief on their experiences - iow empirical. Empirical learning can be rigorously organized, intuitive, right wrong headed, effective, confused

But
it
is
not faith

FAith is just believing because you choose to believe, regardless of experience, logic, evidence anything.

That is certainly not what Buddists and Hindus do and it isn't true for the vast majority of Christians. In part or even more their experiences lead them to stay with their participation in the religion.
Faith based is not justified, at all by the empirical. That is not what most Christians will say when they talk about why they believe. They will talk about their experiences of getting closer to God (or seeming to) via prayer, how they gained strength dealing with their mother's cancer through participation in the religion, what the various rituals make them experience and feel like.

You are thinking that it cannot be empirical because they draw the wrong conclusions. But that is confused about what the word means.

And we all do this, everyone.
We all follow experts in some area of life because it worked (or seemed to) even if we or no one has done rigorous scientific research to demonstrate that this golf swing and attitude improves our game, or thinking of the opposite sex as ________________, makes it more likely we will experience ______________, or in politics or parenting or how to make friends or how to enjoy _________more. And so on.

Beliefs
being arrived at

in processes that are in a large part empirical with interpretations

and which do not have scientific consensus backing them up and we never looked any way.

But in discussions like this it only the religious and it is faith.

Nope. It's empirical, often to a very large degree.

Which, I repeat, does not mean it is correct. Being empirical is not a specific protocol.

It simply means that experience plays a huge role.

Faith tells you to ignore experience, that one should simply believe.

They can be right or wrong, but they are basing their beliefs on experience and even more so in other religions - indigenous/shamanic/animistic even more so, in my experience than the others.

They think it is working and leads to what they want and base this on experiences.

In theory that is true but in practice I am not convinced. The majority of Christians do not understand formal Christian theology very well in my experience. They know the slogans "born again", "Jesus saves", and have some vague notions about "life after death" and "heaven and hell" but their knowledge of official church doctrine or fundamental Christian theology is weak. — prothero

Sure, I don't disagree. I actually think the Abrahamic religions are much more complex that people in online discussions (both non-theists and theists alike) tend to describe. It all comes down to (especially in philosophy forums) beliefs and epistemology and people using the word faith. When in fact Christianity is also a complex lives social phenomenon with empirical aspects. Nobody just sits around having faith. They feel better when they pray. They feel better in community. Rituals give them experiences that they like. Many find strength to break habits and deal with suffering through following pastoral or scriptural advice. IOW they are pleased with the benefits.

That is a very complicated issue and I sidestepped it because this is even more true with some other religions, where practices and the development of skills which one experiences the results of are extremely systematic.

Well, I do know specific examples of these religions, and they are not faith based. You look at ideas in the religions, decide that they cannot have been arrived at via your epistemology and conclude that the adhernants base beliefs on faith. That's seeing something foreign to you through the lens of Abrahamic religions (even if you do not believe them). There are many Christians for example who specifically advocate faith. Which means you don't believe, you have faith. In fact some will go so far as to say belief is a problem, because it is founded on arguments or logic, etc. Whereas one should simply have faith and avoid all that. In Hinduism, for many adherants, for example, you are moving through stages in a set of empirically based practices. The guru or religious leader says do X and you will experience Y. And you spend time adn practice doing things that change the way you experience life. Yes, on top of this there are interpretations, but the bulk of your religious experience is not faith based in the least.

Just as your conclusions about the opposite sex are not faith based, even if your epistemological protocols are not scientific. You base, consciously or not, your conclusions on the opposite sex on your experiences, with Mom, with women in movies, with girls and women. You may be quite wrong, but this does not make your conclusions faith-based. Even if you cannot demonstrate that B is the way to find love or deal with the opposite sex to anyone and certainly not scientifically.

Faith is a very Abrahamic concept, it is also, even in the Abrahamic religions, not one that all adherants focus on or conceive of their belief. You can't look at the conclusions and categorize the process. You have to look at the processes. You also can't boil down a religion you don't know much about into just its beliefs, when the adherants relate to beliefs and the religion in a very different way and they play, for many, a much smaller role. In the Abrahamic religions actually changing yourself and how you experience the world or experience in general and the developmental practices of the religion are not remotely as important as in other religions. With the others developing skills and rigorous training is central and focused on changes at the empirical level. Abrahamic religions focus vastly more on having the right thoughts in your brain.

