Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 6:53 PM
30 online now:
dwise1, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,921 Year: 4,958/19,786 Month: 1,080/873 Week: 436/376 Day: 67/46 Hour: 5/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   What does life do outside of science?
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1728 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 31 of 112 (242861)
09-13-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by PurpleYouko
09-13-2005 8:49 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
I'm sure it can. I have little doubt that all emotions, feelings, etc. derive ultimately from (xxx insert brain science stuff)

As long as we agree on this then what are we arguing about?

Probably on the use of the term "science". Science is just a methodology. It's not an all-encompassing statement about how life operates.

Science != naturalism.

Science = methodology to develop naturalistic models.

Huge difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-13-2005 8:49 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-13-2005 9:41 AM Ben! has not yet responded

    
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 32 of 112 (242876)
09-13-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
09-12-2005 5:16 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
You are not understanding Ben's distinction. There is a difference between you using science to model or calculate something, and science being able to model or calculate the natural phenomena which might make up your actions.

Actually I am understanding the distinction (I think). I am just emphasizing my point that everything is controlled by the physical interaction of chemicals, physics and generally measurable and naturalistic stuff. To me that is ALL science. It may not be actively scientific in the scence that we are not taking measurements, drawing conclusions etc. but it is all subject to potential scientific enquiry.

Not really no. If you've seen simple robotics, they do not bother calculating anything. They simply have on off switches that react when necessary to get a limb to move. They don't even have to calculate "when necessary", it can be a simple agitation trigger.

Simple robotics are not able to react to changes though are they? What happens when the robot trips?
To make your robot behave under all circumstances and under all conditions you have to add more simple switches and logic circuits for each possible contingency until eventually you have a (pseudo)inteligent system that is constantly taking measurements of its surroundings and reacting to them. It is then doing science.
Even your simple agitation circuit is doing rudimentary science. It is taking a measurement, making an informed decision (boolean on/off)then implementing an action (setting switch condition)

Your learning to walk is experiential however not very scientific. You did not build sophisticated models, but rather trained motor response mechanisms.

Since when could science only be done by complex, sophisticated models?
Are you saying that it is not scientific to study (watch) someone walking, then attempt to emulate the movements, investigating what happens when foot A trips over foot B.
To me it is obviously a scientific endevour to learn to walk. (or do anything new)
  1. Observation. (watch Daddy walk)
  2. Postulate a theory. (Maybe I can walk too)
  3. Attempt to walk using knowledge of movements gained so far by watching.
  4. Fall flat on my ass.
  5. Return to step 1 and watch a bit more then try again.

Those steps are pretty much the epitomy of science.
Once you get it right it becomes more or less automatic but there are still a huge number of calculation, corrections going on every time you take a step or trip on a rock or walk down a hill.

You may choose not to buy a certain brand of food because you are aware the owner gives profits to prolife causes, or that the company abuses animals, or that you don't like the name of the product.

But that is still making a decision based on external criteria. It is done for a reason and that reason is reached by a rudimentary scientific method. It doesn't matter where the information comes from. Science is all about gathering information and reacting to it.

The build up of memories may be able to be (in the future) modeled by science, but that does not mean that the method you use to build those memories is in any way scientific.

Memories are simply data, an integral part of the scientific method. Doesn't matter how you got them. Where is the difference between something you saw as you walked down the road or something you saw through a microscope? Data is data.

Tell me how science determines whether abortion is right or wrong

Science itself doesn't. I never claimed it did. All I am saying is that the decision of whether to support it or not is controlled by your memories (data) and your brain chemistry.
If I knew enough about the brain I could go inside your head and physically change some connections to make you think and feel anything I wanted.

You cannot escape this by then arguing that you do not believe in objective moralities. Ben is discussing subjectives and explaining that they are the portion of life that is beyond science. The subjectives are what make up most of your life, unless you are a very dull person, with no capability of forming emotional responces.

Not trying to escape it. I am merely pointing out that anything subjective like feelings etc. are controlled by the very naturalistic processes of brain chemistry. They can be measured and modified with science and therefore are not outdie of science.

You are aware that there are logical limits to science, right?

Sure. I assume you mean things like the exclusion principle or the fact that we cannot travel faster than light in normal space. Right?
But then if we can't do them then the situation in which they are done cannot exist and therefore cannot be "beyond science".
The question is are there things which we observe to happen which are outside of science?
My answer is that if you can observe it then it can be measured and that means it isn't outside of science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 09-12-2005 5:16 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:21 PM PurpleYouko has responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 33 of 112 (242881)
09-13-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Ben!
09-13-2005 9:00 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
Probably on the use of the term "science". Science is just a methodology. It's not an all-encompassing statement about how life operates.

Science != naturalism.

Science = methodology to develop naturalistic models.

Huge difference


OK Then I begin to see why we are pulling different directions.

I realize there is a difference between naturalism and science but I don't really agree that science is limited to your definition here.

I always understood science to be a process for evaluating empirical knowledge.
Not necessarily trying to develop models. That is just one aspect of science.
In short, any kind of evaluation of knowledge is science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:00 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 34 of 112 (242974)
09-13-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
09-13-2005 8:59 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
The basis for morality is that homo sapiens evolved as a social species, and survival of the species is dependent on cooperative social interaction.

First of all that is the basis for morality in our species, not the basis of any particular moral system or conclusion which is what I was discussing.

Second I do not necessarily believe the above is quite as definite as you make it out to be. That we are social does not mean that it was an evolved trait, and we certainly are not dependent on cooperation for our survival.

I would prefer to say that moral systems are evolved systems of social interaction. In this paragraph, I refer to social evolution, rather than biological evolution.

As long as evolution is meant in the neutral sense I agree. If it is meant in a directional sense (getting better or more complete) then I disagree.

Moral systems are certainly a partially a product of social interaction, and given the state of general human life a rather large product.

Do you believe a person would not develop a moral system of some kind without others to interact with?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 8:59 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by kjsimons, posted 09-13-2005 1:59 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 2:21 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 48 by tsig, posted 09-13-2005 9:17 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 35 of 112 (242977)
09-13-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
09-13-2005 1:43 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
... and we certainly are not dependent on cooperation for our survival.

Holmes, I would have to strongly disagree with this statement of yours. We are highly dependent on other people for our survival, maybe now more than any time in our past. If we didn't have cooperation we wouldn't have any of the trappings of modern civilization. No electricity, treated water, sewer, factories and that which they produce, ... etc. The list goes on and on. In primitive times, your actual day to day survival depended on the ability of the tribe you were in to find food and defend themselves against other tribes. You don't think that took a cooperative effort?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 1:43 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:27 PM kjsimons has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 36 of 112 (242984)
09-13-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
09-13-2005 1:43 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Second I do not necessarily believe the above is quite as definite as you make it out to be. That we are social does not mean that it was an evolved trait, and we certainly are not dependent on cooperation for our survival.

We certainly have several evolved traits that are social adaptations:
Our language ability;
The long period from childbirth until the child becomes self-sufficient;
Our loss of fur.

As for survival, sure some individuals could survive. We see that with hermits. But solitary survival is difficult, and it would be difficult for enough individuals to survive so that the species could persist.

As long as evolution is meant in the neutral sense I agree. If it is meant in a directional sense (getting better or more complete) then I disagree.

I intended that in the neutral sense.

Do you believe a person would not develop a moral system of some kind without others to interact with?

It's hard to see what would be the use of such a moral system, if there were no others to interact with.

Of course, in practice, a child is normally raised by parents (or the tribe). So there are others to interact with during the years where moral development would occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 1:43 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:39 PM nwr has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 112 (242985)
09-13-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PurpleYouko
09-13-2005 9:33 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
I am just emphasizing my point that everything is controlled by the physical interaction of chemicals, physics and generally measurable and naturalistic stuff. To me that is ALL science. It may not be actively scientific in the scence that we are not taking measurements, drawing conclusions etc. but it is all subject to potential scientific enquiry.

It seems to me that you are equivocating between a procedure and the subject of a procedure. Science is the study of natural phenomena, yet you are claiming that natural phemona is science because it is subject to scientific inquiry?

That doesn't seem useful as a definition.

Simple robotics are not able to react to changes though are they? What happens when the robot trips? To make your robot behave under all circumstances and under all conditions you have to add more simple switches and logic circuits for each possible contingency until eventually you have a (pseudo)inteligent system that is constantly taking measurements of its surroundings and reacting to them. It is then doing science.

This is not correct. I hesitate to get into robotics as it is somewhat boring to me. There are robots which move with no computational assessment of surroundings or "all situations". Such robots were constructed by a guy who realized how complex and weighty such systems as you described needed to be. So he created robots which simply worked on/off and motors did the rest when it was "on"... hardwired.

