| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2003 03:04:21 PM |
| Object: |
'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
'Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 12:04:38 AM |
|
|
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311080643.35e856e8@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<TWUqb.140456$Fm2.117110@attbi_s04>...
As I explained (and you ignored), that is not a "problem," it is just
fallacy of diversion on your part, having logically nothing to do with
the
issue which is genuinely under discussion: your proposition that
creating a
law prohibiting murder is a subjective matter (a matter of individual
thought).
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
I take exception to your proposition, because it is not a logical
deduction,
and I'll tell you why.
When we look around the world today we find that while it is true that
some
nations, like the US for example, permit capital punishment, and specify
that act as justifiable homicide, while at the same time others do not,
that
detail does not in any way alter the fact that, as a rule, murder, in
general, is not considered acceptable behavior in any society, anybody's
quibbling over the details notwithstanding. The objective fact is that
if an
act is defined as justifiable homicide it is not murder.
Do I have to shout this so that you can hear it?
THE OBJECTIVE FACT IS THAT IF AN ACT IS DEFINED AS JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE,
IT
IS NOT MURDER!
Did that get through to you this time?
The proposition published by you and Flank, and others, is that a law
prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter (strictly a matter of
individual thought). My only task is to find grounds for rejecting that
hypothesis.
So, what is being tested is the (shall we call it "theory"?) that murder
is
acceptable behavior. How does that theory stand up to objective critical
thinking?
As a society of all humans on Earth, we need to find some sort of
objective (independent of individual thought, and perceptible by all
observers) sound reason to reject the hypothesis that murder is
acceptable
behavior, in order to justify a law specifying that murder is not
acceptable
behavior.
Enter reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion.
Reductio
ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means of reaching a conclusion that the
opposite is the only reasonable conclusion.
www.m-w.com
Did you hear that? Let me turn up the volume again just for your
benefit:
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
Did that get through to you this time?
Now, carried to it's logical conclusion, the proposition, "Murder is
acceptable
behavior," would allow anyone to take anyone else's life without due
process
of law, violating one of our basic principles, that every person comes
into
this world endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life,
liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. We hold that principle to be self
evidently
true. That means that the statement, "Murder is acceptable behavior"
cannot
also be true, since that would be an absurd situation in that it would
be
logically contradictory (two opposites being true at the same time).
The preceding is a real condition in the realm of human experience, not
just
imaginary, objectively perceptible to anyone interested in
investigating.
Anyone investigating can reach the same sound conclusion through the
same
means: the reductio ad absurdum reasoning described above.
Therefore, the proposition published by Flank, Jensen, and others, that
a
law prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter, is a proposition
that cannot have any validity.
Any questions?
I want to see if I understand your position by trying to accurately
summarize your argument. Here goes:
Murder is unjustifiable homicide.
It is unjustifiable because it is unacceptable behavior.
It is unacceptable because if it were not it would lead to an
absurdconsidering >
The absurd situation it would lead to is the contradiction between the
fact that life is an unalienable right and the declaration that
unjustifiable homicide is acceptable behavior.
It is a contradiction because the unalienable right to life and the
acceptability of unjustifiable homicide are opposites, and two
opposites cannot be true simulaneously.
This absurd situation is a real condition in the realm of human
experience and objectively perceptible to anyone interested in
investigating.
Ergo the statement that murder is unjustifiable homicide is also a
real condition in the realm of human experience and objectively
perceptible to anyone.
Have I summarized it correctly?
Kevin L. O'Brien
No, Kevin, it is not, as you put it, the STATEMENT that murder is
unacceptable behavior that is objectively evident. What is objectively
evident is that it would be an absurd state of affairs, an absurd situation,
for each person to have an unalienable right to life and also for murder to
be considered acceptable behavior at the same time. Logically contradictory.
What's wrong with the way I explained it? Anything to which you can
reasonably take exception up there at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 08:51:05 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4Nkrb.110576$9E1.547531@attbi_s52>...
No, Kevin, it is not, as you put it, the STATEMENT that murder is
unacceptable behavior that is objectively evident. What is objectively
evident is that it would be an absurd state of affairs, an absurd situation,
for each person to have an unalienable right to life and also for murder to
be considered acceptable behavior at the same time. Logically contradictory.
Well, I'm not going to get bogged down in arguing over semantics. In
essence the debate is over whether murder as unacceptable behavior is
objective or subjective. Whether you want to call "murder is
unacceptable behavior" a statement, a claim, a belief, a fact, or
something else is irrelevant. Lenny et al. have argued that it is
subjective because every culture has its own definition of murder.
You are arguing that it is objective because it's opposite leads to a
logical contradiction that anyone can see for themselves. I just
wanted to make sure I understood your line of reasoning, and based on
your reply I would say that I do.
What's wrong with the way I explained it?
Nothing.
Anything to which you can reasonably take exception up there at all?
Since you have qualified your request with "reasonably" you have given
yourself an out, such that you can claim anything I say to be
"unreasonable" and thus dismiss it. That in and of itself is a
subjective argument, because things you feel are unreasonable I may
feel are very reasonable, and vice versa.
