User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 65

Thread: Size

  1. #31
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We have over the last one hundred and eighty years made giant ethical strides that have not been matched in the two hundred thousand years of human history.

    This is so extraordinary that it demands an explanation.
    That's a highly questionable proposition. At best, we've advanced in the soft virtues, but have fallen way behind in regards to the hard virtues.

  2. #32
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    It's not sermons, but your asinine blatherings that are tiresome.
    You know, my father was a Catholic convert. And like you, he was a traditional Catholic.

    And so as you can imagine, we had many fine arguments.

    And fortunately my father not only loved me but he was a gentleman.

    And so he allowed me to grow and develop as his son and find a mind of my own.

    So you can see why I smile and find your arguments familiar.

    As this is a family argument.

  3. #33
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We have over the last one hundred and eighty years made giant ethical strides that have not been matched in the two hundred thousand years of human history.
    Yes. I read the history texts as well.
    Legislation does not constitute actual abstinence you know.

    Peguy's point is not without substance. On the other hand, it is without substantiation. In those hundred and 180 years, yes it's true. We've done lots of ethical work. Of course, it has been a major concern -- people have gotten the idea that all people deserve fair and even treatment. From where, I don't know. So is the state of things.
    The greater fraction of the scientific understanding has come in the last 50 years.

    Some say the result is that ethics has fallen to the wayside.
    Look at the figures:
    Scientific discoveries -- in the millions
    Ethical discoveries -- a few dozen

    This, of course, ushers in the illusion that we're less ethically concerned.
    A silly notion at best. That we've stopped passing ethical legislation, does not by any means suggest that we've become less ethical. The ethical laws are still enforced are they not?

    And science is much much younger than society. It only makes sense that by now, ethics would be pretty solidly in place, while science, being the true infant be given more attention.
    We still help the old lady across the street, but the baby needs fed, needs clothed, and needs to be taught his ethics. He will learn from his elders.

    In the mean time, the ethicists need to get off the scientists' back. Let the adolescent explore and experiment. He is curious about himself.
    we fukin won boys

  4. #34
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Yes. I read the history texts as well.
    Legislation does not constitute actual abstinence you know.

    Peguy's point is not without substance. On the other hand, it is without substantiation. In those hundred and 180 years, yes it's true. We've done lots of ethical work. Of course, it has been a major concern -- people have gotten the idea that all people deserve fair and even treatment. From where, I don't know. So is the state of things.
    The greater fraction of the scientific understanding has come in the last 50 years.

    Some say the result is that ethics has fallen to the wayside.
    Look at the figures:
    Scientific discoveries -- in the millions
    Ethical discoveries -- a few dozen

    This, of course, ushers in the illusion that we're less ethically concerned.
    A silly notion at best. That we've stopped passing ethical legislation, does not by any means suggest that we've become less ethical. The ethical laws are still enforced are they not?

    And science is much much younger than society. It only makes sense that by now, ethics would be pretty solidly in place, while science, being the true infant be given more attention.
    We still help the old lady across the street, but the baby needs fed, needs clothed, and needs to be taught his ethics. He will learn from his elders.

    In the mean time, the ethicists need to get off the scientists' back. Let the adolescent explore and experiment. He is curious about himself.
    Interesting how you try to simplistically set this up as a debate between science and ethics, as if they're mutually exclusive. Rather it's an issue of science without ethics vs. science with ethics.

    Ethics provide the proper direction from which science can proceed. Even the amoralist Nietzsche agreed with this basic argument:
    "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science ‘without presuppositions’…a ‘faith’ must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method – a right to exist…It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."

    So what are the ethical underpinning behind science, and are they valid?

  5. #35
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Interesting how you try to simplistically set this up as a debate between science and ethics, as if they're mutually exclusive. Rather it's an issue of science without ethics vs. science with ethics.
    I didn't. Pay more attention.
    I said simply that science won't always be ethical, given that it's in its infancy and hasn't learnt manners, but it will eventually learn. How hard is that to comprehend? I still account for ethical and non-ethical science.

    Ethics provide the proper direction from which science can proceed.
    Says who? The guy your signature? Who the fuck is that? I think I like CaptainChick's signature better. It says "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it"

    Is it ethical to stifle curiosity? I think not. But then that's why ethics is always up for debate. Because no one can agree.

    Know why? 'Cause ethics can't be measured: Can't be conclusive.
    Know why? 'Cause it's not made of stuff: It doesn't exist.
    Know why? 'Cause the truth doesn't care if Jimmy cracks corn, or if he rapes his sister.

    Even the amoralist Nietzsche agreed with this basic argument:
    One thing about me you'll need to acclimate yourself to very quickly -- I don't care who agrees to what. While I've got CC's signature in use, let's not forget that a lie is a lie even if no one believes it. It's my calculation that many people believe a lot of lies. A famous philosopher's investment in a given sentiment is not impressive, nor is it conclusive or even substantive for that matter.

    He can be wrong.
    "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science ‘without presuppositions’…a ‘faith’ must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method – a right to exist…It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."
    I always did think Nietzsche was an idiot.
    Faith in what you can see is not faith. It's called observation. We can fuck it up. That does not by any means prove at all that there isn't an inherent truth. It just means we didn't find it yet.
    That humans can't figure it all out does not conclude that truth doesn't can't exist without faith for understanding.
    That that particular human assumes that if there were such a truth, that humans would figure it out, does conclude that he is a self-important twit with too much faith in his own human-inherited abilities.

    So what are the ethical underpinning behind science, and are they valid?
    ?
    Last edited by Nocapszy; 10-21-2008 at 11:19 AM.
    we fukin won boys

  6. #36
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Alienation isn't always incorrect.

    Alienation from nature?

    How wonderful. What's stuff is the spirit made of?

    For each to discover and define.

    Listen cat, science is the study of nature. There are bad scientists.
    And any scientist who tells you that nature and science stand in opposition or rivalry is a bad scientist. Mock them on behalf of me please.

    Good science attempts to explain confusing phenomena. Phenomena that was previously thought to be impossible. Every single time so far, logic has pulled it together.
    If, in nature, you see a frog what kills an elephant, you'll soon find that scientists will try to find out just how it happened. It seemed impossible. It seemed mysterious. But it wasn't really. We were just blind to what we have no experience with. A bad scientist will tell you that nature made a mistake. It didn't happen because it couldn't happen.

    A good scientist will take samples and do an autopsy of the elephant.

    Alienation isn't always incorrect. Additionally, correctitude knows no perspective. Yours, mine, President Bush's Victors? Reality doesn't care. What we think. He'll just keep doing his job. Even after we stop trying to psychoanalyze him.
    As long as you submit to the notion that everything fits together, you'll do fine.
    And to a good scientist, deciphering the mystery is better than any video game.

    Okay, so I track most of this and don't have any urgent disagreement.


    Where?
    Oh please, don't ask me to write down everything I read for your approval. I'd just lose the index somewhere. Have to take my word for it. If you have trouble taking my word for it, ask yourself if this may not be possible, considering the nameless wonders we are discovering.
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    We all have our areas of trust, but when you say something like (paraphrasing) "Pursuit of understanding in a scientific manner is a fool's errand" ya gotta expect a little comeback.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    Hey! Hey! Wasn't me. Honest!
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anja View Post
    Hey! Hey! Wasn't me. Honest!
    Disowning a personal philosophy so quickly is unbecoming of one so spiritual!

  10. #40
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    Whatchutalkinabout?

    I don't recall saying that.
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

Similar Threads

  1. What's Your Shoe Size??
    By FranG in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-23-2015, 10:18 AM
  2. Screen size and productivity
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-21-2008, 12:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO