Gees

Well I am taking offense. The first casualty of sophistication is integrity -- always. When there is no integrity, there is no truth. No philosopher worth his/her salt would advocate a position of sophistry. Gee

Graeme M; You have started an interesting thread, and I have enjoyed reading it. First I should tell you that I am not a scientist; I am a philosopher, who studies consciousness, so I can not tell you anything about science, but I do have some thoughts to share that you may find interesting. I read an article many years ago that was about the Europeans' impressions of the American Indian. One of the things mentioned was that the Indians never got lost -- even the children. It stated that the children had an uncanny sense of direction and seemed capable of memorizing every rock and tree that they passed, so they could always find their way back. It was theorized that the reason for this may be because the babies were carried as a papoose on the parent's back, which limited their movements and allowed only for observation -- increasing their powers of observation. I don't know if there is any truth to that idea, but the children were very good at finding a trail home. This implies that the more primitive mind was more interactive with the environment than with social knowledge so most knowledge acquired would be subjective and would remain subjective. It would be difficult to share the path home with other people before there were road signs. As the environment became conquered, people would have more opportunity to share information that was able to be shared. So this, in itself, does not imply a different kind of mind, but rather a different kind of skill. To be honest, if you took a young man out of New York and set him in nature 200 years ago, and took a young Indian and put him in New York, it is quite likely that the Indian would soon be able to find his way around, but the New Yorker would get lost -- because they have different skills. On the other hand, there is innate knowledge and there is learned knowledge. Does innate knowledge change? Some people think so, and evolution implies that it must. I am sorry to have to say that I don't remember the sources, but there have been a few different threads that I have run across in forums where this is being studied. In one thread a study of rats found that if you taught a rat something, it would not make other rats know it, but it did make the other rats learn it faster. This study considered that there is an unconscious connection within a specie that allows it to advance as a specie, rather than as individuals. This seems to be along the lines of Jung's Oneness ideas. Other philosophers have noted that humans seem to make great leaps in knowledge and awareness that is not always explainable by physical means. They also hypothesize that there is an unconscious connection within our specie. If this is so, then there is a possibility that innate or unconscious knowledge does indeed develop, which would mean that mind develops. But if this is so, then what happened to the Piranha? I looked up the following quote from one of my threads in another forum. This tribe in South America is being studied because of their limitations in language. But since I study consciousness, it occurred to me that any group of people who have no spiritual understanding and no numbers in their language, may well not have the same type of rational aspect of mind that we have. I have not yet had the opportunity to do more than view the link and review the article, but I noted that they have an interesting concept of truth. I would like to study and learn more about them because we all know that the rational mind is the only aspect of mind that knows how to lie. If indeed, their rational mind is different from ours, then their concept of truth would also be different. Hope you found this interesting. Gee

CharonY; Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this topic. Please consider my following thoughts. Although you are a well-educated scientist, and I am just a natural philosopher, our thoughts in this matter seem to align. We have come to our conclusions using entirely different paths, as my considerations are the result of years of studying consciousness. Please note that I am not referring to neurology's definition of consciousness which is more the study of brain states, but am talking about philosophy's definition of consciousness that could be described as sentience or simple awareness. When you use words like, "does require feedback" and "cues from its environment", I interpret that as meaning the embryo is sentient and aware -- or that it is conscious of its environment. On the other hand, every live cell in every body of every specie is also sentient and aware, so I find it difficult to find a difference between embryonic cells, muscle cells, and skin cells, except for the potential difference. If we start talking about potential, then that takes us back to the idea that every seed is precious. Is an acorn an oak tree? Is an embryo a human? I don't think so. Regarding your statement that "Theoretically you could envision an artificial system"; I doubt this. One could hypothesize, but there is little evidence to support a theory. My studies indicate that an artificial system would be as good at promoting new life as Daniel Dennett's computers are good at being conscious -- which is not very likely. Again, thank you for your input. I am happy to have met you as I have had some questions about endospores for some years now. Maybe I can get some answers if I start a thread in the appropriate forum. Gee

StringJunky; Please consider the following: If you put a human embryo into something that will freeze and preserve it, it won't develop at all. If you put a human embryo into a woman, it has a fair chance of developing into a human. If you put a human embryo into an incubator and cook it, it will develop into waste. You did not provide evidence to support your above assertion, and I doubt that you can. If your point was more about an embryo being "genetically-encoded", than it was about "an incubator", then you are talking DNA. If you are enamored with DNA, then you could go to a barber shop and sweep the floor. There is lots of DNA there, and it keeps better than an embryo -- no freezing required. Gee

StringJunky; I call bullshit. If this were true, people would not use surrogates as they are too unreliable. Are you sure that you are not mixing up your science with your sci-fi? You will have to provide evidence that this has been done successfully -- not theory -- but evidence, if you want me to accept your assertion. Gee

3blake7; Please consider the following: In the above quoted statements, you appear to have a logical inconsistency. You can not state that the Judicial system used an "interpretation of the existing legal system", and then turn around and state that the Judicial system "crossed the line and became a legislator". Either they interpreted existing laws, or they wrote new law -- but not both. It has been a while, but if memory serves, the Supreme Court examined the existing laws and found them lacking, so they wrote new law, while trying to stay within the boundaries of our Constitutional law. The questions are really very simple, "What constitutes killing another person?" and "When does an egg become another person?" The Court did not use philosophy, nor did it use religion or emotion to find its judgment -- it used evidence as provided by nature and science. Nature tells us that a woman's body can spontaneously abort a fetus in the first three months of pregnancy when the pregnancy endangers the woman or sometimes when it is unwanted by the woman. This tells us that the woman takes natural precedence over the fetus. On the other hand, what is the difference between killing an eight month old fetus and killing a newborn? Very little as an eight month old fetus is viable and can survive -- often without the help of science. So the Court listened to what science had to say, then divided a pregnancy into three trimesters. In the first trimester, the woman takes precedence as nature dictates; in the last trimester, the fetus is viable and therefore must be protected as any human would be; the middle trimester can be legislated by each State in accordance with their social morals and culture. In my opinion, Roe v Wade is some of the best legislation ever enacted by the Judicial system. Regarding freezing embryos, it makes no sense. Would we save every seed that falls out of a maple tree? Would we want to preserve every dandelion fluff? Of course not. These seeds are made in an abundance so that waste is not an issue. The same is true for humans. This is why we do not try to save the leavings of every teenage boy's nocturnal dreams, or follow women around trying to preserve the monthly egg that they lose whenever they do not become pregnant. Of course, you could argue that seeds and eggs are not embryos, but I would argue that embryos are not humans. If they were humans, then you would not need a surrogate mother; you could just stick the embryo in an incubator and cook it for nine months. Good luck with that. If you really wanted to do some philosophy, you might want to question why people do not want babies and why they do not want families. Gee