However, one objection is that you are trying to argue for something
being objective by using subjective terms, such as "unjustifiable",
"unacceptable", "absurd", and "unalienable". It is a fundamental flaw
of rational argument to use subjective premises to arrive at an
objective conclusion. Plus you define your subjective terms using
other subjective terms: it is unjustifiable because it is
unacceptable, it is unacceptable because it is absurd, it is absurd
because its opposite is unalienable, and so forth. Subjective
premises can only lead to a subjective conclusion; hence the
conclusion of your own argument is subjective. To be objective it
must be based on objective premises, which means they must be
objectively quantifiable. There is no objective measure for terms
like "unjustifiable", "unacceptable", "absurd", or "unalienable".
Your argument does try to present one objective premise, namely the
logical contradiction between the unalienable right to life and murder
as acceptable behavior. However, one objective premise within an
overall subjective argument cannot turn a subjective conclusion into
an objective one.
Also even the logical contradiction is founded on subjective premises,
such as life is an "unalienable right". Now I certainly believe that
life is an unalienable right, but that's all it is, a belief; it is
not "a real condition in the realm of human experience and objectively
perceptible to anyone interested in investigating". To be objectively
perceptible you must be able to demonstrate a measure that can
determine something to be a "right" and that can quantify it as being
"unalienable". That means in turn that you must be able to
objectively define "right" and "unalienable". Neither of these can be
done; this why we have philosphy and ethics, to argue over what
constitutes a "right" and when is is "unalienable". If they were
truly objective we would have standardized them in a scientific way
that would have ended the debate long ago.
A logical contradiction based on subjective premises cannot itself be
objective, so even your one supposed objective premise is actually a
subjective one. I agree that believing that life is an unalienable
right and believing that murder is acceptable behavior is a logical
contradiction, but I disagree that it is objective ("a real condition
in the realm of human experience and objectively perceptible to anyone
interested in investigating") because it is possible to deny that life
is an unalienable right or even a right at all, and if this is true
then the contradiction falls. In fact the denial that life is an
unalienable right is more clearly "a real condition in the realm of
human experience and objectively perceptible to anyone interested in
investigating", as any study of anthropology, sociology, and history
would tell you. The idea that life is an unalienable right has been a
distinctly minority (or even nonexistent) belief for much of human
history. Only in the past 200 years, with the rise of modern
democracy, has it become a majority opinion, and even then there are
still distinct minorities that reject it.
So let me reiterate: believing that murder is acceptable behavior
would produce a logical contradiction only if one also believes that
life is an unalienable right. If in fact one believes that life is
not unalienable or even a right, then there is no contradiction. And
since life as unalienable or even a right is a subjective belief and
not an objective fact, any law against murder is thereby based on
subjective belief and not objective reasoning. The fact that
"everyone" agrees that murder (in whatever form) is unacceptable
behavior is insufficient to make it objective, since a universal
belief is still just that, a belief and not a fact, and so is
subjective.
As a final note, in case you get hung up on semantics again, let me
say this: only if life as an unalienable right were a fact
objectively perceptable to everyone would it produce a logical
contradiction with a claim that murder is acceptable behavior. Since
life as an unalienable right is not an objective fact but a subjective
belief, there is no logical contradiction; hence murder as
unjustifiable homicide is also a subjective belief, and all laws
create to prohibit murder are based on subjective beliefs and not
objective fact.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 12:04:44 PM |
|
|
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311090650.1c49ce50@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4Nkrb.110576$9E1.547531@attbi_s52>...
No, Kevin, it is not, as you put it, the STATEMENT that murder is
unacceptable behavior that is objectively evident. What is objectively
evident is that it would be an absurd state of affairs, an absurd
situation,
for each person to have an unalienable right to life and also for murder
to
be considered acceptable behavior at the same time. Logically
contradictory.
Well, I'm not going to get bogged down in arguing over semantics. In
essence the debate is over whether murder as unacceptable behavior is
objective or subjective. Whether you want to call "murder is
unacceptable behavior" a statement, a claim, a belief, a fact, or
something else is irrelevant. Lenny et al. have argued that it is
subjective because every culture has its own definition of murder.
No sir, they do not. They simply have different ideas of what constitutes
justifiable homicide. And the objective fact is that an act that is
justifiable homicide in any case is not murder. Flank and the others are
trying to get away with equivocating between murder and justifiable
homicide. That isn't allowed.
Here is where you and Lenny, and the others go wrong. Universally, the
taking of another's life without justification and without due process of
law is reasonably considered murder.
The fact that the details of what constitutes justifiable homicide differ
frome time to time and place to place is just fallacy of distraction from
the issue that is genuinely under discussion, the assertion of Flank and
others here that a law prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter,
when, as shown, it is not. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means
of arriving at objective conclusions (independent of individual thought,
perceptible by any observer).
You are arguing ...
No sir, don't forget that I am not obligated to make any argument at all,
since I am not the one making the proposition in question here, Flack and
crew are. This discussion arose as a result of Flank's assertion, "The law
itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank
I am not the one who has published the argument in question, Flank and crew
are. I am just pointing out why THEIR argument that a law prohibiting murder
is a purely subjective matter is an argument that does not hold water, an
argument that cannot have any validity, for the reason shown.