(2) Religious beliefs are special type of belief, which should be classed as faith. (I personally think faith should be only used to denote firm religious beliefs. Using faith in association with any other than religious beliefs, I feel, is not correct.) — Corvus

Well, good that we generally agree but I think faith doesn't not work for religions that are empirically focused like Buddhism and many types of HInduism. It's certain Christians and other Abrahimics that focus on this faith idea and also focus on beliefs (and arguments).

It seems like you are disagreeing with me, but you're not, as far as I can tell. Yes, our conclusions about why things fall, etc., are beliefs. Unless you are arguing that all beliefs are the same. IOW we have no reason to believe one thing over another. But that would undermine your own argument since you (seem at least) to believe your epistemology more than other ones because it is better justified. IOW you are justifying it here.

So truths are dependent on justification. Justification is human action, which is subject to mistakes and faults. — Corvus

That's the situation I find myself in. My conclusions are subject to faults and mistakes, and this is true as far as I can tell, even if i base my conclusions on the work of experts, since they are human, since I may be mistaken about what I read or how I interpret it and so on. I am a fallible creature doing my best. I don't see a way around it.

Both knowledge and beliefs are what people have/do.

Another point is that, in this case, the line between knowledge and belief seems fuzzy. — Corvus

Yes, because I can't see a way around knowledge being a rigorously arrived at subset of beliefs. Who decides it is rigorously arrived at? Humans.

It sure seems like what we call objective is some idea, conclusion, explanation that is (seems) well justified, AND we don't know of some other idea, conclusion, explanation that is (seems) better justified. And we will always have to have some intution in our evaluation of that. We have to trust our memories, sense of how well we checked, EVEN if it seems like we are supported by scientific consensus. Which doesn't mean one has to run around doubting everything and testing jumping off buildings since gravity may just be a hypothesis.

But then, if you start convincing people that you are correct, then many of them will feel bad - for having children, that their parents were immoral. So, then you have made living people feel bad, for the non-benefit of currently non-existing creatures...well, some of them. Which seems even worse than...

My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong.

Now, by way of analogy, let us suppose that Issac Newton came across a working TV set. He would, no doubt, be stunned and bewildered, but would he consider it as magic? I don’t think so. His scientific bent would result in him recognizing the TV set for what it is. — Jacob-B

Newton believed in the occult. Who knows what he would have thought a TV was. Well, I suppose a psychic might know. A psychic who can read the minds of the dead.

Aren't there all sorts of beliefs we have based on intuition, guesswork, habit, childhood experiences (and I mean, everyone) that guide our actions. Like beliefs about the opposite sex (some of which we may not even realize we believe), parenting, political beliefs, ideas about how long we need to focus on something for us to think we 'thought it through enough', how to spend our time, how to be happy and so on, what decisions should be made with intuition and what with rationality and in those that use both what percentages..... Whole swathes of beliefs that would be very hard or impossible to demonstrate to others are correct, but which we nevertheless believe in.

So far haven't hit a citation from Russell, but here in Standford's encyc, it refers to the term as Russellian
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russellian-monism/
search ' the page for panprotopsychism
From other sources it might be a name of a position inspired by Russell's position.

Pets are treated differently than inanimate property. You can't torture them and you can't have sex with them, for example. Property, as others have pointed out, does not entail complete control by owners. Owning land, for example, does not give the owner rights to do everything with that property. So, it's not a simple concept, property, in the law. Even inanimate property use can be restricted: firearms give many examples of this. There are many things (that you may own) you cannot set fire to, also.

From your own link:

In 2012, a group of neuroscientists signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which "unequivocally" asserted that "humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neural substrates."[14]

And those replies led to criticism also. — Bylaw

Isn't that just proving my point more?
No evidence can convince you guys.
Cause you are just not ready to listen.
You just want to prove me wrong in any basis possible.
If i tell you to stop commenting, would you? Probably not, even if it meant i can have peace. — Kinglord1090

And look at this, mindreading. You are claiming to have knowledge of our internal mental states. All of us.

And that last bit:

are you really claiming that I, for example, can keep you from having peace?
All you have to do is stop reading replies to your posts here. You are in control of your peace as far as our replies. You are in control.

Not only that, you guys just keep saying the same things over and over again, even though I did give appropriate replies already. — Kinglord1090

And those replies led to criticism also. Which is, of course, fine. But your sense that your replies were appropriate might be biased. That's what discussions like this try to work out.

