| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/13/2009 04:58:15 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you say things are "provable" by math, and that something are "provable" ONLY by math, I'm happy. |
My first response still stands. "Any mathematical formula is deduced from the known values and interactions of numbers. You don't just make up a new and completely arbitrary system outside all known rules of math and declare it valid." |
Actually, I'd disagree with you. Math is built up from axioms and does not need the physical world to be valid. In other words, it can be totally separated from our physical experience and remain valid, provable, and one can continue to further the field.
Are there any math majors lurking out there? Paging all math majors and their opinions! |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:58:46 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...the Nazi would be your "peer" under Relativism because his views would be equally valid... |
Geez Doc, do you not understand your own definitions? That might apply if I was a patriotic German in 1940. I might also own a slave if I were a plantation owner in 1700's Virginia or multiple wives as a Saudi sheikh. I may have been against women voting in 1820 and for segregation in 1920. None qualify as my peers or share my personal values in this time or culture, though. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:15:12 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...the Nazi would be your "peer" under Relativism because his views would be equally valid... |
Geez Doc, do you not understand your own definitions? That might apply if I was a patriotic German in 1940. I might also own a slave if I were a plantation owner in 1700's Virginia or multiple wives as a Saudi sheikh. I may have been against women voting in 1820 and for segregation in 1920. None qualify as my peers or share my personal values in this time or culture, though. |
So a shared belief in moral relativism is insufficient commonality for peerhood? What I really admire about you, Shannon, is the way you manage, with a perfectly straight face, to cut your definitions just so in order to dismiss what many might consider to be perfectly valid ripostes to some of your positions. If your logical pants seem to be falling down around your ankles, just redefine "waist" and everything will be alright...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 17:15:39.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:23:33 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Math is built up from axioms and does not need the physical world to be valid. In other words, it can be totally separated from our physical experience and remain valid, provable, and one can continue to further the field. |
You say this with such certainity but we haven't actually lived in a world where math remained as just a theory never having been used in any practical sense. The Egyptians, Greeks, Babylonians and many other cultures used mathematics to build their societies. Had the math failed this test of usage the most likely result would have been the disregard of that math.
Message edited by author 2009-04-14 01:38:10.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:30:17 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Math is built up from axioms and does not need the physical world to be valid. In other words, it can be totally separated from our physical experience and remain valid, provable, and one can continue to further the field. |
You say this with such certainity but we haven't actually lived in a world where math remained as just a theory never having been used in any practical sense. The Egyptians, Greeks, Bablyons and many other cultures used mathematics to build their societies. Had the math failed this test of usage the most likely result would have been the disregard of that math. |
And yet, there are maths that are entirely theoretical and that are at the core of our attempts to expand our knowledge even further. The math you are talking about is pretty generic, it's been around forever, it has a one-on-one correlation with the observable; but such maths are inadequate to the complexities of modern physics and cosmological exploration.
Hell, there's a whole category of numbers called "imaginary numbers" without which higher math isn't even possible, and there's the "irrational numbers", and on and on. I'm the furthest thing from an expert in this stuff, but I know it exists...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:31:10 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Math is built up from axioms and does not need the physical world to be valid. In other words, it can be totally separated from our physical experience and remain valid, provable, and one can continue to further the field. |
Originally posted by Shannon:
...they don't actually EXIST except as logical constructs. They don't create worlds, possess knowledge, relay demands or impregnate humans... |
"Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems)." In other words, the starting point is complete conjecture and any arguments that follow are only valid if the axiom is true. In this case, it's the axiom itself that's in question, and you've still offered absolutely nothing to explain knowledge of what lies beyond your boxcar. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:37:05 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So a shared belief in moral relativism is insufficient commonality for peerhood? |
A shared belief in absolute moral universalism wouldn't make a radical muslim the peer of a Southern Baptist, would it? Shall we just assume they share the same values? C'mon Yogi, you're supposed to be smarter than the average bear! |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:46:35 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So a shared belief in moral relativism is insufficient commonality for peerhood? |
A shared belief in absolute moral universalism wouldn't make a radical muslim the peer of a Southern Baptist, would it? Shall we just assume they share the same values? C'mon Yogi, you're supposed to be smarter than the average bear! |
Wasn't that your implication when you threw out the hot button words like "slavery" and death of my brother's wife? Come on. I was just throwing it back at you in the same jest you were. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:48:06 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So a shared belief in moral relativism is insufficient commonality for peerhood? What I really admire about you, Shannon, is the way you manage, with a perfectly straight face, to cut your definitions just so in order to dismiss what many might consider to be perfectly valid ripostes to some of your positions. If your logical pants seem to be falling down around your ankles, just redefine "waist" and everything will be alright...