Flank, and those who have joined in here to champion his argument, are the
only ones with something to prove. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to
one who denies or questions Flank's unsupported assertion.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 07:13:26 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<mkvrb.156303$e01.543367@attbi_s02>...
Here is where you and Lenny, and the others go wrong. Universally, the
taking of another's life without justification and without due process of
law is reasonably considered murder.
I have never disputed that definition. I have disputed your claim
that it is an objective fact.
The fact that the details of what constitutes justifiable homicide differ
frome time to time and place to place is just fallacy of distraction from
the issue that is genuinely under discussion, the assertion of Flank and
others here that a law prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter,
when, as shown, it is not. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means
of arriving at objective conclusions (independent of individual thought,
perceptible by any observer).
It certainly is, but the way you have used it does not show that "a
law prohibiting murder is [not] a strictly subjective matter". As I
demonstrated, and as you have ignored, your argument is itself
subjective, because it is based on subjective premises and comes to a
subjective conclusion.
No sir, don't forget that I am not obligated to make any argument at all,
since I am not the one making the proposition in question here, Flack and
crew are.
No, sir, you are not simply disagreeing with Lenny et al., but
actually making your own counter-proposition. In any rational debate,
including a scientific one, all propositions must be supported by
argument, otherwise they are nothing but an assertion of personal
opinion.
I am not the one who has published the argument in question, Flank and crew
are. I am just pointing out why THEIR argument that a law prohibiting murder
is a purely subjective matter is an argument that does not hold water, an
argument that cannot have any validity, for the reason shown.
On the contrary, I showed that it is in fact your argument that is
invalid.
Flank, and those who have joined in here to champion his argument, are the
only ones with something to prove. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to
one who denies or questions Flank's unsupported assertion.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something."
And you are "asserting something"; you claim that a law prohibiting
murder is an objective matter based on reductio ad absurdum. As such
you also have a burden of proof, to prove your own assertion is the
correct one.
But as I have shown your argument falls far short of proving your
assertion.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 10:10:50 AM |
|
|
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311091449.6d06bc6f@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<mkvrb.156303$e01.543367@attbi_s02>...
No sir, don't forget that I am not obligated to make any argument at
all,
since I am not the one making the proposition in question here, Flack
and
crew are.
No, sir, you are not simply disagreeing with Lenny et al., but
actually making your own counter-proposition. ...
No sir, the denial (negation in logic) of their unsupported proposition is
not itself a proposition (statement standing in need of proof). The denial
never stands in need of proof, since the burden of proof cannot be shifted
to the denial. Here is the basic principle of valid argument (logic) you are
not taking into consideration:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies
or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
something is true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
All I am doing is pointing out the holes in your leaky-bucket of an argument
that the law prohibiting murder is a subjective matter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 01:01:33 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<mkvrb.156303$e01.543367@attbi_s02>:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311090650.1c49ce50@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4Nkrb.110576$9E1.547531@attbi_s52>...
No, Kevin, it is not, as you put it, the STATEMENT that murder is
unacceptable behavior that is objectively evident. What is objectively
evident is that it would be an absurd state of affairs, an absurd
situation,
for each person to have an unalienable right to life and also for murder
to
be considered acceptable behavior at the same time. Logically
contradictory.
Well, I'm not going to get bogged down in arguing over semantics. In
essence the debate is over whether murder as unacceptable behavior is
objective or subjective. Whether you want to call "murder is
unacceptable behavior" a statement, a claim, a belief, a fact, or
something else is irrelevant. Lenny et al. have argued that it is
subjective because every culture has its own definition of murder.
No sir, they do not. They simply have different ideas of what constitutes
justifiable homicide. And the objective fact is that an act that is
justifiable homicide in any case is not murder. Flank and the others are
trying to get away with equivocating between murder and justifiable
homicide. That isn't allowed.
Here is where you and Lenny, and the others go wrong. Universally, the
taking of another's life without justification and without due process of
law is reasonably considered murder.
Now, you are arguing about definitions. Apparently you are admitting
that you have lost on the merits.
The fact that the details of what constitutes justifiable homicide differ
frome time to time and place to place is just fallacy of distraction from
the issue that is genuinely under discussion, the assertion of Flank and
others here that a law prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter,
When did anyone say 'strictly subjective'?
when, as shown, it is not. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means
of arriving at objective conclusions (independent of individual thought,
perceptible by any observer).
How so?
You are arguing ...
No sir, don't forget that I am not obligated to make any argument at all,
since I am not the one making the proposition in question here, Flack and
crew are. This discussion arose as a result of Flank's assertion, "The law
itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank
Yes, and you have shown nothing to dissuade us from that understanding.
I am not the one who has published the argument in question, Flank and crew
are. I am just pointing out why THEIR argument that a law prohibiting murder
is a purely subjective matter is an argument that does not hold water, an
argument that cannot have any validity, for the reason shown.
No one, other than you, said 'purely'.
Flank, and those who have joined in here to champion his argument, are the
only ones with something to prove. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to
one who denies or questions Flank's unsupported assertion.
Burdens fall where they fall. While the supporter of the affirmative is
required to provide evidence to support their claim, it is up to you, at
a minimum, to show that you are not the one with the affirmative
obligation, since you are the one who champions the idea that these laws
are derived from objective sources. Can you show me any time that it is
not the responsibility of the champion of _objective_ to be responsible
to support it?
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
_Objective_ is the assertion. We have offered evidence that it is not
objective. You refuse to acknowledge that.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 07:16:11 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<4Nkrb.110576$9E1.547531@attbi_s52>:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311080643.35e856e8@posting.google.com...
....
I want to see if I understand your position by trying to accurately
summarize your argument. Here goes:
Murder is unjustifiable homicide.
It is unjustifiable because it is unacceptable behavior.
It is unacceptable because if it were not it would lead to an
absurdconsidering >
The absurd situation it would lead to is the contradiction between the
fact that life is an unalienable right and the declaration that
unjustifiable homicide is acceptable behavior.
It is a contradiction because the unalienable right to life and the
acceptability of unjustifiable homicide are opposites, and two
opposites cannot be true simulaneously.
This absurd situation is a real condition in the realm of human
experience and objectively perceptible to anyone interested in
investigating.
Ergo the statement that murder is unjustifiable homicide is also a
real condition in the realm of human experience and objectively
perceptible to anyone.
Have I summarized it correctly?
Kevin L. O'Brien
No, Kevin, it is not, as you put it, the STATEMENT that murder is
unacceptable behavior that is objectively evident. What is objectively
evident is that it would be an absurd state of affairs, an absurd situation,
for each person to have an unalienable right to life and also for murder to
be considered acceptable behavior at the same time. Logically contradictory.
The unalienable right of life is not an objective fact, it is a cultural
claim. No one is claiming that murder is considered acceptable behavior,
we are saying that there is no objective way to identify what murder is.
What's wrong with the way I explained it?
You misrepresent what you argue against.
Anything to which you can
reasonably take exception up there at all?
The fact that you misrepresent the arguments of your opponents and that
you make sweeping assertions that are neither objective nor supported.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 10:15:05 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t3ksqvotd1i8p8slfbjqakpq2epkegmn1p@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<4Nkrb.110576$9E1.547531@attbi_s52>:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311080643.35e856e8@posting.google.com...
...
I want to see if I understand your position by trying to accurately
summarize your argument. Here goes:
Murder is unjustifiable homicide.
It is unjustifiable because it is unacceptable behavior.
It is unacceptable because if it were not it would lead to an
absurdconsidering >
The absurd situation it would lead to is the contradiction between the
fact that life is an unalienable right and the declaration that
unjustifiable homicide is acceptable behavior.
It is a contradiction because the unalienable right to life and the
acceptability of unjustifiable homicide are opposites, and two
opposites cannot be true simulaneously.
This absurd situation is a real condition in the realm of human
experience and objectively perceptible to anyone interested in
investigating.
Ergo the statement that murder is unjustifiable homicide is also a
real condition in the realm of human experience and objectively
perceptible to anyone.
Have I summarized it correctly?
Kevin L. O'Brien
No, Kevin, it is not, as you put it, the STATEMENT that murder is
unacceptable behavior that is objectively evident. What is objectively
evident is that it would be an absurd state of affairs, an absurd
situation,
for each person to have an unalienable right to life and also for murder
to
be considered acceptable behavior at the same time. Logically
contradictory.
The unalienable right of life is not an objective fact, it is a cultural
claim. ...
You are mistaken, it is an objective logical conclusion reached through
reductio ad absurdum. The opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs among us mortals, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 01:31:00 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<TV7sb.173209$Fm2.151643@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t3ksqvotd1i8p8slfbjqakpq2epkegmn1p@4ax.com...
....
The unalienable right of life is not an objective fact, it is a cultural
claim. ...
You are mistaken, it is an objective logical conclusion reached through
reductio ad absurdum. The opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs among us mortals, knucklehead.
But the law does not accept your claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 02:18:52 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:h5e2rvkt32krmj8k4hc25qnoihc2ibt5kn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<TV7sb.173209$Fm2.151643@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t3ksqvotd1i8p8slfbjqakpq2epkegmn1p@4ax.com...
...
The unalienable right of life is not an objective fact, it is a
cultural
claim. ...
You are mistaken, it is an objective logical conclusion reached through
reductio ad absurdum. The opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs among us mortals, knucklehead.
But the law does not accept your claim.
What claim? We have a law prohibiting murder, don't we?
Please explain. (And please remember that a 'claim' is a statement standing
in need of proof. An objective logical conclusion reached through reductio
ad absurdum is not a claim, it is an objective logical conclusion, a fact.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 11:40:15 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<aubsb.175397$e01.612645@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:h5e2rvkt32krmj8k4hc25qnoihc2ibt5kn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<TV7sb.173209$Fm2.151643@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t3ksqvotd1i8p8slfbjqakpq2epkegmn1p@4ax.com...
...
The unalienable right of life is not an objective fact, it is a
cultural
claim. ...
You are mistaken, it is an objective logical conclusion reached through
reductio ad absurdum. The opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs among us mortals, knucklehead.
But the law does not accept your claim.
What claim? We have a law prohibiting murder, don't we?
So what? "A law prohibiting murder" is not the same thing everywhere.
Please explain. (And please remember that a 'claim' is a statement standing
in need of proof. An objective logical conclusion reached through reductio
ad absurdum is not a claim, it is an objective logical conclusion, a fact.)
You only reduce yourself to absurdity with your repeated unwillingness
to acknowledge that murder is not the same crime in all places at all
times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
12 Nov 2003 12:33:28 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:7oh3rvc8s0ucdvb0cv5nkqrikbgtovd4as@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<aubsb.175397$e01.612645@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:h5e2rvkt32krmj8k4hc25qnoihc2ibt5kn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<TV7sb.173209$Fm2.151643@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t3ksqvotd1i8p8slfbjqakpq2epkegmn1p@4ax.com...
...
The unalienable right of life is not an objective fact, it is a
cultural
claim. ...
You are mistaken, it is an objective logical conclusion reached
through
reductio ad absurdum. The opposite would be an absurd barbaric state
of
affairs among us mortals, knucklehead.
But the law does not accept your claim.
What claim? We have a law prohibiting murder, don't we?
So what? "A law prohibiting murder" is not the same thing everywhere.
Please explain. (And please remember that a 'claim' is a statement
standing
in need of proof. An objective logical conclusion reached through
reductio
ad absurdum is not a claim, it is an objective logical conclusion, a
fact.)
You only reduce yourself to absurdity with your repeated unwillingness
to acknowledge that murder is not the same crime in all places at all
times.
You are beginning to sound like Johnny One Note. We have already been all
over this ground, and your are wrong, the law prohibiting murder is not a
subjective matter. The fact is that justifiable homicide defined differently
in different times and places has logically nothing to do with the issue in
question, your proposition that a law prohibiting murder is a subjective
matter. You are just trying to create a diversion from your glaring
inability to make an argument that holds water to support your assertion.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
We have a law prohibiting murder because the opposite would be an absurd
barbaric situation. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means of
reaching objective logical conclusions on matters like this.
Now I see clearly that you are not at all interested in reasonable
discussion. Thanks for letting me slap you around for a while. Bye bye,
knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
12 Nov 2003 09:01:40 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Juksb.175572$HS4.1471170@attbi_s01>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:7oh3rvc8s0ucdvb0cv5nkqrikbgtovd4as@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<aubsb.175397$e01.612645@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:h5e2rvkt32krmj8k4hc25qnoihc2ibt5kn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<TV7sb.173209$Fm2.151643@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t3ksqvotd1i8p8slfbjqakpq2epkegmn1p@4ax.com...
...
The unalienable right of life is not an objective fact, it is a
cultural
claim. ...
You are mistaken, it is an objective logical conclusion reached
through
reductio ad absurdum. The opposite would be an absurd barbaric state
of
affairs among us mortals, knucklehead.
But the law does not accept your claim.
What claim? We have a law prohibiting murder, don't we?
So what? "A law prohibiting murder" is not the same thing everywhere.
Please explain. (And please remember that a 'claim' is a statement
standing
in need of proof. An objective logical conclusion reached through
reductio
ad absurdum is not a claim, it is an objective logical conclusion, a
fact.)
You only reduce yourself to absurdity with your repeated unwillingness
to acknowledge that murder is not the same crime in all places at all
times.
You are beginning to sound like Johnny One Note. We have already been all
over this ground, and your are wrong, the law prohibiting murder is not a
subjective matter.
No one claimed it was. You argue against what you want to argue against
rather than the comments that are made. It is clear to me that you will
not change your approach. Frankly, your discussion methods are
indistinguishable from those of Young Earth Creationists and other
religious zealots.
I'm always willing to discuss any substantive issue.
The fact is that justifiable homicide defined differently
in different times and places has logically nothing to do with the issue in
question, your proposition that a law prohibiting murder is a subjective
matter. You are just trying to create a diversion from your glaring
inability to make an argument that holds water to support your assertion.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
We have a law prohibiting murder because the opposite would be an absurd
barbaric situation. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means of
reaching objective logical conclusions on matters like this.
Now I see clearly that you are not at all interested in reasonable
discussion. Thanks for letting me slap you around for a while. Bye bye,
knucklehead.
Your claims are unsupported and not worth discussing further.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
08 Nov 2003 05:44:25 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<TWUqb.140456$Fm2.117110@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:tconqvk2ht9s0re7jcamt4sc84d8c51ufi@4ax.com...
... the crime of murder is different in
different cultures and at different times. ...
As I explained (and you ignored), that is not a "problem," it is just
fallacy of diversion on your part,
Nope, it's a central objection to your claim. Something cannot be
arrived at objectively if it doesn't have the same meaning in every
culture and at every time. You unwillingness to address that fact does
not change it.
having logically nothing to do with the
issue which is genuinely under discussion: your proposition that creating a
law prohibiting murder is a subjective matter (a matter of individual
thought).
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
I take exception to your proposition, because it is not a logical deduction,
and I'll tell you why.