Dstebbins; I want to thank you for writing this thread, as I had forgotten how much fun law can be. It has been many years since I worked in law, and my last MS attack took away a lot of my memory and some of my cognitive skills, but I think that I have an answer to your questions. It appears that both, Swansont and iNow, are correct. Swansont is correct in his assertion that this is more about rules and Civil Procedures than it is about logic, but Court rules are very old and have long ago worked out these problems. If this were a Criminal case, a Complaint/Ticket would be filed with the Court, Defendant would be brought in, and there would be an Arraignment. The purpose of an Arraignment is to present evidence to see if there is enough to warrant a Trial. No matter what Plea the Defendant presents, or does not present, it is the responsibility of the Plaintiff to present evidence at that time to forward the case -- or it is dismissed. In a Civil Case, a Complaint is filed with the Court and Defendant is served with the Complaint. Defendant has 21 days to file an Answer to Complaint. Historically, there are four Answers that can be given; either the Defendant admits, denies, admits part and denies part, or Defendant leaves Plaintiff to its proofs, so the Answer to Complaint opens the doors to Discovery. Discovery is where evidence is sought and accumulated so that it can be presented at the Trial. In your above scenarios, you did not mention an Arraignment or an Answer to Complaint, so it is easy to see why evidence would not have been presented. What I can not see is why any Court would allow these steps to be skipped. If these steps were skipped, then iNow would be correct and the logical fallacy would be non sequitur. In my opinion. Gee

Ten oz; You ask a lot of difficult questions, and I wish I had half of the answers that I would like to have. It was my hope that someone with more expertise would join this thread and answer some of those questions, but it does not look like it. I know that the subject of emotion scares the hell out of most people, but I thought that in a science forum, there would be some people with at least some answers. It appears not, so we will have to work with the little bit that I think I know. (chuckle) Yes, the unconscious mind possesses thought. Neurology tells us that many of our memories are stored in the unconscious and that the unconscious holds our learned instincts, or our experiences. Hypnosis tells us that the unconscious has information that we are unaware of, and psychology tells us that the information in the unconscious can affect us in surprising ways, as in the Freudian slip. So the real question is not if there are thoughts, but does the unconscious mind think? If it does, then how does it think? From what I know so far, the un/subconscious aspect of mind is more reactionary and reacts primarily to emotion or need, but the rational conscious mind is self directed. Also consider that humans develop the rational mind by age seven, so are we saying that anyone under the age of seven does not know how to think? If so, then why do we bother putting them in school at age five? In another forum, a member brought to my attention a tribe of people in, I think, South America. This tribe is being studied because of the limits in their language and understanding, but after reviewing the information, it occurred to me that what was being discussed were limits that would indicate that the people do not have the same rational aspect of mind that we have. I will try to get more information on this, but the guy who told me about it got himself banned. He is a really bright guy, but deals with severe depression, and occasionally has the personality of an angry bull. But I will see what I can find on this tribe. I am not sure about this. I know that the sub/unconscious mind reacts to emotion and is activated by emotion, but does that mean that it has emotion? I am not sure. Well, I would definitely throw out the idea of anything linear associated with the sub/unconscious mind. Dr. Blanco, who studied with Anna Freud, is the one who found a logic in the unconscious. He discovered that if one removes the idea of time, there is logic, but the logic seems to be based more on balance and relationships, rather than on time. The unconscious seems to understand same and difference, self and other, more and less, but does not know time -- which makes me wonder if it knows space. In the unconscious, if Mary is Jane's mother, then Jane is Mary's mother. The unconscious sees the connection, but not the time factor which would make this statement ridiculous. This is why psychoanalysis works for some people. If one experiences an emotional trauma at a young age and can not understand it, it seems to never settle because the unconscious sees it as having happened before, happening now, and imminent. It is the job of the psychologist to help the person find the memory, then bring it out so that it can be understood in the rational mind and time can be assigned to it. At that time, it can be assigned to the past, something that has happened and is over, so that this emotional memory is no longer triggered. So no, I don't think there is anything linear going on here. Yes, trigger might be a good term to describe what emotion does in the unconscious mind. Wiki used the word 'mechanism' in relation to instincts and how they were activated by emotion. Also consider that emotion causes chemical releases, but chemical releases also cause emotion -- it goes both ways. Actually, the sub/unconscious mind is full of opinion as that is where our prejudice comes from. It may well be where all opinion comes from. I don't know why people always say this, that emotion changes. Life is not static. Our bodies change, our thoughts change, and our emotions and moods change. I suspect that this idea comes from the fact that emotion is very fluid, or analog, so it is difficult to determine the causes of the change, whereas thought is more digital so we can trace back to the experience or learning that changed our thoughts. Emotion is not more changeable than thought; in fact, it is more reliable. This is the reason why simple thought can not compete with belief, because belief has emotion attached so it is more trusted. The rational mind and thought can lie; emotion has no idea of how to lie. In my opinion. Let me know what you think. Gee

iNow; Please consider: You seem to be a little confused as to the goals in this thread. This is not a thread concerned with the study of language and labels, nor is it a thread to discuss what emotion is NOT. It would be rather foolhardy to start a thread where the main point is to learn what something isn't. It was my intention to learn more about what emotion is -- not what it isn't. So if you intend to post in this thread again, try to be a little more constructive. Remember, the only way to validate a map is to examine the territory that it purports to describe. Gee