I just want to talk about one topic, which I guess people still can't seem to understand.
Are emotionless humans really humans? — Kinglord1090

I weighed in on that issue, so I clearly understood it was on the table. As social mammals with limbic systems humans are emotional. Just as much as our females have teats (giving us the category mammal, if not more so, since both sexes have emotions.)

Thus, getting rid of emotions, only removes a part of what makes a human, human.
You could argue that this part is a big part, and I wouldnt oppose that opinion.
However, I believe that by getting rid of that part, we can open up space for a new part or maybe just let logic or other parts take over, which seems like a reasonable choice. — Kinglord1090

Interestingly however mammals with their limbic systems tend to be the apex predators and also have, in human primates, developed the most incredible adaptions. It seems like we would need some extraordinary evidence to convince us that eliminate a part of us is a good idea.

Now, let us consider, that emotionless humans will not be humans, but rather robot-like creatures who have no sense of consciousness or anything.
What is wrong with that? — Kinglord1090

I don't think that if we eliminate we would have no consciousness. Perhaps someone else argued that. However I think having no sene of consciousness would be a loss. That would be something like dreamless sleep.

There are a load of organisms that live on this planet who arent even capable of having thought or consciousness, — Kinglord1090

It is very unlikely that any animal lacks consciousness.

If you keep posting it is likely you will get responses to your posts. If you want that to stop or at least your experience of it to stop, I would suggest simply not looking at the thread anymore.

You appear to claim material existence of things not ideas and also not material. — tim wood

I don't appear to claim that. Which is you saying and claiming things about what I think and precisely why I started responding the way I did with 'you' and 'you' that you think is bad form. You responded to me as if I was a certain kind of theist presenting arguments for the existence of God. And you repeatedly told me, explicitly and implicitly what I thinking.

Here, again, you do not engage with the vast majority of what I wrote.

And can you not see how insulting it is to ask about whether I can the difference between imaginary coins and real ones?

Further at no point have a made a case that you should believe in anything that you would categorize as supernatural.

And that is precisely how you keep taking my posts. I realize that most of the time this kind of laziness is probably a decent heuristic. Many theists are doing what you keep thinking I am doing. But it's laziness nonetheless and you started the condescension and assumptions, so don't start shit you don't like yourself.

I got a generic non-theist rebuttal of points I did not make and one which assumed things about a theist with little or no engagement with what I was actually doing.

You were lazy and rude and this time I will just leave you in your solipsism (not philosophical, but practical solipsism).

This was just facile.

With some difficulty I translate this as: not supernatural=natural; not natural=not real. — tim wood

There's the real, which can also be called the natural. If there is a God, God is not supernatural, but part of the real, part of nature or all of nature, perhaps. Both theists and non-theists have run with the idea of the supernaural, sometimes taking it as synonymous with the transcendant. Like we have for naturalists a monism. Nature is all there is. But theists are dualists with a natural and a supernatural. And, yes, some, read some, theists go along with this. But other theists do not. You have phenomena that have been verified via, science say, and you have other phenomena that have not. These latter need not be supernatural. They might not exist or they might, but in neither case need they be supernatural, just phenomena that have not yet been verified. Rogue waves and elephant long distance communication were not supernatural phenomena when they were not verified to the satisfaction of the consensus of scientists, for example. They were purported natural phenomena that did not fit with then current models in science. The people who believed in these phenomena, though often labelled irrational then, were not irrational, even though the phenomena were not verified at that time to a consensus of scientists.

I think the term 'supernatural' muddies the water. It sounds like an ontological or metaphysical category. But it is not one that is necessary for theism or belief in any of the phenomena that get labelled as supernatural.

Someting about what some people thought about elephants, followed by your if there is a god, then it is natural or real. Which hpypothetical syllogism is easy enough to grant. — tim wood

Those were not parts of some syllogism. I was pointing out that what is not currently verified now, in science, need not be a phenomenon that is in some special ontological category. It could be,as elephant communication turned out to be, quite natural.

Obviously this does not mean that God exists. I am paring off this idea that beliefs in unverified phenomena must be beliefs in the supernatural.

Which you did not answer. I then made the mistake of asking you a simpler question, which apparently you did not comprehend:

I know the difference between an imaginary gold coin and a real gold coin. Do you? — tim wood — tim wood

I understood that question.

So I'll ask that: when you say something is true, what do you mean? It appears you mean that you buy it as true-for-you. But news flash, true-for-you is not true. — tim wood

Where did I assume that true for me is true?
Where did I give the impression that I would think an imaginary coin is the same a real coin?

And where did I assume that you should believe something because I do?
It seems implicit that you think I cannot be rational and believe something that I cannot demonstrate is true for you.
Which is precisely why I raised the issue of elephant communication over long distances. The people, at least a nubmer of them, who believed this was real were rational in their belief, even though they could not demonstrate this to others. With rogue waves it took radical changes in technology, iow a long period of time, before it was clear that the people labelled irrational - in their descriptions of rogue waves - were actually rational.

And then implicit in these arguments is the idea that non-theists only believe things that can be demonstrated as true to others. But that just is not the case. They have rigor in some areas, but not in others. And on many issues, we are forced to take stands without being able to demonstrate to others. In other instances we find, to the best of our knowledge, benefits from beliefs that we cannot demonstrate must be JTBeliefs to others.

But that's all off the table. For you it is binary: imaginary or real. And, one presumes, all your beliefs fall neatly into those two categories: your beliefs about parenting, politics, the opposite sex, as a few examples. You restrict yourself only to beliefs that science supports or that you can demonstrate to all (most) rational others. You never have beliefs that seem to work for you and fit your experience unless you can also demonstrate via science or deduction to a consensus of rational others.

That's why I didn't answer your question about gold coins. Apart from how insulting and based on confused readings of my posts. Perhaps my own lack of clarity playing a role, also. I don't always write as clearly as I think I have.

I think the distinction can be useful but I do think they are interwined phenomena. I just find the idea that we would be better off without emotions bizarre. It wouldn't be we and better off in relation to whose values - and these values would, of course, be intertwined with the emotions of those people thinking we would be better off.

Since, people without emotions are likely to only have the 2 fundamental goals, they wouldnt work towards anything else. — Kinglord1090

People without emotions would not be people. We are social mammals that have limbic systems. Further people without emotions wouldn't have goals. They would be capable, I suppose, of trying to find water when thirsty. IOW some primitive desires cold be argued to remain, though even then they would have no fear and no aggression.

I can't see what you wrote has to do with what I wrote. And I really can't see where you demonstrated my post was inauthentic. I don't really see it as a response to it and I am not sure what my authentic response is supposed to have been.

Its not non-sensical to think about evolution in this way at all.
There are thousands of years of research put into this by scientists from all over the world.
I am pretty sure that the name Darwin would a ring a bell in everyone's ears.
He theorized 'The Theory of Evolution' and his theory has been used for more than a century now.
So, saying that these attributes are wrong would be saying that all scientists and the research formed for over a century is also wrong. — Kinglord1090

Evolutionary theory is specifically and clearly non-teleological. You said

If we look at evolution, we can easily see that emotions were never meant to be a part of organisms.

Now perhaps you weren't really thinking of what words you were using, but you are talking about emotions being intended for something. But that is confused. Emotions arose, if one is thinking within evolutionation theory, through natural selection and mutation, etc.

And sentences like....

I am pretty sure that the name Darwin would a ring a bell in everyone's ears.

means nothing in context. It comes off as an attempt to put me in my place somehow. If I say something, correct I would add, that evolution in evolutionary theory is not teleological, this actually means I have heard of Darwin and understand something your wording implies - but does not necessarily entail - you are confused about.

If you think evolution is teleological you could have said that.
If you agree it is not, then you could have mentioned that.
All this posturing on your part is not a response.

Denying someone's identity is tantamount to genocide — K Turner

It just isn't.

How much does the continuous usage of the incorrect pronouns suggest a large amount of transphobia and xenophobia within society, even if the circumstance, is unintentional, but continuous? — Bradaction

This is going to take a long time. People gender each other from an early age and are gendered. It's at a level of learning much like grammar. IOW it is automatic. Like ducking when something is flying at your head. Certainly some people making mistakes may have conscious or unconscious intentions to not do what the other person wants. But in general, it can easily be something that we learned and made automatic. Imagine after driving for 20 years you get in a car where third gear is reached by some very odd movement with the stick. Pretty much everyone is going to mess up their clutches and that's with the threat of death in the air. Gendering habits occur much younger than those habits. They are deeply built in. I think a benefit of the doubt is in order. I mean, express irritation if you feel irritation. I am not saying everyone just has to suck it up. But this is very basic cultural habits and people are going to make repeated mistakes. And some of those people my even be much stronger allies than others who make the shift more easily.