When we look around the world today we find that while it is true that some
nations, like the US for example, permit capital punishment, and specify
that act as justifiable homicide, while at the same time others do not, that
detail does not in any way alter the fact that, as a rule, murder, in
general, is not considered acceptable behavior in any society, anybody's
quibbling over the details notwithstanding. The objective fact is that if an
act is defined as justifiable homicide it is not murder.
Do I have to shout this so that you can hear it?
THE OBJECTIVE FACT IS THAT IF AN ACT IS DEFINED AS JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE, IT
IS NOT MURDER!
Did that get through to you this time?
The proposition published by you and Flank, and others, is that a law
prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter (strictly a matter of
individual thought). My only task is to find grounds for rejecting that
hypothesis.
So, what is being tested is the (shall we call it "theory"?) that murder is
acceptable behavior. How does that theory stand up to objective critical
thinking?
As a society of all humans on Earth, we need to find some sort of
objective (independent of individual thought, and perceptible by all
observers) sound reason to reject the hypothesis that murder is acceptable
behavior, in order to justify a law specifying that murder is not acceptable
behavior.
Enter reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion. Reductio
ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means of reaching a conclusion that the
opposite is the only reasonable conclusion.
www.m-w.com
Did you hear that? Let me turn up the volume again just for your benefit:
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
Did that get through to you this time?
Now, carried to it's logical conclusion, the proposition, "Murder is
acceptable
behavior," would allow anyone to take anyone else's life without due process
of law, violating one of our basic principles, that every person comes into
this world endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. We hold that principle to be self evidently
true. That means that the statement, "Murder is acceptable behavior" cannot
also be true, since that would be an absurd situation in that it would be
logically contradictory (two opposites being true at the same time).
The preceding is a real condition in the realm of human experience, not just
imaginary, objectively perceptible to anyone interested in investigating.
Anyone investigating can reach the same sound conclusion through the same
means: the reductio ad absurdum reasoning described above.
Therefore, the proposition published by Flank, Jensen, and others, that a
law prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter, is a proposition
that cannot have any validity.
Any questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 12:32:27 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:2pcoqv4pqlsr6igf6vpvkdfo8fkrqkm2j4@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<TWUqb.140456$Fm2.117110@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:tconqvk2ht9s0re7jcamt4sc84d8c51ufi@4ax.com...
... the crime of murder is different in
different cultures and at different times. ...
As I explained (and you ignored), that is not a "problem," it is just
fallacy of diversion on your part,
Nope, it's a central objection to your claim.
I'm not the one making the claim, knucklehead, You and Flank and crew are.
Here is the only unsupported (absurd, actually) proposition in question:
"The law itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank
I am simply explaining why that argument cannot have any validity.
We have a law prohibiting the act of murder because not having one would be
an absurd state of affairs. That's an objective fact. Study up on reductio
ad absurdum.
As I explained (and you ignored), that is not a "problem," it is just
fallacy of diversion on your part,
having logically nothing to do with the
issue which is genuinely under discussion: your proposition that creating
a
law prohibiting murder is a subjective matter (a matter of individual
thought).
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
I take exception to your proposition, because it is not a logical
deduction,
and I'll tell you why.
When we look around the world today we find that while it is true that
some
nations, like the US for example, permit capital punishment, and specify
that act as justifiable homicide, while at the same time others do not,
that
detail does not in any way alter the fact that, as a rule, murder, in
general, is not considered acceptable behavior in any society, anybody's
quibbling over the details notwithstanding. The objective fact is that if
an
act is defined as justifiable homicide it is not murder.
Do I have to shout this so that you can hear it?
THE OBJECTIVE FACT IS THAT IF AN ACT IS DEFINED AS JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE,
IT
IS NOT MURDER!
Did that get through to you this time?
The proposition published by you and Flank, and others, is that a law
prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter (strictly a matter of
individual thought). My only task is to find grounds for rejecting that
hypothesis.
So, what is being tested is the (shall we call it "theory"?) that murder
is
acceptable behavior. How does that theory stand up to objective critical
thinking?
As a society of all humans on Earth, we need to find some sort of
objective (independent of individual thought, and perceptible by all
observers) sound reason to reject the hypothesis that murder is
acceptable
behavior, in order to justify a law specifying that murder is not
acceptable
behavior.
Enter reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion.
Reductio
ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means of reaching a conclusion that the
opposite is the only reasonable conclusion.
www.m-w.com
Did you hear that? Let me turn up the volume again just for your benefit:
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
Did that get through to you this time?
Now, carried to it's logical conclusion, the proposition, "Murder is
acceptable
behavior," would allow anyone to take anyone else's life without due
process
of law, violating one of our basic principles, that every person comes
into
this world endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life,
liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. We hold that principle to be self evidently
true. That means that the statement, "Murder is acceptable behavior"
cannot
also be true, since that would be an absurd situation in that it would be
logically contradictory (two opposites being true at the same time).
The preceding is a real condition in the realm of human experience, not
just
imaginary, objectively perceptible to anyone interested in investigating.
Anyone investigating can reach the same sound conclusion through the same
means: the reductio ad absurdum reasoning described above.
Therefore, the proposition published by Flank, Jensen, and others, that a
law prohibiting murder is a strictly subjective matter, is a proposition
that cannot have any validity.