Given enough limbs they managed to avoid most obstacles, without having to think about it.

In any case, I hesitate to describe a robot working according to a set program, and so simply reacting, as doing science.

Are you saying that it is not scientific to study (watch) someone walking, then attempt to emulate the movements, investigating what happens when foot A trips over foot B.

No, that is curiosity followed by mimicry. It requires no understanding or modelling of natural phenomena. This view of science is so broad that it ceases to have much meaning.

I don't see a parrot repeating "polly wants a cracker" as science.

But that is still making a decision based on external criteria. It is done for a reason and that reason is reached by a rudimentary scientific method. It doesn't matter where the information comes from. Science is all about gathering information and reacting to it.

Reacting to external criteria is not science. Do you seriously view gaybashing as some sort of scientific enterprise?

Science is about gathering information. The reacting part is subjective and that part of life which is not science.

Where is the difference between something you saw as you walked down the road or something you saw through a microscope? Data is data.

When did I suggest that memories are not data? The point is that data can be used for many different things, not just science.

Science itself doesn't. I never claimed it did.

Yes, actually you did. Ben's point was that there are things that life does outside of science (that is the thread title in fact). You appeared to be suggesting that you disagreed with his position and nothing was outside of science.

If what you say above is true, that science itself cannot determine if abortion is wrong, then you are patently agreeing that there are some things that fall outside of science.

If I knew enough about the brain I could go inside your head and physically change some connections to make you think and feel anything I wanted.

Theoretically this is true. But that does not support a notion that those physical pieces as they are put together do not process/analyze items in a way that are not scientific or deal with science.

I am merely pointing out that anything subjective like feelings etc. are controlled by the very naturalistic processes of brain chemistry. They can be measured and modified with science and therefore are not outdie of science.

Controlled by natural processes and so alterable by natural processes, does not mean that they are "inside" the field of "science".

I have the theoretical capability of blowing everyone's brains out with a rifle. That does not mean all thoughts/feelings are within the field of sharpshooting.

But then if we can't do them then the situation in which they are done cannot exist and therefore cannot be "beyond science".

Whoa, you missed the beam with this routine. Science is a method with known limits. The idea is not that beyond its limits nothing actually exists. The idea is that the method contains rules which limit what we can study, with the full knowledge that some things off limits may in fact be true and exist.

We are counting on empirical evidence to get us through everything we need to model. If not in a primary sensory sense, then secondary sensory sense (detectors, etc). But there are phenomena and mechanisms which will not register on any possible detector we currently or may ever have.

For example there may be multiple dimensions. Currently scientists postulate that they may very well exist, and could act as an answer for certain cosmological or subatomic phenomena. But they are also as of yet unstudiable and by their nature never studiable. Their natures may always remain speculative and beyond the realm of science.

That would not mean they do not exist.

Reading your posts I am left with a question of what science actually means to you. It seems at this point that science = everything. How do you define science in a meaningful (more specific) way?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-13-2005 9:33 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-13-2005 4:02 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 43 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-13-2005 4:18 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 38 of 112 (242987)
09-13-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by kjsimons
09-13-2005 1:59 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
We are highly dependent on other people for our survival, maybe now more than any time in our past.

I think you are making more out of what I wrote than I meant.

Certainly to keep our standard of living we need to depend on others. Our modern societies are built on cooperative action.

In the past this was not so much the case, and indeed there is no reason to believe that humans cannot live (survive) in a generally noncooperative environment.

About the only cooperative feature that would be required is childcare, which does not even require both parents.

Certainly life improves via cooperation, and humans have thrived on it. But I think claiming our bare survival depends on it is a bit extreme.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by kjsimons, posted 09-13-2005 1:59 PM kjsimons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by kjsimons, posted 09-13-2005 2:41 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 112 (242991)
09-13-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nwr
09-13-2005 2:21 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
We certainly have several evolved traits that are social adaptations:

Language ability was not driven by adaptation, unless we are using a lamarkian system of evolution. Genetic change produced the ability for more complex communication, and those with that ability developed language over the course of time. If you mean language itself (not just the ability) has developed over time within human culture, that is certainly true.

I am at a loss to see what long periods from birth to self-sufficiency, and especially loss of fur have to do with social adaptation. The former could be true with just maternal care (as seen with lions) rather than societal care, and the latter may have only to do with genetics and the lack of necessity for fur.