R. |
THAT was a zing! Point to Bear. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:51:21 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...the Nazi would be your "peer" under Relativism because his views would be equally valid... |
Geez Doc, do you not understand your own definitions? That might apply if I was a patriotic German in 1940. I might also own a slave if I were a plantation owner in 1700's Virginia or multiple wives as a Saudi sheikh. I may have been against women voting in 1820 and for segregation in 1920. None qualify as my peers or share my personal values in this time or culture, though. |
So a shared belief in moral relativism is insufficient commonality for peerhood? What I really admire about you, Shannon, is the way you manage, with a perfectly straight face, to cut your definitions just so in order to dismiss what many might consider to be perfectly valid ripostes to some of your positions. If your logical pants seem to be falling down around your ankles, just redefine "waist" and everything will be alright...
R. |
No I just think Doc is good at twisting words and backing people into a corner. If I was as good at it I would give an example doing the same thing to his point.
Anyhow, let me try and shed some light onto my view of moral relativism and answer the question. For me, it does not discount the possibility of STRONGLY overlapping morals throughout most of society. Such as the example given, mass genocide is wrong. I would venture to guess most of the world would agree on this. Even the people INVOLVED more than likely do not really believe that it is morally right, they have just been mentally broken down and been swept up by this wave of action. They are pawns.
EVEN IF Hitler's idea of morals was just as valid as any other persons (which I don't believe is true because he obviously had psychological problems), the fact that he used them to incite a huge course of action that changed and ended millions of lives, takes it out of the theoretical moral debate. In other words, it was no longer a belief, it was an action that interfered with other people's rights to live their lives and have their beliefs.
Things just get silly when people bring up Hitler. It's just another distraction and a way to tug at strong emotional centers. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 05:56:11 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And yet, there are maths that are entirely theoretical and that are at the core of our attempts to expand our knowledge even further. The math you are talking about is pretty generic, it's been around forever, it has a one-on-one correlation with the observable; but such maths are inadequate to the complexities of modern physics and cosmological exploration. |
Key word is "attempts". We have lots of cosmological theories but they are just theories, possible explanations. The ones that advance forward and are taken seriously are the ones that can be proven or at least has the potential to be. Why do we keep building larger and larger particle accelerators when we have logic and reason to ascertain this knowledge? According to Jason's argument those scientists at the Large Hadron Collider should just go home and quit wasting their time since their effort to obtain empirical evidence is apparently not needed.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Hell, there's a whole category of numbers called "imaginary numbers" without which higher math isn't even possible, and there's the "irrational numbers", and on and on. I'm the furthest thing from an expert in this stuff, but I know it exists...
R. |
You know they exist as what though?
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 17:58:38.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 06:06:02 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you say things are "provable" by math, and that something are "provable" ONLY by math, I'm happy. |
My first response still stands. "Any mathematical formula is deduced from the known values and interactions of numbers. You don't just make up a new and completely arbitrary system outside all known rules of math and declare it valid." |
Actually, I'd disagree with you. Math is built up from axioms and does not need the physical world to be valid. In other words, it can be totally separated from our physical experience and remain valid, provable, and one can continue to further the field.
Are there any math majors lurking out there? Paging all math majors and their opinions! |
i think you are more of less correct. But there is a very subtle thing.
The very basic of maths is numbers or counting. Even when you write any equation , variables represent certain quantity.
so you can only apply maths to something with which you could attach sense of measurement.
For things those belong to physical world, like air, water etc etc you have volume length etc etc.
But for things like say force which you could experience but force is not an object assumptions are made to measure them. (relative to some base value etc etc).