Any questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 10:09:30 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dblrb.110940$ao4.341287@attbi_s51>...
<snip>
We have a law prohibiting the act of murder because not having one would be
an absurd state of affairs.
Says you. <shrug>
I think it would be a perfectly NON-absurd state of affairs.
Prove my opinion wrong.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 11:36:12 AM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311090808.675f3e9e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<dblrb.110940$ao4.341287@attbi_s51>...
<snip>
We have a law prohibiting the act of murder because not having one would
be
an absurd state of affairs.
Says you. <shrug>
I think it would be a perfectly NON-absurd state of affairs.
You and Gary Ridgeway, and John Wayne Gacy, and other psychotics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 07:16:10 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<7Vurb.153034$HS4.1240067@attbi_s01>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311090808.675f3e9e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<dblrb.110940$ao4.341287@attbi_s51>...
<snip>
We have a law prohibiting the act of murder because not having one would
be
an absurd state of affairs.
Says you. <shrug>
I think it would be a perfectly NON-absurd state of affairs.
You and Gary Ridgeway, and John Wayne Gacy, and other psychotics.
If you do not know the time and place, can you tell me if the following
are acts of murder:
The intentional killing of a newborn.
The intentional killing of a old person near death.
The intentional killing of a person in a restaurant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 10:10:41 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:mdvsqv4crn348fr8729mt70mv0ekgdee1p@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<7Vurb.153034$HS4.1240067@attbi_s01>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311090808.675f3e9e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<dblrb.110940$ao4.341287@attbi_s51>...
<snip>
We have a law prohibiting the act of murder because not having one
would
be
an absurd state of affairs.
Says you. <shrug>
I think it would be a perfectly NON-absurd state of affairs.
You and Gary Ridgeway, and John Wayne Gacy, and other psychotics.
If you do not know the time and place, can you tell me if the following
are acts of murder:
The intentional killing of a newborn.
The intentional killing of a old person near death.
The intentional killing of a person in a restaurant.
As I keep explaining, and you keep ignoring, the fact that JUSTIFIABLE
HOMICIDE has been defined differently in different times and places has
logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under discussion here, your
argument that a law prohibiting MURDER is a purely subjective matter.
Justifiable homicide and murder are two different things, knucklehead. You
need to start thinking like a lawyer instead of like a kid with a mind full
of mush.
What you are doing is going off on a diversion away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion here.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Murder is prohibited because the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state
of affairs. Reductio ad absurdum like that is a perfectly valid means of
reaching an objective logical conclusion perceptible to all observers. This
is not a matter of subjective conviction (belief) as you assert without
grounds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 01:30:11 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<DR7sb.170874$HS4.1382606@attbi_s01>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:mdvsqv4crn348fr8729mt70mv0ekgdee1p@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<7Vurb.153034$HS4.1240067@attbi_s01>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311090808.675f3e9e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<dblrb.110940$ao4.341287@attbi_s51>...
<snip>
We have a law prohibiting the act of murder because not having one
would
be
an absurd state of affairs.
Says you. <shrug>
I think it would be a perfectly NON-absurd state of affairs.
You and Gary Ridgeway, and John Wayne Gacy, and other psychotics.
If you do not know the time and place, can you tell me if the following
are acts of murder:
The intentional killing of a newborn.
The intentional killing of a old person near death.
The intentional killing of a person in a restaurant.
As I keep explaining, and you keep ignoring, the fact that JUSTIFIABLE
HOMICIDE has been defined differently in different times and places has
logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under discussion here, your
argument that a law prohibiting MURDER is a purely subjective matter.
Justifiable homicide and murder are two different things, knucklehead. You
need to start thinking like a lawyer instead of like a kid with a mind full
of mush.
So you argue vociferously that the concept of murder is subjective,
depending on cultural mores. Thank you.
What you are doing is going off on a diversion away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion here.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Murder is prohibited because the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state
of affairs. Reductio ad absurdum like that is a perfectly valid means of
reaching an objective logical conclusion perceptible to all observers. This
is not a matter of subjective conviction (belief) as you assert without
grounds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 02:12:01 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:a1e2rv43s0hu5r7euvsiace8mujsupun2p@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<DR7sb.170874$HS4.1382606@attbi_s01>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:mdvsqv4crn348fr8729mt70mv0ekgdee1p@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<7Vurb.153034$HS4.1240067@attbi_s01>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311090808.675f3e9e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<dblrb.110940$ao4.341287@attbi_s51>...
<snip>
We have a law prohibiting the act of murder because not having one
would
be
an absurd state of affairs.
Says you. <shrug>
I think it would be a perfectly NON-absurd state of affairs.
You and Gary Ridgeway, and John Wayne Gacy, and other psychotics.
If you do not know the time and place, can you tell me if the following
are acts of murder:
The intentional killing of a newborn.
The intentional killing of a old person near death.
The intentional killing of a person in a restaurant.
As I keep explaining, and you keep ignoring, the fact that JUSTIFIABLE
HOMICIDE has been defined differently in different times and places has
logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under discussion here,
your
argument that a law prohibiting MURDER is a purely subjective matter.
Justifiable homicide and murder are two different things, knucklehead.
You
need to start thinking like a lawyer instead of like a kid with a mind
full
of mush.
So you argue vociferously that the concept of murder is subjective,
depending on cultural mores. Thank you.
No, that would be your staw man arguing that. I am not the one making the
unsupported argument at issue here, you are. I am merely pointing out that
your argument does not hold water. I am merely pointing out the fact that
the definition of justifiable homicide varying in different times and places
has logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under discussion here,
YOUR ARGUMENT that a law prohibiting MURDER is a purely subjective matter.
Justifiable homicide and murder are two different things, knucklehead. You
need to start thinking like a lawyer instead of like a kid with a mind full
of mush.
What you are doing is going off on a diversion away from the issue that
is
genuinely under discussion here.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Murder is prohibited because the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state
of affairs. Reductio ad absurdum like that is a perfectly valid means of
reaching an objective logical conclusion perceptible to all observers.
This
is not a matter of subjective conviction (belief) as you assert without
grounds.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rico Yungblud" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 05:43:12 PM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message <snip>
So you argue vociferously that the concept of murder is subjective,
depending on cultural mores. Thank you.
You are way too patient with Mr. Reducto Adnauseum...
ROFLMAO
Usenet, what a country ....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Schaertl" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 08:36:40 AM |
|
|
... the crime of murder is different in
different cultures and at different times. ...
As I explained (and you ignored), that is not a "problem," it is just
fallacy of diversion on your part,
Nope, it's a central objection to your claim.
I'm not the one making the claim, knucklehead, You and Flank and crew are.
Here is the only unsupported (absurd, actually) proposition in question:
"The law itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank
I am simply explaining why that argument cannot have any validity.
We have a law prohibiting the act of murder because not having one would
be
an absurd state of affairs. That's an objective fact. Study up on reductio
ad absurdum.
<snip>
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd" state,
in the sense that the word "absurd" is used in logic.
You may feel that, as Thomas Hobbes put it, human life in such a condition
would be "nasty, poor, brutish and short" - in fact, I would agree with you
here -
but it is certainly NOT an objective fact that such a state would be
logically
self-contradictory.
Regards,
Egroeg
--
Peace on Earth, Purity of Essence: POE.--OPE--it's one of those!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 12:24:53 PM |
|
|
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ahsrb.33161$1N3.27510@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd" state ...
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with the right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same time holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously, without
justification, and without due process of law, would be objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles of valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 04:54:58 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bDvrb.153222$HS4.1243200@attbi_s01>...
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with the right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . .
You have failed to demonstrate that is a self-evident truth, or that
it is objectively perceptable, or even that it is universal. Until
you do, there is no contradiction.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
09 Nov 2003 07:08:54 PM |
|
|
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311091454.16593c04@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bDvrb.153222$HS4.1243200@attbi_s01>...
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . .
You have failed to demonstrate that is a self-evident truth ...
Oh? Has the use of reductio ad absurdum to arrive at objective logical
conclusions been eliminated? I didn't get the memo on that. Please post a
copy here for all to read. 8^)
The way it was explained to me (almost a hundred years ago) was that this is
in the US Declaration of Independence precisely because it was held to be
self-evidently true (because the opposite would be an absurd state of
affairs) long before the Declaration was crafted, and reductio is a
perfectly valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions.
Are you another one of these knuckleheads who does not understand how basic
principles can be derived through reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly sound
means of arriving at objective logical conclusions, perceptible to any
observer, and independent of the subjective convictions (beliefs) of any
individual.
Why don't you go learn something about reductio ad absurdum, then get back
to me when you are ready to be reasonable?
[unsnip]
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ahsrb.33161$1N3.27510@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd" state ...
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with the right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same time holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously, without
justification, and without due process of law, would be objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles of valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 07:03:54 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<YxBrb.156869$Tr4.421618@attbi_s03>...
Oh? Has the use of reductio ad absurdum to arrive at objective logical
conclusions been eliminated? I didn't get the memo on that. Please post a
copy here for all to read. 8^)
The fact is that you used the claim that life is a self-evident
unalienable right as a premise for your reductio ad absurdum argument
that laws against murder are not subjective. You didn't use reductio
ad absurdum to establish that life was a self-evident unalienable
right, you simply asserted it was true. The problem is that for your
conclusion based on reductio ad absurdum to be valid you must also
show that your premise, that life is a self-evident unalienable right,
is also valid, and you have not done this.
The way it was explained to me (almost a hundred years ago) was that this is
in the US Declaration of Independence precisely because it was held to be
self-evidently true (because the opposite would be an absurd state of
affairs) long before the Declaration was crafted, and reductio is a
perfectly valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions.
Then you should be able to give us an argument that proves that life
is a self-evident unalienable right. However, a reductio ad absurdum
argument would not work in this case, because anthropology, sociology,
and history demonstrates that the vast majority of human cultures
throughout time have not held that life is a self-evident unalienable
right and yet there has never been an "absurd state of affairs" in any
of those cultures at any time.
Are you another one of these knuckleheads who does not understand how basic
principles can be derived through reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly sound
means of arriving at objective logical conclusions, perceptible to any
observer, and independent of the subjective con | | | | | | | |
