Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2018 13:29:16 GMT
Arlon: Roman science
A fine link about something we, yes, now might indeed call early science. But you are being disingenuous since the point, still, made here is that it is just not the fact, as you claimed that "Ancient Rome gave it [natural philosophy] the term "science". No more so than some alchemists called themselves "chemists". I hope that helps.
So there was an English language in Roman times to introduce the word science into?
FF: it is only necessary to observe that something controversial does not necessarily mean something unclear.
Arlon: I don't have an internet link for that one. Do you wonder why?
Arlon: I don't have an internet link for that one. Do you wonder why?
Perhaps because it is blindingly obvious?
there is no "fallacy of nature" whatever Wikipedia says,
Not just Wiki, Arlon. Here's the Encylopedia Brittanica:
www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy
Or instead you can argue with a dictionary and win, which I know you like:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalistic%20fallacy
Of course, appealing to authorities reaching opposing views to yours may not mean you are wrong, as I have had cause to note when dealing with other fundamentalists here, just lately; althought it means that you are more unlikely to be right.
Arlon: I've warned you many times not to try to win arguments by claiming your opponent has committed a fallacy. [/i][/quote]
Yes, I can see it must be repeatedly embarrassing for you. But I will call them just as I see them, thank you anyway.
Professionals show step by step how being natural does not ensure "goodness" for example tornadoes. Or by showing there are times when something "unnatural" like a mother killing her own children is obviously not a good thing
It would be rare to see the naturalistic fallacy used by anyone except bad debaters, or tabloid feature writers. Or a poor man's demagogue online, maybe. Certainly it would not be expected of professionals using logic as part of their work skills.
So there really is no "rule" that appealing to nature is always right or always wrong.
A fallacy by way of proceeding is never really a wise way to proceed in an argument - although it is easy to see, with your record of things, how it is the sort of thing you would say.
It is your extremely simple mind
That an ad hominem is an argument is also a fallacy, Arlon LOL. But you have been told that before.
I never suggested that everything in nature is always good or bad.
When I suggested this feel free to raise it again. My reference was to your use of it casually, as if it carried any logical weight : "god ... might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics" when the comparison from 'nature' is not logically meaningful enough on which to build, or extract a system of ethics. Such sloppiness distinguished your entire article, imho.
Your feeble mind thought you found a "fallacy"
As noted above, with every ad hominem instead of argument of yours, I have indeed found one...
Religion is in fact a way of dealing with the good and bad in nature and society, "the rain falls on the just and unjust." Science, as I have shown, is incapable of dealing with these things, so much for your logic.
When I ever claim that science is able to do any such thing, again, feel free to come back to me on this.
It makes no difference whatsoever to whom or to what you attribute miraculous events once you admit they happen.
Well, I am sure the fervent adherents of various religions might have a stern reply to that or, closer to home, the western advocates of ID, who often see creationism, er, intelligent design in a Christian framework. But as I am not of their ilk, I am happy to go along with the idea.
The point of Darwinism was not to claim that life was miraculous but scientific, the point was to claim that it was not miraculous.
As you have been reminded before, Darwinism has nothing to do with considering the beginning of life on earth but only the means of descent thereafter. And I am not even sure why this is relevant to our exchange here, or the definition of god, and so is rather a non-sequitur.
Now that no agency in nature can be found to initiate the process it does appear "miraculous."
Or it could be that nature, just like your favoured deliberate supernatural, hitherto works mysteriously. It rubs both ways, that sort of argument.
You waste time claiming how "reasonable" you are. Guess why?
Hey, I think I know this one! Is it because you never listen to what is most reasonable?