It's hard to see what would be the use of such a moral system, if there were no others to interact with.

What is the "use" of a moral system anyway? It appears mainly to be a way for a person to understand themselves, produce a narrative or force a consistency of narrative for one's identity and that's it.

Imagine you have no other person to interact with. Aren't there rules that you might construct for yourself, including prohibitions you might set feeling that following them will result in something better for you, or the world as a whole?

For example, would you then destroy a beaver's dam as much as look and admire it? Or would you feel that perhaps there is some sense in treating it as the beaver's property, or maybe even that it has extra value as it increases order within that system (there is thought/effort/organization within it)?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 2:21 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 8:03 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 40 of 112 (242992)
09-13-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Silent H
09-13-2005 2:27 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Certainly life improves via cooperation, and humans have thrived on it. But I think claiming our bare survival depends on it is a bit extreme.

Not extreme at all. This naked ape's strong suit is that it has the intellect to cooperate very effectively. Come on and look at us, we have no claws, no body armour, we can't run very fast, we have to make clothes to keep us warm, and our children are dependent on us for at least a decade. A single human may survive but not thrive. Our species survival was based on it's ability to cooperate in small groups. A punishment in many societies used to be banishment. If there was no other settlement or people you could join up with, this was almost as good as a death sentence. I think you serverely underestimate the need for people to cooperate for survival, especially in ancient times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:27 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 3:14 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 112 (243004)
09-13-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by kjsimons
09-13-2005 2:41 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
I am not talking about single people. Clearly almost NOTHING survives completely on its own. Those which require care for young have some need for rudimentary cooperation at a base level.

What I am discussing is societal level cooperation. That really is not necessary for survival. People could just as easily like lions which are at best loose collections. There would be no need for cultures to develop... social adaptations.

If you are going to suggest that ultimately we would not survive without them, my question to you is why you believe we'll survive forever with them?

As far as I understand it the human species will terminate at some point in time regardless.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by kjsimons, posted 09-13-2005 2:41 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

    
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 42 of 112 (243018)
09-13-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
09-13-2005 2:21 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Post sent in error and subsequently deleted. See next post for the real message.

PY

This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 09-13-2005 04:19 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:21 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 43 of 112 (243024)
09-13-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
09-13-2005 2:21 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
It seems to me that you are equivocating between a procedure and the subject of a procedure. Science is the study of natural phenomena, yet you are claiming that natural phemona is science because it is subject to scientific inquiry?

I am not actually saying that science is the phenomena (at least that isn't what I am trying to say)
What I am saying is that any action taken in the real world has to be the result of stimuli of some kind. Whether that stimuli is a single neuron firing or whether it is the final piece of data in 20 year long investigation, it still has an effect on the things we do, the things we know and the decisions we make based on those data.

This is not correct. I hesitate to get into robotics as it is somewhat boring to me.

To each his own I guess. They fascinate me.

There are robots which move with no computational assessment of surroundings.

Yes you are right. You can't really overbalance when you have 6 widely spaced legs I suppose. These robots are just simple machines and as you say they are following a set program. In this respect they are not "doing" science if they are not really reacting to their environment in an inteligent way. On this point I will concede.

You can't really claim that they walk around "without science" though can you? Theye were designed by scientists and would not exist without science.

Are you saying that it is not scientific to study (watch) someone walking, then attempt to emulate the movements, investigating what happens when foot A trips over foot B.

No, that is curiosity followed by mimicry. It requires no understanding or modelling of natural phenomena. This view of science is so broad that it ceases to have much meaning

I still disagree here. Curiosity and mimicry are the very cornerstones of science. That is how we investigate our environment and learn from it. Or are you suggesting that no inteligence is not being used at all here? Don't you think the baby learning to take his first steps is able to visualize himself walking? What is that if not a scientific process.
Observation --> Create a model --> test the hypothesis --> fall down --> modify the model --> try again.
If this is not a valid view of science than I have just wasted the last 20 years of my life because that is precisely the way it is done everywhere that I have been involved in it.

Reading your posts I am left with a question of what science actually means to you. It seems at this point that science = everything. How do you define science in a meaningful (more specific) way?

I wonder why I always end up in a definition war?
Let's just check some references to find out what "science" really means.
How about Merriam-Webster online where it says the following about "science"

quote:
Main Entry: sciĀ·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

OK so the act of reacting to stimuli isn't the correct terminology.
But any stimuli (such as the closure of a contact switch) results in an influx of information. Information equates to knowledge and according to definition 1 Knowledge == Science.