So even though maths could be applied to something out of physical world. For example counting 1 God 2Gods .. NGods. It could not be applied to anything that you could not attach sense of measurement. For example a questions like: What is height and weight of God. There is no absolute answer to this, because before you answer this by maths, you have to fix God to a measurable entity like Human form or something measurable. (but fixing this form is to claim that you know God which is mathematically not true, because not proven).
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 18:07:33. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 06:11:44 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you are wrong in that it also leaves the possibility that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been disproven. It IS possible that neither of us KNOW, but it is also possible that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been excluded. |
How is it even a valid question? In many respects, right and wrong is as subjective as art. What's right to you might be totally wrong to someone else just as a painting you love could be someone else's idea of visual roadkill. In both cases, there IS no objective right or wrong. The best you can hope for is defined agreement through group consensus (and even that is historically subject to change). |
Here's an article ("Conscience vs. Conscience") featuring a Hobbsian analysis of conscience and the meaning of "right and wrong" in the context of medical practice, and the refusal of some practitioners to provide legal and ethical services which conflict with their personal beliefs. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 06:25:06 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Key word is "attempts". We have lots of cosmological theories but they are just theories, possible explanations. The ones that advance forward and are taken seriously are the ones that can be proven or at least has the potential to be. Why do we keep building larger and larger particle accelerators when we have logic and reason to ascertain this knowledge? According to Jason's argument those scientists at the Large Hadron Collider should just go home and quit wasting their time since their effort to obtain empirical evidence is apparently not needed. |
OK, I have to call BS on this. This has never been my stated position and never will be. I'm a Scientist dammit. Exploring the physical world through observation and experimentation is a Good Thing. Clear? |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 06:31:40 PM · #440 |
| Hmm... I think the portion of this thread that sprouted from the boxcar analogy is getting very confusing and you all are arguing different things, and then getting frustrated. Perhaps someone should attempt to get back to a main point? |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 06:41:40 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Key word is "attempts". We have lots of cosmological theories but they are just theories, possible explanations. The ones that advance forward and are taken seriously are the ones that can be proven or at least has the potential to be. Why do we keep building larger and larger particle accelerators when we have logic and reason to ascertain this knowledge? According to Jason's argument those scientists at the Large Hadron Collider should just go home and quit wasting their time since their effort to obtain empirical evidence is apparently not needed. |
OK, I have to call BS on this. This has never been my stated position and never will be. I'm a Scientist dammit. Exploring the physical world through observation and experimentation is a Good Thing. Clear? |
LOL. Did I hit a nerve? :P Hey I didn't claim you thought it's a bad thing only that it seems to me you're saying it's not needed. Did you or did you not say you can acquire knowledge just by using logic and reason? If so why would we need to do the empirical leg work if logic and reason is good enough to explain things?
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 18:57:15.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 06:43:05 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Hmm... I think the portion of this thread that sprouted from the boxcar analogy is getting very confusing and you all are arguing different things, and then getting frustrated. Perhaps someone should attempt to get back to a main point? |
or if someone just use a search button and read previous threads. We could save lot of time.
Every now and then someone starts a thread about christianity and we repeat ourselves for few hundred pages. Even copy paste from previos threads could save us some time.
anyway continue guys, just ignore my rumblings. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 06:52:36 PM · #443 |
Christian argument 2b.
