| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2008 08:41:56 PM · #301 |
People help people -now we know dogs can help other dogs too.
Dog pulls body of dead dog off busy highway |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 08:44:21 PM · #302 |
maybe that dog has got religion. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 09:08:30 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Don't just wave off one study because you can't be bothered to actually look at data. There are many similar studies, and they all reach similar conclusions. This is a very real and statistically significant effect. |
Dude. Don't be lazy. If you have a link to the data, present it. Don't make me look around Google and do your legwork for you and then chastise me for not doing |
The data wasn't listed in that article or I would have. However, IMO common sense suggests that if it was not statistically significant, it wouldn't have been worth reporting in peer reviewed journals. If you disagree, then the onus is on you to go look for the numbers rather than assume the results were not significant when National Geographic, Nature and others apparently did.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The most plausible explanation for these results is the food expectation hypothesis—seeing another individual receive high-quality food creates the expectation of receiving the same food oneself—and not inequity aversion. |
The researchers came to TWO possible conclusions, and noted that it was not clear which was correct: "If one accepts Henrich's increase in low-quality food consumption as valid evidence for inequity aversion, the expectation hypothesis and the inequity aversion hypothesis explain our data best. ...Henrich argued that inequity aversion would be shown not by refusals to accept low-quality food, but on the contrary, by a greater willingness to accept lower-quality food as an attempt to offset the higher-quality food received by their partners. If subjects were averse to inequity, rejecting food does not solve the problem, but it exacerbates it because subjects are getting even less food. ...[He] has argued that humans would not reject unfair offers unless this affected the others' pay-off." The researchers chose to favor the expectation hypothesis, but also acknowledged problems with it. On the other hand, if Henrich's hypothesis is correct, it would be a more advanced demonstration of inequity aversion, even closer to that of humans... which would also fit nicely along the spectrum if chimps are more advanced than capuchins. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 09:21:27 PM · #304 |
Well don't go busting me for data you haven't presented. I'm just going off your own links. I agree with the peer review idea, but you'd be surprised at how many poor articles make it into good journals.
At the least we can see the idea of "inequity aversion" is not even universally accepted as a real phenomenon. At this point we are arguing about whether we see one of the building blocks, recall my larger argument is that the building blocks do not represent the completed house, only the blocks. I haven't heard your rebuttal to that. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:35:13 PM · #305 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Brick, wood, windows etc all sitting in neat stacks does not make a house. They are the components of a house. The house exists when all the components are assembled together in a specific way. Morality is the same. It does consist of components such as fairness, honesty, self-preservation, but it is more than that. It needs to be assembled in a framework of behavior. We see the components in some animals, but we do not see the assembled framework. |
With that, it would appear you've accepted my general definition of morality, and you're down to arguing that we don't see the overall system. No rebuttal is necessary since I already noted that if no overall system were employed, such an animal could not use such factors to make a decision, and every member of the species would give the same automatic response.
Oh, and speaking of altruism... |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:58:51 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Brick, wood, windows etc all sitting in neat stacks does not make a house. They are the components of a house. The house exists when all the components are assembled together in a specific way. Morality is the same. It does consist of components such as fairness, honesty, self-preservation, but it is more than that. It needs to be assembled in a framework of behavior. We see the components in some animals, but we do not see the assembled framework. |
With that, it would appear you've accepted my general definition of morality, and you're down to arguing that we don't see the overall system. No rebuttal is necessary since I already noted that if no overall system were employed, such an animal could not use such factors to make a decision, and every member of the species would give the same automatic response.
Oh, and speaking of altruism... |
Heh, I was arguing in your terms trying to find a common language. If you accept that then you'd accept definition #2 from the dictionary depending on what you view to be the basis for "right" and "wrong".
Your argument about every member of the species giving the same automatic response is easily dismissed. Individuals do not respond exactly the same in a given situation because no two situations are exactly the same. There is no need for decision systems to come up with different results.
I know I won't convince you but I hope I've presented a decent case to those watching. I'll leave it at that and let you know that every time I see you bring up morality and animals we are going to have this conversation unless you are very careful about the way you say things.
As an aside, and this is meant as a friend not an antagonist, can you recall a situation ever in Rant where you have responded that the other side had some valid points and bears thinking about? I know we are all here to argue and match wits, but hopefully we are also here to ponder other people's positions. I know you are a smart guy and I respect you, but I've seen your "no quarter given" style of argument do you a disservice on threads where people are complaining to SC and such. Sometimes it would be easiest to admit a mistake or concede a valid point rather than shift and mold your argument on the fly until you wind up in a position so contorted you look silly. Just an opinion. ;) |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 01:02:38 AM · #307 |
| BTW, your last atruist link is a really interesting essay. It's worthy of discussion. Maybe we can pick it up tomorrow. Others who want to join in with their opinions should check it out. Good link. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 01:55:15 AM · #308 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, your last atruist link is a really interesting essay. It's worthy of discussion. Maybe we can pick it up tomorrow. Others who want to join in with their opinions should check it out. Good link. |
so... in short, it means we are selective (non-consistent) at what we believed in?
but what if i practice a little of many religions, picking only those who suits my interest?
can i claim to be practicing all those religions? |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 06:59:55 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Your blaspheming doesn't bother me at all.
It doesn't change my faith at all, and it won't change the fact that I can smile at you and say, "Hey, man, how you doing?"
I believe that the God that I believe in is able to kick your butt by Himself, and I'm not his policeman or defense force.
However, if you ask my opinion about blasphemy, I will strongly discourage you and tell you why I believe that you shouldn't do that.
In most cases, the blasphemer will soon call me names and attempt to blaspheme me, because he or she is quickly offended that I believe his actions to be inappropriate.
I will probably be hurt, and at that point my facade of having everything together will break down and I may become angry and wish to burn villages. That, however, does not destroy my faith. It simply makes me want to destroy the blasphemer because he has now insulted my intelligence, faith, and probably many other things about me.
But I'll still believe that God is able to defend himself. I also believe that he's a little like me in that he might get really sick and tired of it.
In other words, blasphemy often becomes personal rather than being about "God".
Making blasphemy against the law, though, is terribly counter-productive. |
I cannot believe no one else picked up on this, "I may become angry and wish to burn villages"?!?!
By the weird nature of this statement, I'm assuming it's happened before? |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 07:40:45 AM · #310 |
| Well, I'm not sure that relying on Ayn Rand's feelings on morality will help any of us, but in regards to the reasons for sacrifice, I would offer up this (and please let me know the logical falicy that I am committing): You should sacrifice because it is possible (indeed likely) that by helping others you will ultimately help yourself. In this way, the short-term sacrifice results in a long-term gain and is ultimately not altruistic after all. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 09:27:10 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
Originally posted by nards656:
Your blaspheming doesn't bother me at all.
It doesn't change my faith at all, and it won't change the fact that I can smile at you and say, "Hey, man, how you doing?"
I believe that the God that I believe in is able to kick your butt by Himself, and I'm not his policeman or defense force.
However, if you ask my opinion about blasphemy, I will strongly discourage you and tell you why I believe that you shouldn't do that.
In most cases, the blasphemer will soon call me names and attempt to blaspheme me, because he or she is quickly offended that I believe his actions to be inappropriate.
I will probably be hurt, and at that point my facade of having everything together will break down and I may become angry and wish to burn villages. That, however, does not destroy my faith. It simply makes me want to destroy the blasphemer because he has now insulted my intelligence, faith, and probably many other things about me.
But I'll still believe that God is able to defend himself. I also believe that he's a little like me in that he might get really sick and tired of it.
In other words, blasphemy often becomes personal rather than being about "God".
Making blasphemy against the law, though, is terribly counter-productive. |
I cannot believe no one else picked up on this, "I may become angry and wish to burn villages"?!?!
By the weird nature of this statement, I'm assuming it's happened before? |
It is a dpc joke. There is a user named  ART ROFLMAO, well, it is hard to explain. But, yes, no one "picked up on this" or commented on this because those that have been around awhile knew how serious it really is (it's not serious at all). |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 09:39:05 AM · #312 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
Originally posted by nards656:
Your blaspheming doesn't bother me at all.
It doesn't change my faith at all, and it won't change the fact that I can smile at you and say, "Hey, man, how you doing?"
I believe that the God that I believe in is able to kick your butt by Himself, and I'm not his policeman or defense force.
However, if you ask my opinion about blasphemy, I will strongly discourage you and tell you why I believe that you shouldn't do that.
In most cases, the blasphemer will soon call me names and attempt to blaspheme me, because he or she is quickly offended that I believe his actions to be inappropriate.
I will probably be hurt, and at that point my facade of having everything together will break down and I may become angry and wish to burn villages. That, however, does not destroy my faith. It simply makes me want to destroy the blasphemer because he has now insulted my intelligence, faith, and probably many other things about me.
But I'll still believe that God is able to defend himself. I also believe that he's a little like me in that he might get really sick and tired of it.
In other words, blasphemy often becomes personal rather than being about "God".
Making blasphemy against the law, though, is terribly counter-productive. |
I cannot believe no one else picked up on this, "I may become angry and wish to burn villages"?!?!
By the weird nature of this statement, I'm assuming it's happened before? |
It is a dpc joke. There is a user named ART ROFLMAO, well, it is hard to explain. But, yes, no one "picked up on this" or commented on this because those that have been around awhile knew how serious it really is (it's not serious at all). |
Ahh, ok, in that case it's just a case of spot the newbie (me!).
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 09:39:47. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 09:43:06 AM · #313 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
Originally posted by nards656:
Your blaspheming doesn't bother me at all.
It doesn't change my faith at all, and it won't change the fact that I can smile at you and say, "Hey, man, how you doing?"
I believe that the God that I believe in is able to kick your butt by Himself, and I'm not his policeman or defense force.
However, if you ask my opinion about blasphemy, I will strongly discourage you and tell you why I believe that you shouldn't do that.
In most cases, the blasphemer will soon call me names and attempt to blaspheme me, because he or she is quickly offended that I believe his actions to be inappropriate.
I will probably be hurt, and at that point my facade of having everything together will break down and I may become angry and wish to burn villages. That, however, does not destroy my faith. It simply makes me want to destroy the blasphemer because he has now insulted my intelligence, faith, and probably many other things about me.
But I'll still believe that God is able to defend himself. I also believe that he's a little like me in that he might get really sick and tired of it.
In other words, blasphemy often becomes personal rather than being about "God".
Making blasphemy against the law, though, is terribly counter-productive. |
I cannot believe no one else picked up on this, "I may become angry and wish to burn villages"?!?!
By the weird nature of this statement, I'm assuming it's happened before? |
It is a dpc joke. There is a user named ART ROFLMAO, well, it is hard to explain. But, yes, no one "picked up on this" or commented on this because those that have been around awhile knew how serious it really is (it's not serious at all). |
You mean Art doesn't really burn villages?
That's crazy talk.
Next you'll try to tell me there's no Santa Claus...
You're really dipping my bucket. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 09:44:59 AM · #314 |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 09:47:39 AM · #315 |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 09:56:49 AM · #316 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
...the short-term sacrifice results in a long-term gain and is ultimately not altruistic after all. |
That could very well be true, with some interesting implications. For one thing, it provides an excellent explanation for humans' apparent difficulty in accepting the plight of others we don't identify with. It means that altruism is an illusion, and beings (not just human) do not make sacrifices unless they can perceive some net benefit in the long run (a tax deduction, a concession, recognition, respect, brownie points for a deity, a lowered threat to themselves, etc.). Something to ponder for sure. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 10:17:40 AM · #317 |
| Newbie is hiding in the corner where he believes he will stay for a while to avoid making other newbie type comments. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 11:22:47 AM · #318 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
...the short-term sacrifice results in a long-term gain and is ultimately not altruistic after all. |
That could very well be true, with some interesting implications. For one thing, it provides an excellent explanation for humans' apparent difficulty in accepting the plight of others we don't identify with. It means that altruism is an illusion, and beings (not just human) do not make sacrifices unless they can perceive some net benefit in the long run (a tax deduction, a concession, recognition, respect, brownie points for a deity, a lowered threat to themselves, etc.). Something to ponder for sure. |
Wouldn't Dawkin's The Selfish Gene completely back this statement up? He might even argue, although I can leave it to Louis to say yea or nay, that even if the individual doesn't consciously know they are being benefitted, only self-beneficial actions are selected for over the eons. As eqsite alludes, I'm not sure Dawkins would believe there were truly altruistic acts if no personal benefit is part of that definition.
I would have other arguments for sacrifice, but, as Ann put it, they are not "earthly". The author did seem to set up some pretty easy pins to knock down. A few he also was pretty cavalier about dismissing. His first counter pretty well boiled down to, "Relying on the authority of God is dumb because God doesn't exist." Well, duh. The statement is a tautology if it's true.
BTW, welcome Oddity. Don't be too scared. We are all nice (even my opponents) and don't bite...hard. If you view Rant as it's own little world and don't take hard feeling outside the forum, you'll be just fine. :)
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 11:26:37. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 11:27:33 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The author did seem to set up some pretty easy pins to knock down. A few he also was pretty cavalier about dismissing. His first counter pretty well boiled down to, "Relying on the authority of God is dumb because God doesn't exist." Well, duh. |
That particular pin doesn't change the argument. "...for our purposes here, suffice it to say that it is an appeal to authority. Just because some preacher or some book makes a claim does not mean that the claim is true. Among other things, the Bible claims that a bush spoke." |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 11:54:58 AM · #320 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The author did seem to set up some pretty easy pins to knock down. A few he also was pretty cavalier about dismissing. His first counter pretty well boiled down to, "Relying on the authority of God is dumb because God doesn't exist." Well, duh. |
That particular pin doesn't change the argument. "...for our purposes here, suffice it to say that it is an appeal to authority. Just because some preacher or some book makes a claim does not mean that the claim is true. Among other things, the Bible claims that a bush spoke." |
But you can't just dismiss an appeal to authority like that. If the authority is truly wiser or more intelligent than you, then relying on their advice is reasonable even if you do not understand the reason behind it. (This is leaving aside the "how do we know the will of God" question.) I took his last comment about the burning bush as another slap at the "duh, God doesn't exist" line of thinking rather than the "I'm not sure how to understand the will of God" question.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 11:55:38. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:02:19 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
Newbie is hiding in the corner where he believes he will stay for a while to avoid making other newbie type comments. |
At least they're done discussing their large, hairy, liquid-filled nuts. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:04:42 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The author did seem to set up some pretty easy pins to knock down. A few he also was pretty cavalier about dismissing. His first counter pretty well boiled down to, "Relying on the authority of God is dumb because God doesn't exist." Well, duh. |
That particular pin doesn't change the argument. "...for our purposes here, suffice it to say that it is an appeal to authority. Just because some preacher or some book makes a claim does not mean that the claim is true. Among other things, the Bible claims that a bush spoke." |
But you can't just dismiss an appeal to authority like that. If the authority is truly wiser or more intelligent than you, then relying on their advice is reasonable even if you do not understand the reason behind it. (This is leaving aside the "how do we know the will of God" question.) I took his last comment about the burning bush as another slap at the "duh, God doesn't exist" line of thinking rather than the "I'm not sure how to understand the will of God" question. |
Yes, but then you (re)open the door to discussing the validity of the authority, which is why it is considered a fallacy. The argument should stand on its own merits and not on the merits of who is making it. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:05:05 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
Newbie is hiding in the corner where he believes he will stay for a while to avoid making other newbie type comments. |
At least they're done discussing their large, hairy, liquid-filled nuts. |
I was hoping we could come back to that... |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:28:14 PM · #324 |
DrAchoo wrote: "But you can't just dismiss an appeal to authority like that. If the authority is truly wiser or more intelligent than you, then relying on their advice is reasonable even if you do not understand the reason behind it."
This is the whole point. How do we recognize an authority to be wiser and more intelligent, unless we are equally wise and intelligent? |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:28:59 PM · #325 |
|