You just can't get away from it. If you have knowledge of something then that IS, by definition, science.

We are counting on empirical evidence to get us through everything we need to model. If not in a primary sensory sense, then secondary sensory sense (detectors, etc). But there are phenomena and mechanisms which will not register on any possible detector we currently or may ever have.

I can't think of any. Please enlighten me. Our eyes, ears and other senses are detectors. If we can't hear, feel or see it then it might as well not be there anyway.

For example there may be multiple dimensions. Currently scientists postulate that they may very well exist, and could act as an answer for certain cosmological or subatomic phenomena. But they are also as of yet unstudiable and by their nature never studiable. Their natures may always remain speculative and beyond the realm of science.

Ah yes. "M" theory. One of my own personal favorites.
The point with this is that is has been postulated by scientists as a possibility but not yet proven to exist. Of course we can't measure them since they might not even be there at all.
Then again if their existence is only speculative then far from being beyond the realms of science, I would like to propose that the realms of science is precisely and absolutely where they are situated and where they will likely remain since we have no other tool with which to speculate about them.

So to sum up Science is exactly equal to Knowledge.

Or perhaps we should be talking about "The scientific method" which is slightly different.

quote:
Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

There are most definitely things that are outside of "The scientific method" but outside of science?
I don't think so since being outside of science means that we just don't have any knowledge of it. If we have no knowledge of it then to all intents and purposes it does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:21 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 8:39 PM PurpleYouko has responded
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 4:59 AM PurpleYouko has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 44 of 112 (243106)
09-13-2005 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
09-13-2005 2:39 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Language ability was not driven by adaptation, unless we are using a lamarkian system of evolution.

By "language ability" here, I was referring to the change in shape of the throat (compared to other apes) that makes it possible to make complex sounds. I was also referring to neurons that are needed to control the fine articulation of the vocal chords, and the brain areas to support them. I'm not sure what you would see as lamarkian about developing these.

I am at a loss to see what long periods from birth to self-sufficiency, and especially loss of fur have to do with social adaptation.

That long period is when socialization occurs. The lack of fur makes us more sensitive to touch, caressing, etc, which plays a role in socialization. More importantly, the lack of fur make a child more vulnerable, and more dependent on others. The child's learning to cope with such dependency is an important part of what drives socialization.

What is the "use" of a moral system anyway? It appears mainly to be a way for a person to understand themselves, produce a narrative or force a consistency of narrative for one's identity and that's it.

You must have a different understanding of "morality" than I. To me, it seems obvious that morality is part of our social contract.

Imagine you have no other person to interact with. Aren't there rules that you might construct for yourself, including prohibitions you might set feeling that following them will result in something better for you, or the world as a whole?

Rules? Sure. If I found an effective way of catching fish, then I might make that into rules (or at least practices). I don't see what it has to do with morality.

For example, would you then destroy a beaver's dam as much as look and admire it?

If I have no other person to interact with, then I am presumably living in the wild. Finding food for the day becomes a major chore. If destroying a beaver dam would help with finding food, I expect I woiuld do it. Otherwise, I expect I wouldn't have the time to waste on it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:39 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1728 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 45 of 112 (243121)
09-13-2005 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by PurpleYouko
09-13-2005 4:18 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
There are most definitely things that are outside of "The scientific method" but outside of science?
I don't think so since being outside of science means that we just don't have any knowledge of it. If we have no knowledge of it then to all intents and purposes it does not exist.

Come on, you're basing your meaning of science on a non-technical, derivative meaning of the word. That's meaningless.

That's like using dictionary definitions to "prove" that evolution is a directed process that moves from simple to complex, from worse to better.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=evolution writes:

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

If you look at the OP, I think I was really specific about what I meant by science:

me writes:

It's not a science board. I really hope we don't turn it into one. Science is a way to argue inductively. That's it. Life contains many things outside of it.

That was my 4 word summary of the scientific method. Was it too unclear, maybe?

Anyway, I hope this means that we actually agree. There are lots of things outside the scientific method.

Yay!

AbE: hedging my happiness a bit, thinking maybe I wasn't as clear as I thougth I was.

This message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 06:14 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-13-2005 4:18 PM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by tsig, posted 09-13-2005 9:28 PM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 53 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-14-2005 10:16 AM Ben! has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019