oh yeah?!?! Retort 3 and backhanded comment J you God-lovin' freak! |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 06:56:29 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Hmm... I think the portion of this thread that sprouted from the boxcar analogy is getting very confusing and you all are arguing different things, and then getting frustrated. Perhaps someone should attempt to get back to a main point? |
Hey I'm not frustrated but I guess it's because I'm winning. :P
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 07:00:28 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Hmm... I think the portion of this thread that sprouted from the boxcar analogy is getting very confusing and you all are arguing different things, and then getting frustrated. Perhaps someone should attempt to get back to a main point? |
Hey I'm not frustrated but I guess it's because I'm winning. :P |
Pfft. You are such a dork! :) |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 07:55:48 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A shared belief in absolute moral universalism wouldn't make a radical muslim the peer of a Southern Baptist, would it? Shall we just assume they share the same values? C'mon Yogi, you're supposed to be smarter than the average bear! |
Wasn't that your implication when you threw out the hot button words like "slavery" and death of my brother's wife? Come on. I was just throwing it back at you in the same jest you were. |
It was, however the implication is only applicable because the source of morality is held to be absolute: if God says slavery and "knowing" your brother's wife are morally correct, then you're stuck with it. The same does NOT apply to morality that changes with individual and cultures, so what's morally OK in WWII Berlin has no real relevance to what's OK in 21st century America. Pity that I have to explain your own definitions back to you! |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 08:21:48 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It was, however the implication is only applicable because the source of morality is held to be absolute: if God says slavery and "knowing" your brother's wife are morally correct, then you're stuck with it. The same does NOT apply to morality that changes with individual and cultures, so what's morally OK in WWII Berlin has no real relevance to what's OK in 21st century America. Pity that I have to explain your own definitions back to you! |
Pity you insist on rigging the debate so you can't lose, at least in your own mind...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 10:05:36 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A shared belief in absolute moral universalism wouldn't make a radical muslim the peer of a Southern Baptist, would it? Shall we just assume they share the same values? C'mon Yogi, you're supposed to be smarter than the average bear! |
Wasn't that your implication when you threw out the hot button words like "slavery" and death of my brother's wife? Come on. I was just throwing it back at you in the same jest you were. |
It was, however the implication is only applicable because the source of morality is held to be absolute: if God says slavery and "knowing" your brother's wife are morally correct, then you're stuck with it. The same does NOT apply to morality that changes with individual and cultures, so what's morally OK in WWII Berlin has no real relevance to what's OK in 21st century America. Pity that I have to explain your own definitions back to you! |
Go read the Wiki on Moral Universalism. I will admit to possibly confusing you with years of using the word "absolute", but this position is closer to what I adhere to rather than what wiki calls Moral Absolutism.
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 22:07:21. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 11:13:25 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It was, however the implication is only applicable because the source of morality is held to be absolute: if God says slavery and "knowing" your brother's wife are morally correct, then you're stuck with it. The same does NOT apply to morality that changes with individual and cultures, so what's morally OK in WWII Berlin has no real relevance to what's OK in 21st century America. Pity that I have to explain your own definitions back to you! |
Pity you insist on rigging the debate so you can't lose, at least in your own mind... |
I didn't set those conditions. They were put forth by Jason (the premise he's suggested in other discussions that "God" is the absolute measure of what is moral). From the Wiki on his last post: "If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow." THAT would be rigging the debate so you can't lose: whatever you believe is right must be right for everyone. Ironically, "The source or justification of a universal ethic may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the common mandates of religion (although it can be said that the latter is not in fact moral universalism because it may distinguish between Gods and mortals)."
Since he brought up the point, however, I'm not even sure true Moral Universalism is even possible since religious views, legal systems, and even concepts of basic human rights have ALL been subject to change according to social pressures. A "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" would probably be very different if drafted 300 years ago or 300 years from now. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 11:42:45 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It was, however the implication is only applicable because the source of morality is held to be absolute: if God says slavery and "knowing" your brother's wife are morally correct, then you're stuck with it. The same does NOT apply to morality that changes with individual and cultures, so what's morally OK in WWII Berlin has no real relevance to what's OK in 21st century America. Pity that I have to explain your own definitions back to you! |
Pity you insist on rigging the debate so you can't lose, at least in your own mind... |
I didn't set those conditions. They were put forth by Jason (the premise he's suggested in other discussions that "God" is the absolute measure of what is moral). From the Wiki on his last post: "If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow." THAT would be rigging the debate so you can't lose: whatever you believe is right must be right for everyone. Ironically, "The source or justification of a universal ethic may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the common mandates of religion (although it can be said that the latter is not in fact moral universalism because it may distinguish between Gods and mortals)."
Since he brought up the point, however, I'm not even sure true Moral Universalism is even possible since religious views, legal systems, and even concepts of basic human rights have ALL been subject to change according to social pressures. A "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" would probably be very different if drafted 300 years ago or 300 years from now. |
Man, when you do my arguing for me, I really suck... :P
|
|