Phi for All; Please consider my following thoughts. Well, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we will often rethink our judgements in hindsight. What if it had been a heart attack rather than a stroke? I don't know much about strokes, but I do know that one minute can be the difference between life and death in a heart attack case. The police did not necessarily "mishandle anybody", but they were in no hurry to call for medical help. Why? Because they had no idea that it was necessary. Consider the following statement from my first post in this thread: "The only thing that we can do is to reserve judgement until we have more than just the initial impression -- which assumes that we have time to reserve judgement." Police do not often have time to "reserve judgement" and must act immediately to avoid danger. This puts them in a position where they are going to make mistakes -- it is impossible not to -- and when they do make mistakes, it often becomes news headlines. So, although we should not "judge a book by its cover", there are some people/professions where the luxury of reserving judgement is just not available. I did not accuse you of anything. We agree that you did make a negative judgement, but it was the association that I was considering. Nowhere in your story did you mention a road, a vehicle, or even car keys, but you associated staggering with drunk driving. Now it could be that you intended to mention a vehicle, or you could be a proponent of better drunk driving laws, or you could have had a bad experience with a drunk driver, or you might have wanted to be a police officer, or maybe you are a police officer, but you made the association. I did not make that association. I have often wondered if the saying, "judge not, lest you be judged" is more about what a person reveals when they make a judgement, rather than it being a reference to a final reward. We tell a lot about ourselves when we make a judgement, especially when the judgement is made on first impressions. I am a woman with a distinctly female mind, so my first thought is about the internal, as that is a woman's perspective. So when I read that someone was "staggering", my first thought is what internal thing is causing them to stagger -- drink, drugs, illness, shock? I am also a holistic thinker, so right and wrong are some of my last and least important considerations. If I were to take a guess, I would say that you are male as your first consideration was how the "staggering" would affect the external -- as in drinking and driving. I would also guess that you are a linear thinker because you seem to put great store in wrong and right, and probably believe in progress too. These are just guesses, and I have no wish to offend you. The point is that when we make judgements, we reveal a lot about ourselves, laying ourselves open to judgement. Psychology calls this "projecting", as we tend to project our own motives, experiences, values on the people around us. Gee

Phi for All; Please consider: I knew a man who passed out while driving his car. He was sitting at an intersection when it happened, and his car drifted into the intersection causing a blockage of traffic in all directions. Everyone was angry. When the police arrived, they actually had to break his driver's side window in order to get him out because he would not respond. The police were not gentle because they could see the beer cans on the floor and knew the man was drunk. Later they learned that the man had actually had a stroke and had not been drinking at all. So sometimes the context can distort the meaning and cause us to make bad judgments. Although I will agree that a man who staggers out of a bar at 10 am should not drive, is he staggering because he is drunk, or because he is ill? Does he need our contempt or our help? Sometimes it is hard to know. My Aunt would often cause people to get a wrong impression of her. One day a woman told me that my Aunt always stares at her, but never talks to her, so she thought that my Aunt was a little snobby. I smiled and explained that my Aunt stares because she is trying to read your lips, and does not talk because she is deaf as a post. Deafness causes all kinds of misimpressions. Gee

Jebaqpt; Please consider the following: The saying is; "Don't judge a book by its cover.", not never judge a book by its cover. There is a difference. This means that you should not judge something, or someone, by the initial impression, but need to look closer to see whether than initial impression is an accurate interpretation of the person/thing/event before making a judgement. It does not mean that you should summarily dismiss your initial impression, as it could be correct. This may be true in "God's" eyes, but it is not true in reality. If you don't believe me, just ask a traffic cop. There are lots of touching stories, and they can go in either direction, so they prove nothing. The truth is that Phi For All is correct, we can not turn it off. Our prejudices, just like our instincts, come from the sub/unconscious aspect of mind. We have no real control over them and only know about them after we have reacted. The only thing that we can do is to reserve judgement until we have more than just the initial impression -- which assumes that we have time to reserve judgement. Also consider that by denying our right to judge situations/people, you would be denying our right to wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to pre-judge a situation/person so that we can determine the probable consequences by using our intelligence, experience, and instincts. I like wisdom. Gee

World peace is easy. Just take away free will and most emotion. It would be boring, but peaceful. Gee

John Cuthber; Excellent. I am forever writing arguments, in this forum, that people will either accept 'whole cloth' or reject without comment. I suppose that this is because there are so few philosophers in this forum, but it is frustrating for me, because I do not learn as much. It is much preferred for a person to write a rebuttal or at least to question my thoughts, so thank you. Please consider the following: It is not likely that you will see this because, (1) I am disabled and housebound, and (2) I never have a "room full of psychologists" in my home. This is not really a rebuttal as you have not made your thoughts clear. Although I can see a number of different ways that you might consider this, it would be guessing on my part. Are you perchance considering behavioral psychology? Agreed. With the help of computers and data collection, statistics have become a new science -- but is it good science? The association between smoking and cancer is well established -- everybody knows this. I remember having a discussion with my nephew regarding smoking and cancer 20 or more years ago. He told me that new studies indicated that even living with a person who smokes can cause a relative to get cancer, and noted a study that explained that the non-smoking person could be even more susceptible to cancer, as second-hand smoke appeared to be more dangerous. I asked how that was possible, and he stated that there seems to be some immunity for the smoker. I laughed and told him that I had better start smoking to get some immunity and save myself from cancer. Of course, the above is absurd, but how did it get so twisted? Consider that the first association, cancer and smoking, would be called the premise if we were talking philosophy, or you could call it the idea that other ideas are built upon. Since we knew that smoking caused cancer, then people who did not smoke, must have gotten cancer because they were around smokers. When we realized that people got cancer, who did not smoke and no one in their houses smoked, we realized that even casual interaction between smokers and nonsmokers could cause cancer. So then we find that some people can smoke for 40 years and never get cancer, but a casual relationship with them could cause an innocent bystander to get cancer, so the smoker must have some immunity! (chuckle) As I noted before, the scientific method gives us very accurate information that we can build upon -- statistics do not. The above nonsense is caused by a faulty premise -- smoking does not cause cancer. What smoking does is damage the body, so it contributes greatly to mouth and throat cancer as smoking continually burns the mouth and throat. It also causes emphysema and contributes to lung cancer and bad teeth and wrinkled skin and probably some other things. Anything that damages the body on a regular basis encourages cancer. I know of four people who died of cancer. Each one of them smoked, each one of them had a spot on their lungs when they died, each one of them had a Death Certificate that no doubt stated that smoking was a contributing cause in the death. One of them had bladder cancer, which metastasized and caused a spot on the lung in the fourth stage of cancer. One of them had cancer that started in an artery, moved to the small intestine and from there to the liver and caused a spot on the lung in the fourth stage of cancer. Two of them had spots on the lung when first diagnosed, but their biopsies showed that it was a cancer that is caused by asbestos -- one was an electrician, the other a carpenter, who built houses. Both had strong exposure to asbestos which does cause cancer. The information on the Death Certificates would be added to the statistics and contribute to the growing belief that smoking causes cancer -- but in these cases, it would not be true. There are more examples if this isn't enough. The bottom line is that statistical evidence does not follow the strict guidelines of the scientific method, nor does it follow the strict guidelines of philosophy regarding a premise, so it can easily identify a general trend that may or may not be true. For this reason, trying to build a theory on just statistics is problematic. I won't usually even accept statistics as evidence unless I can study the process of gathering the statistics and the motivation and questions that prompt the statistics, then I would probably also want a report from an actuary. Consider that statistical evidence is a standardized objective and collective perspective of experience, but does not actually relate the individual subjective experiences. No it is not "repeating an experiment"; it is gathering and distributing information. This is much like statistical evidence, but it is better because actual scientists are doing the gathering and their motivation is clear -- to identify and fight disease. What is important to remember is where the accuracy comes from. The scientific method finds its accuracy in the testing -- the results. Philosophy finds its accuracy in the premises -- the starting point. A person doing epidemiological analysis knows what they are looking for, they understand the diseases that they study, so their premises are much more valid. When they beat the disease, or at least contain it, they have their tested results. So in this type of study, the guidelines of both, philosophy and science, are observed. Of course, I think it would be nice if they would stop teaching HIV lessons to elementary school children by telling them to "wash their hands". It is amazing how many people think that cleanliness prevents AIDS. It would be better to teach them to not put bandages on other kids and teach high school kids to put a pair of rubber gloves in their glove compartment in case they come upon an auto accident. Gee

John Cuthber; Please consider the following and let me know what you think. I agree with you, which would be why I put a + on Ten oz's post. But then we must consider what "consistency and repeatability" means. Many people think that consistency and repeatability means science, but this is not so. Science did not invent consistency and repeatability. A little boy sitting on the floor stacking his blocks is studying consistency and repeatability. What science did was develop the scientific method, which made consistency and repeatability awesome and turned it into something that can build knowledge. So if that little boy were going to grow up to be a scientist, he would want to test how high he can build his blocks on the carpet, on a tile floor, on the couch cushions, and on his mattress. He would want to test this on a rickety table and on a solid table, test to see what vibration did and at what height. He would want to know if he could set the blocks to make a window and how far he could make the blocks lean before they would fall. Before he was done, he would want to know everything that can be known about stacking blocks. This is what the scientific method does, it sets parameters and narrows the focus so that one specific thing is being tested, so when the testing is done, the acquired information is extremely accurate. Once some things are learned, then that very accurate information can be used to test more things so that the knowledge builds. For this reason, the most accurate science is the most current tested science. So science that is 100 years old may, or may not, be the best authority; one would want to check and see if there were further developments. Then one has to consider that the most current information is not always science. I have read too many articles that claim to be science, but have not been tested by anyone other than the person/s making the claim. Without confirmation and testing by another party, the claimed "scientific" information is nothing more than hypothesis and/or observation that has been interpreted -- not actual science. Then one must consider the limits of science. Science can not test an unknown, because it is unknown, so we turn to philosophy to see what can be learned. Science can not test experience because it is not repeatable. We can not take the cancer out of a person and repeat their getting cancer under different circumstances, so the scientific method does not work on experience. Wisdom and tradition have historically been our guide with regard to experience, but I will save that for another post. You are, in my opinion, correct in your assertion that information must be weighed. When deciding whether or not to believe authority, one must question how that authority was acquired; what their peer group thinks of that authority and their information; and consider whether or not there is a motivation that could corrupt the information. So we must do our homework before we decide to accept or reject authority. The reverse is also true. When making a philosophical argument, we must do our homework and be willing to provide the information that will validate any authority that we cite in our arguments. Gee

iNow; Your following comment confused me. When I log onto the SFN site, the menu that comes up lists Science and Philosophy in different categories. So are you saying that these are subforums? If so, would that make General Philosophy, Religion, and Ethics sub-subforums, as they are under Philosophy? And, of course, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology would also be sub-subforums, as they are under the subforum of Science. What would that make Classic Physics, Inorganic Chemistry, and Evolution? Sub-sub-subforums? Just wondering. Gee If there is anything that I can do to help you remember to not be here, just let me know. I would be willing to send you a PM -- daily.

iNow; Please consider the following: Survival, as you are using it, is an objective description of a subjective concept, or one could say that survival is merely an observation of subjective activity. The actual activity is subjective and works through emotion. Consider that without attraction, want, and maybe a little lust, there would be no progeny or offspring to observe and measure. OK. ark200, on 08 Apr 2015 - 11:05 AM, said: It was pointed out early in this thread that these 4 reasons are logical fallacies that people use to deny the validity of believing something. If we considered any and all beliefs, then we could include Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, space aliens, and religion, so the discussion would have no parameters. No point. So you agree with the conclusions in my prior post, copied below, and are stating that religion is a good reason to believe something. There is nothing wrong with a pragmatic approach, and it can even be quite wise to adopt that position, but I do not see how it relates to logical fallacies or what can be believed. Many people running for office will join a group/church in order to support their positions, and they will avoid groups/churches that may endanger their chances of winning. Does this mean that we can believe them because of their affiliations? I remember reading Bush Jr.'s resume when he was running for a second term. It stated that he was affiliated with three or four Christian churches, but apparently, he missed the "Thou shalt not kill" part of his belief. So joining a group may help a person to survive, but it will not tell me whether or not I can believe anything about him/her. This is the Philosophy forum; you know, love of wisdom? The discipline that studies what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true? If we are not going to get closer to the truth, then WHAT is the point of this discussion? Gee

Members; If I may, I would like to interject some analysis and information into this side argument between iNow and MWresearch. iNow offered 'survival' as a reason to believe something. Survival is an emotion-activated concept. Anyone who does not believe this should consider 'survival instincts', as each of our survival instincts are triggered or activated by some feeling or emotion. So although we can logically think about survival, it works through emotion. This thread is not about belief; if it were, then we could bring Santa Claus into the discussion. It is about the reasons why we should or should not believe logical fallacies. If we accept 'survival' as one of those reasons, then we are agreeing that emotion is a good reason to accept logic, and a valuable tool in determining the worth of a logical fallacy. I can not accept 'survival' as a reason because that would mean that we are basing our logic on emotion, so what we would actually be doing is rationalizing our beliefs. MWresearch, whether consciously or unconsciously, understood the connection between emotion and survival and brought the discussion around to religion and social grouping, which are also emotion-laden concepts, as emotion causes religion and social grouping. MWresearch then tried to show where these emotion driven concepts can be bad, but this is where these arguments became invalid. Logic is like math, it shows us consistency and tries to expose what is true and what is not true; it does not give two hoots about what is good or bad. If we try to interject good and bad into our logic, then we are again rationalizing our beliefs. So although MWresearch's arguments are invalid, the point that s/he made is valid. Emotion is not a good reason to accept or reject logical fallacies. Focus, people. Gee

Ark200; Please consider my following thoughts: Let's look at this from an entirely different direction. Let us say that you are correct and all of the above reasons for believing something are bad and invalid. What does that leave us with? 1. Tradition is based on something that was studied long ago, the conclusions of which people have adopted and accepted traditionally. 2. Authority is the current thinking, based on current studies, on what is acceptable. Anyone can argue if they like, but the reality is that science is THE authority on anything physical. Conclusion: Nothing that has been studied in the past or currently is acceptable to believe. So if studies are not acceptable, then that leaves us with what? Making things up? If nothing from the past and nothing current is acceptable, then that leaves us with futuristic ideas. Since we can not know the future, that leaves us with speculation and imagination. 3. General agreement; crowd opinion is an objective perspective of something. 4. Private Revelation is a subjective perspective of something. Conclusion: Nothing that is objective or subjective can be accepted and believed. This leaves us with what? Faith? So apparently, the only reasons that are acceptable for us to believe something is when we have faith in the things that we make up using imagination and speculation. Did someone move us to the Religion forum when I wasn't looking? There is nothing logical about any of this. It is all nonsense. I see two possibilities: Either logical fallacies have nothing to do with logic, or these logical fallacies are being twisted, abused, and warped so that they are no longer logical. I think that it would serve this thread better if people would discuss when 'tradition' is not believable; under what circumstance 'authority' is not believable; when 'general agreement' is invalid; and under what circumstance 'private revelation' is not valid. And I suggest that this should be done using logic. Gee

John Cuthber; Please consider: So try this: The Prosecutor in a murder trial states, "The victim is indisputably dead." Are you going to try to dispute that? You just can't see it, can you? OK. Fine. You win. I will concede that your argument that nothing is indisputable, as all things can be disputed, is valid and true. I lose because I can not dispute your argument; thereby, proving that I am right that some things can not be disputed. This is a logical trap that you can not win and I can not lose. If I win and you lose, then we find that some things are not disputable. If you win and I lose, then we prove that some things are not disputable. This is why I called it arm-chair philosophy with no meaning. So if you can not win the argument without proving me right, why are you arguing? This is an argument that would be better served in the Ethics Forum. I have found that people, who use the word "evil" a great deal, usually have a religious leaning. This is because religion has the only philosophy that uses "good v evil", which is a false dichotomy, as good and evil are not antonyms, nor are they in opposition except in the minds of the religious. Since you seem to be accusing me of following "the evil book", it may be that you think that I have religious leanings. If this is what you think, I am asking that you keep that information quiet. I have a lot of family and friends, who would be elated to find that I have suddenly discovered religion after all of these years. Hell, they might even invite me to their churches. It would be very awkward and embarrassing to have to tell them that John is mistaken and has an indisputable belief that I am religious. So to save us all a lot of embarrassment, please keep it under your hat. Kay? Shhh. (This was just too funny. I couldn't resist it.) Gee

Skeptic134; I do not understand your animosity. It occurs to me that we may have different things in mind when we use the word "tradition", so following is a sampling of some of the things that I would refer to as traditions. In my second year of high school, someone told me that I was now a Sophomore. So I asked, "What is a Sophomore" and was told that Sophomore means wise fool. I was insulted and asked why the second year was called wise fools, and was then told that it was tradition and had always been that way. A Freshman is a newby and knows very little, a Sophomore comes in confident and a little cocky because they think they know everything, a Junior has learned from the mistakes that were made as a Sophomore and is more careful, and the Senior is the wise one who knows the ropes. As I grew, I learned that the descriptions were very accurate and wondered what genius figured this out long ago. Then I realized that it did not just apply to high school. We start as Freshmen again in college, then again at work, in our marriages, in parenting, in grandparenting. Each time we start something new, we go through these same steps. Do you remember when you first drove a car? It seemed as though it would not fit in the lane -- Freshman. Later you got a little too sure of yourself and maybe blew a stop sign or picked up more speed than you intended? As a Junior you started to learn how to time lights, how to handle a car in bad weather, and learned where the traffic problems come up. As Seniors we become good defensive drivers -- the wise ones. It is interesting to note that most trucking companies will not hire a driver under the age of 26, although they do not specifiy why. Since being 26 years old does not guarantee that one is a good driver, it is my thought that they are trying to ensure that they do not get Freshmen or Sophomores. In my early 20's, I got tired of trying to get other people to take me for rides on their bikes, so I went to a Honda shop and bought my own. Then I had to call my brother and ask him to drive it home for me, as I had not yet learned how to drive a motorcycle. Hearing this, the salesman took me aside and told me to be careful learning to drive my bike, but to be especially careful next spring. He said that most people die from accidents on their bikes in their second year of riding. I thought to myself, "Ah yes. The Sophomore." I was much more confident in my second year and wanted to push my bike, but I never forgot his warning. Traditions come in all shapes and sizes. Have you ever wondered why the front door is by the livingroom and the back door is by the kitchen? Even if the house is backward like houses built on a lake. I have visited houses where you turn off the road into a driveway, and there is the back door. The front door is by the living room facing the lake, which means the front door is in the back. Why is that? Tradition, just the way it is. If I wanted to build a house and put the kitchen in the front, would I have reason to regret it? Don't know. Maybe I should ask an architect, but that would be asking authority. I know a man, who is six and a half feet tall, and when he decided to renovate his bathroom, he was going to replace that short sink and cabinet. He was tired of having to fold himself in half just to brush his teeth. Have you ever noticed that bathroom cabinets are much shorter than kitchen cabinets? Well, he could not find a taller cabinet because they were all made the same size -- that is just the way it is -- so he built one. He really liked it, but the mirror was too high for his wife and she told him that she was not going to stand on tiptoe to put on her make-up, so he got a larger mirror. It worked well until they had kids. When his kids were five years old, they still had to stand on a step stool to reach the sink. It made for a lot of spills, accidents, and busted lips. I asked him if he had the chance to do it over again, would he still install that tall cabinet. He said, "Yes. But I would have waited until the kids were half grown." Sometimes there are reasons for things being just the way they are. Why is it that Thanksgiving dinner is never really quite right since Mom got too old to bake her homemade pumpkin pie? The store bought pumpkin pies are just not what they should be. Is Mom's pumpkin pie that important to this tradition? Why are electrical outlets a hammer's length up from the floor? Why are the switches all at about elbow height? This is just the way it is in everyone's houses. Is there a reason? Maybe. An old electrician might know, but consistency does make it easier to find outlets and switches in the dark. When I was a kid, we traditionally learned to turn things clockwise or counter-clockwise. But kids now do not always even know how to read a clock because so much is digital. What will happen when a young man is learning how to become a mechanic, and the old mechanic says to turn that clockwise? What? My husband understood this problem and taught the kids, "Lefty loosy; righty tighty." A new tradition. So far this is working, but what will happen if the manufacturers of nuts and bolts and screws decide to change things up? Are we tightening the screw or loosening it? Who knows? They all work different! Some times, the traditional way of doing things is kind of nice -- just let it be the way it is. So I like tradition and will accept it in most things unless a reason to reconsider presents itself. A new idea is not always a better idea, and time is a good test for ideas. Gee

Skeptic134; I believe that it was twice before in this thread, that I have pointed out where you have misrepresented my statements. You have neither admitted nor denied this. Apparently you still seem to need to misrepresent me, but your following statements have graduated to assumption, imagination, and false accusations. Do you really think this is philosophy? There is a difference between defending something and understanding something. A doctor does not study diseases because he likes or defends disease. A person does not examine the causes of slavery because they like or want to defend slavery. Your above assumption is untrue and a little idiotic. How could I possibly examine a concept while ignoring it? There is no logic here. Perhaps you should have been a lawyer. Lawyers love to use leading statements like this to mislead and ensnare the weak minded, but if you choose to enter law, I should warn you that this does not often work on Judges, as Judges like to have things like facts and evidence rather than imaginings. Also consider that lawyers have to deal with an ethics board. No. It is a very poor example as we have yet to determine a good way to handle the losers in a war situation. Slavery after war is not a good solution, but thus far no one has a better idea that works. I noticed that you didn't come up with anything, except don't have war. Good luck with making that happen. And just what do you think that "objective system" would be? It would be a nice change to have some constructive ideas from you. This does not surprise me. But you might consider that learning is not such an awful thing. Why would I look for "solace, inspiration" in a history book? No logic here. As far as "morality" is concerned, laws are built on morality. A lot of people from other cultures have stated that law in the US is "Christian law". Others argue that there is a separation of church and State in the US, so this is not so. After having studied some law and then examined the Book of Law, Deuteronomy, I have concluded that both arguments are correct. We do have a separation of church and State, as regards power, but the roots of our Common Law (moral law) are deeply embedded in Deuteronomy. A discussion of this would pull this thread off topic, so if you are interested, start another thread. But first consider that I would not be willing to discuss this topic with anyone, who will not take instruction or does not already have a good basic understanding of the foundations of law. Too much work. Do you understand what cherry picking means? It means that you choose the information that supports your theory/belief. This is what religions do with the Bible. A study of the Book of Law, and comparison to current law is not cherry picking, it is a study. You mean like science journals? Dictionaries? Encyclopedias? Are they all bad "presupposed authoritative books"? Or do you mean books that you believe do not have authority? as opposed to books that you believe do have authority? This is simple bias as to beliefs. So you are saying that science journals are just pictures? They don't use words (thoughts)? Of course they require analysis. There is not much interesting here as this is a "no brainer". This is also a "no brainer". Older traditions would have been tested for a longer period of time and tested in more cultures/situations, so there is more tested consistency. Traditions that have proven to be invalid would have been dropped. New traditions may or may not accomplish their required goals, so it takes time to see if they are valid. Humanity has learned very little about humanity in thousands of years. If you think otherwise, start a thread. No it is not progress. Progress might have happened if you had not felt a little froggy and jumped to conclusions with assumptions about my thoughts. The OP stated that the following reasons for believing were bad, then listed those reasons. I pointed out that in each case there could be valid reasons for believing the listed items. At no time did I state that they were good, nor did I state that they were bad. Why? Because that would not be true. A lot of people in forums do this. They make an erroneous assumption about another person's post, then argue that the person is wrong, because of this erroneous assumption, and the thread dissolves into a argument that goes off topic. This is not philosophy. This is nonsense. You could have simply questioned me if you thought that I was defending these things as always being true. Gee Moontanman; You are correct. I briefly scanned Deuteronomy and found the passage that you are referring to, and it specifies Hebrew slaves. When I first looked at Deuteronomy, it was decades ago, and I was comparing what I found there to current law. Since slavery is no longer legal, I did not consider it as carefully as other aspects of law. I remembered it because indentured servants were often given 7 year sentences, or 14 years which supposes that it was for two different convictions or claims. It makes one wonder if this passage of law in Deuteronomy was a justification that people used for slavery in old England. People always try to justify what they do, whether the act is just or not. It should be noted that England abolished slavery well before the US did. This is just speculation at this point, but: This passage applied to, Hebrews, or their own kind, so in translation maybe white, whether it was English, Irish, Scottish, or French, were considered of their own kind, but black was considered other and therefore exempt from this rule? Or it could have applied to Christian and non-Christian. Of course, racial issues are much older than these laws, but it is always nice to have some moral justification when trying to do something that is morally unjust. So I retract that part of my statements, and thank you for the correction. This does not change the fact that in many tribes on different continents, slaves were sometimes allowed to marry into families, and children were sometimes adopted by families legitimizing them as citizens. Gee John Cuthber; Please consider: I am not saying that you are wrong. I am just saying that it does not matter. One can argue that indisputable means that it can not be disputed. One can argue that since it can be disputed, nothing is indisputable. This is arm-chair philosophy. It has no meaning and can be argued until the end of time. What is the reality? The reality is as follows: It is indisputable that 2 + 2 = 4, yet some people will dispute it. It is indisputable that you are who you think you are, but the Twilight Zone movie might dispute it. Why are these things indisputable? Because you believe them. Indisputable means believed. Something that is believed is indisputable -- until we change our beliefs. (chuckle) I don't think this is a false dichotomy. You asked if I would be "happier" as a slave. I can not know. Whether slave or free, there are many things that might affect my happiness, so it is an impossible question to answer. I tried to give you a fair answer by expressing hope. As long as there is life, there is hope, and that is all that I can know. Gee

Skeptic134; You wrote a fairly long post, but I have tried to respond to each of your points. Please take some time to consider my thoughts below: Yes, but you chose an ugly emotionally laden point. It has not escaped my notice that you talk about rationality while using emotion to make your point. This does not convey a sincere honest attempt at discussion. True, but doing something because it has worked for centuries is a different reason. A great deal of our traditions are rooted in wisdom. Why? Because wisdom was the only source that we had for predictable outcomes. We now have science, but science does not deal with many of the issues that tradition dominates; such as, family traditions. In the US, we have thrown out many family traditions because they were old-fashioned. Instead we now have too many broken families, kids out of control, suicide rates that are double homicide rates, many people who disdain marriage, and a general breakdown in family and morality. What is science's solution? Chemicals and Prozac. What would wisdom have to say? Duh. What did you think was going to happen? I can agree with most of this, but not "rationality". Rationality is a goal oriented linear process, which means that we believe something, then justify it by creating logical rational steps that prove our belief. It is a self-serving process that is often circular and is always guided by the rational aspect of mind. The rational aspect of mind being the only part of our minds that knows how to lie. I prefer intelligence and reasoning. Or perhaps for good? In this quote, you have put your finger on the problem. Even the most intelligent mind can not possibly reason out every decision. We can not evaluate politics, religious beliefs, work problems, morality, family integration, financial decisions, and each one of our acts in each and every day. Most of us are overwhelmed with work problems, how to get the children to understand, and what to make for dinner. And these are the bright people; what do the less bright people do? Most of us try to find someone that we can trust. It could be a political leader, a religious leader, a trusted family member or friend, or maybe it is the guy with the nice smile on the News broadcast. But we find someone to trust and allow them to instruct us. For myself, I reason out what I can, but find the old traditions and wisdom valuable because it has worked for so many people for a very long time. I used the Bible because I could remember it and it is well known. I don't like to make assertions that are not logically reasoned out or do not have some frame of reference. There are probably other documents that are old enough to make my point, but I don't know them. When complaining about inconsistency in the Bible, it would be good to bear in mind that the Bible is not a book, it is a book of books. Most of the books were written by different authors with different perspectives in different times, so consistency would be very surprising. Also consider that much of the inconsistency that people complain about is not actually in the Bible, it is between religion(s) and the Bible. Religions more often are consistent with church doctrines, which are spins of interpretations from the Bible. More gossip and spin. (chuckle) No one said anything about "good and right". You are making chit up. I have read studies about the American Indians and about cultures and tribes in Africa. In each case, tribal war meant either killing everyone, like the American Colonists did to the Indians, or leaving them to starve or be taken by predators, like the American Colonists did to the Indians, or subjugating the dredges of the losing tribe. So which one of these do you think is "right"? There is no right at that point, only the best you can do. Yes, let's not be too naive. Slave labor better work hard because there are a lot more mouths to feed. And this is right after the duration of war, where most everyone either lost somebody or were maimed or hurt, and no one is feeling kind and generous. What is it with you and the Bible -- "Ancient book of horrors"? This looks like a very emotional response. (chuckle) Try to set your emotions aside for a moment and think about it. What is the Bible? Well most people see it as a religious book, but is it really? It talks about God, but the large majority of the Old Testament is about Jewish history. It is a history book. And who writes a history book? Well, that would be the people who want to promote their own history. So does this mean that it is an accurate history? Well, no, maybe, sorta, kinda, from a certain perspective. I find that it is easiest to understand the Bible by breaking it into four sections. The first section is the first six Books, that were purportedly handed down by Moses. These Books establish God as the authority, establish a chain of birth with all the "begats", and set down the Laws. The second section is the rest of the Old Testament and is made up of stories of Jewish history. The third section, the New Testament, is Jesus's philosophy, and the fourth section is Revelations, the Apocalypse, and futuristic ideas. So ask yourself, what kind of people would take and cherish the first six Books as set down in the Bible? They would be a people who needed the legitimacy that a heritage and personal God could provide, and they would be a rather barbaric and uncivilized nation that needed the Laws that would teach them how to live well. Civilized people do not cherish laws, they simply accept them as normal, so the ancient Jews were not yet civilized. Is this the "horror" that you are talking about? Great. So do they wait to get married until all of these things are accomplished, or do they commit at the time of the revelation? In the old days, they would commit by becoming engaged. Then she would learn to cook, sew, maintain a house, put in a garden, and maybe preserve veges. He would be busy getting land and building or buying a home and coming up with a ring. When all was accomplished, they would marry unless someone changed their minds. Their accomplishments would still be valid for the next relationship. Now a days they would move in together, see if they liked living together without commitment. Since there is no real commitment, trust would eventually become an issue at which time they would either decide to commit, marry, or they would change their minds. If they changed their minds, there may already be a child, they would have to divide up their property, someone would have to find a place to live. It would be very much like a divorce. Would this make it difficult to trust in another relationship? Would this make it difficult for the child to learn trust? YES! YES! YES! I like the old ways better. Tradition. And material evidence and testimony . . . If I walk in the door and find that the living room lamp is broken on the floor, and my son has a ball in his hands and looks guilty. That is evidence. Evidence is everywhere. No. Evidence needs to be interpreted by thought. See gossip and spin above. Between thought and belief, belief wins. Emotion is stronger than thought. Get it right. Well, I would not run as that is a very emotional reaction. I would THINK. Consider that 'to reason' is not the same as 'a reason'. When we reason, it is an activity that helps us to understand or evaluate something. 'A reason' is the conclusion of someone's evaluation and understanding. So when accepting a reason from someone else, we are in fact judging that person to be trustworthy and intelligent enough to come up with valid reasoning. So trusting authority would depend on how that person gained their authority. I would trust older traditions rather than newer ones. Herd mentality is always iffy and must be judged by the circumstance, and private revelation should never be ignored, but also not accepted without careful consideration. In my opinion Gee

John Cuthber; Please consider my following thoughts. Please do not just react, but take the time to consider. Agreed. When someone shows that an attorney is "unreliable", that unreliability is transferred to his/her client. If the attorney can not convince the Judge/Jury that the evidence is indisputable, then that attorney loses, so if your attorney loses, then you lose. Hiring an attorney is like hiring a fighter to go into the ring for you -- you want the best. This is why rich people do so well in Court, as they can hire the best. If I had only two choices; to go into Court with innocence and evidence, or to go into Court with the best attorney, having worked in law, I would choose the attorney. No. Let us posit that forensic evidence proves that the gun in question is the one that shot the victim and that witnesses saw the Defendant standing over the body with gun in hand. Prosecution states: Defendant shot the victim and was seen with the gun directly after the fact. Defense states: Defendant heard the shot, rushed into the room and picked up the gun because guns are dangerous and Defendant was in shock -- not thinking. Prosecution argues that Defendant is foul tempered, then will provide testimony for every time that Defendant lost his temper from his childhood on, and Prosecution will prove that Defendant hated the victim, who was trying to run off with and marry Defendant's daughter. Defense argues that Defendant is an upright and well respected citizen, who is very even tempered, and then will provide testimony that supports this position. It will be further argued that Defendant supported the marriage between his daughter and the victim and that Defendant actually liked the victim, which will be confirmed by further testimony. The above is gossip and spin, but what is the truth? Who knows? It might be either or neither. Maybe the victim was calling off the engagement, the daughter shot him, and the Defendant father is trying to protect his daughter. Or is this more gossip and spin? (chuckle) Then you should be able to appreciate the fact that most witnesses are not trained and will say things that can be construed in many ways by a clever attorney. Since you have never been called into Court, I suspect that your evidence causes attorneys to plea bargain. This means that a guilty person would receive a lesser sentence, and an innocent person would receive a sentence that is not warranted. Courts are not about justice; they are about procedures, expediency, and collecting fines. Well, it would be better than being dead, and there is a chance that I could eventually provide a home for my family and raise my children. Gee

John Cuthber; Please consider: A good lawyer does know better. That was my point. I worked in law and can assure you that evidence has little to do with Court decisions -- it ain't like on TV. Most cases are decided on what I like to call "gossip and spin" with a side of evidence; of course, the Court does not call it "gossip", they call it a person's character, and the Court does not call it "spin", they call it motive. So the Prosecutor destroys a person's character and spins the little bit of evidence to provide a motive, then the Defense rebuilds a person's character and spins the little bit of evidence to deny motive. When a case is not plea bargained to save time and money, it goes to Court and the attorneys argue using interpretation, misdirection, showmanship, and salesmanship. It is about what the attorneys can make the Judge/Jury believe. Court is not about truth, justice, or evidence; it is about Court Procedures, Civil Procedures, and collecting fines. Indisputable evidence = belief, so belief = indisputable evidence When I was young and naive, I once asked an attorney what he would do if he knew that his client was guilty. He got the most surprised look on his face, like he couldn't believe that I had asked such a stupid question, and responded, "Attack the victim, of course." He was a very good lawyer. Skeptic134; Please consider: Well, you have picked the ugliest topic that you could find to discuss tradition, but I will run with it. Slavery started thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of years ago and was caused by war. If you look in the Old Testament of the Bible, you will find references to the wars that the Jewish people were purported to have waged. In some cases, they were required to "smite" their enemy to every last man, woman, and child, but in other cases, they were allowed to take the women and children. These women and children would have been slaves. If we are going to discuss this, we should do it honestly; so imagine two tribes going to war. The men in the losing tribe would be dead or run off, and the women, old people, children, and village would be left. What would you do with them? There are only a few choices. You can kill everyone off. You can leave them to their own devices to starve or maybe survive to come back at you in a few years, or maybe another tribe will take them, as they now have no protection, and this new tribe may become stronger than your tribe. Or you can take charge of these people. So can you take these people home, give them a nice meal and a soft bed, and all will be forgiven? I don't think so. It is more likely that someone will stab you in your sleep because you killed their brother, father, or husband. So for many years, these people will have to be subjugated to prevent them from being dangerous. This was the start of slavery, a side effect of war, and it was originally a wise and compassionate decision -- much better than killing babies or letting them starve. If you look in Deuteronomy (the Book of Laws) in the Bible, you will find that a man is only enslaved, or owned, for seven years, and then can win his freedom. Any women or children would eventually incorporate into the family that held them, so this was not a life sentence. Slavery in the last few centuries has not been caused by wars, it is about economics and greed as Pavelcherepan explained. It is also about racism. There have always been despots and perverts, who are willing to subjugate anyone that they can, but this is again about greed -- not the traditional reasons for slavery. This must be why no one wants to get married anymore. Finding that you are in love with someone and want to spend the rest of your life with that person is a "private revelation". Instead of marrying, they "experimentally" test their relationship for five or ten years, then let it go. Of course this creates a lot of bastards, but it seems necessary. Just because families are falling apart and kids are out of control, this is no reason to forgo this testing, as we can't know until we test. Don't know how they did it in the old days. Well, let's see; in the nursery, the home, the job, the grocery store, the park, the car, the school, the hospital, the doctor's office, or everywhere there are people. Oh, and in the bedroom when a wife discovers lipstick and/or perfume on her husband's shirt that is not her lipstick or perfume. I think you are confusing empiricism with the scientific method. Look them up. I did not state that. You are making a strawman argument. Gee