|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 25, 2017 11:56:02 GMT
Wow. You're a friggin ignorant moron. You don't even know science methodology 101. Is not one of the definitions of empirical claims that they are verifiable? Good luck trying to carry on a conversation with that guy. Apparently when his statements are challenged in a debate he resorts to immature insults like an impetulant child. I've since put him on ignore. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 25, 2017 12:03:14 GMT
 That's like saying "water isn't wet". Do you know what empirical evidence actually means? Wrong! Scientific laws are not open to revision (otherwise they wouldn't be "laws"). If they are open to revision then they would not be laws. And observable facts can't be revised, other than by saying what was previously observed was not in fact observed. So what you're saying right now is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works. But I'm not not going to let a flat earther hijack a thread about genital mutilation (and the ethics associated with it). But more relevant is the fact that anything argued as "ethical" must also be reasonable. If it cannot be demonstrated to be reasonable, then there is no reason for the majority (or the law) to recognize it as ethical. If we were to discover that Newton's first law is not the case in some circumstances we would revise it as it is incorrect. What's so hard to understand? Why is it so hard to understand that this has NEVER happened before, and will not ever happen? If it turned out that Newton's Laws were ever "not the case", then the revision would be that they are not "laws" at all. The definition of a scientific law is: "a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met". Newton's laws are laws because they have been observed, are predictedable, and repeatable. They ARE the case! In order for them not to be the case, that would mean the laws of physics would have to be changed, which would make life as we know it impossible! The laws of physics are constant precisely for that reason. No he wasn't because he never said that!  |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 25, 2017 13:19:15 GMT
If we were to discover that Newton's first law is not the case in some circumstances we would revise it as it is incorrect. What's so hard to understand? Why is it so hard to understand that this has NEVER happened before, and will not ever happen? If it turned out that Newton's Laws were ever "not the case", then the revision would be that they are not "laws" at all. The definition of a scientific law is: "a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met". Newton's laws are laws because they have been observed, are predictedable, and repeatable. They ARE the case! In order for them not to be the case, that would mean the laws of physics would have to be changed, which would make life as we know it impossible! The laws of physics are constant precisely for that reason. No he wasn't because he never said that! are you illiterate or something? All that is being claimed is that what we would apply the label law to is open to change. Just like what we apply the label correct to is open to change. Try to think harder |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 25, 2017 13:35:58 GMT
Well, so that's why things like murder and rape are illegal. It doesn't have anything to do with them being objectively wrong.5t I know. I never suggested otherwise. Cool. I probably wasn't reading those exchanges close enough. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 25, 2017 13:57:36 GMT
Why is it so hard to understand that this has NEVER happened before, and will not ever happen? If it turned out that Newton's Laws were ever "not the case", then the revision would be that they are not "laws" at all. The definition of a scientific law is: "a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met". Newton's laws are laws because they have been observed, are predictedable, and repeatable. They ARE the case! In order for them not to be the case, that would mean the laws of physics would have to be changed, which would make life as we know it impossible! The laws of physics are constant precisely for that reason. No he wasn't because he never said that! are you illiterate or something? All that is being claimed is that what we would apply the label law to is open to change. Just like what we apply the label correct to is open to change. Try to think harder I might have more reason to take this nonsensical response seriously if I didn't earlier read a post by you you comparing the Big Big Bang theory to RAPE! Follow your own goddamn advice |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 25, 2017 15:51:56 GMT
lol I am well aware what the hyperonyms are. I was asking how do they differ in a way that makes one objective and one not. I never claimed that they were objective. And I'm not really interested in a goalpost moving contest. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 25, 2017 18:00:48 GMT
Your first sentence does not make sense. Assuming you meant "Explain how saying the universe came into being because of the big bang is different to saying rape is wrong.": The first part is about physics, the second part about ethics. There is no theory about there even being a correlation between the Big Bang and occurrences of rape. In short, these statements have nothing to do with each other. Claiming that there is no difference between them is bold, to say the least. lol I am well aware what the hyperonyms are. I was asking how do they differ in a way that makes one objective and one not. Can you provide an objective ethical example? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 26, 2017 14:14:05 GMT
I never claimed that they were objective. And I'm not really interested in a goalpost moving contest. What goalpost moving? The need for ethics to be objective. Ethics are not objective; they never were, and they never will be. It doesn't matter whether it's objectively wrong to mutilate children. If society subjectively recognizes mutilation as wrong, then it can pass laws against it. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 26, 2017 14:59:56 GMT
I might have more reason to take this nonsensical response seriously if I didn't earlier read a post by you you comparing the Big Big Bang theory to RAPE! Follow your own goddamn advice concession noted It's not a concession at all; you were wrong the first time, and you still are. Laws are NOT subject to change. That's the whole point of them being designated as a law. There is a very specific definition of scientific law (that never changes), and very specific criteria that needs to be met in order for something to be called a scientific law. To say that it is subject to change is a complete misunderstanding of what a law is, and why things are called laws. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 26, 2017 16:20:04 GMT
. There is a very specific definition of scientific law (that never changes), and very specific criteria that needs to be met in order for something to be called a scientific law. To say that it is subject to change is a complete misunderstanding of what a law is, and why things are called laws. I never disagreed with any of that and neither did Terrapin. I feel compelled to ask you this again, are you illiterate? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 26, 2017 16:57:17 GMT
. There is a very specific definition of scientific law (that never changes), and very specific criteria that needs to be met in order for something to be called a scientific law. To say that it is subject to change is a complete misunderstanding of what a law is, and why things are called laws. I never disagreed with any of that and neither did Terrapin. I feel compelled to ask you this again, are you illiterate? You can feel compelled to be as douchy and insulting as you want to be, even in the face of facts that categorically paint your argument as nonsensical. I hope that serves you well, but none of that is going to make you correct about anything or garner respect from anyone else here (something you should probably work on). At the end of the day your position at best has been explained or rationalized poorly to the extreme; at worst it smply makes no sense at all and lacks a logical foundation. You are at liberty to update, correct, or expand upon your initial comments in hopes of making a coherent, logical statement that has some impact with respect to the thread. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 26, 2017 17:18:50 GMT
I never disagreed with any of that and neither did Terrapin. I feel compelled to ask you this again, are you illiterate? You can feel compelled to be as douchy and insulting as you want to be, even in the face of facts that categorically paint your argument as nonsensical. I hope that serves you well, but none of that is going to make you correct about anything or garner respect from anyone else here (something you should probably work on). At the end of the day your position at best has been explained or rationalized poorly to the extreme; at worst it smply makes no sense at all and lacks a logical foundation. You are at liberty to update, correct, or expand upon your initial comments in hopes of making a coherent, logical statement that has some impact with respect to the thread. Your strawman have done nothing but make you look like I fool. I already explained it to you like two posts ago but you responded with some nonsense about how the definition and the criteria of scientific laws are specific and do not change. I never even brought up those things. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 26, 2017 17:21:29 GMT
I never disagreed with any of that and neither did Terrapin. I feel compelled to ask you this again, are you illiterate? You can feel compelled to be as douchy and insulting as you want to be, even in the face of facts that categorically paint your argument as nonsensical. I hope that serves you well, but none of that is going to make you correct about anything or garner respect from anyone else here (something you should probably work on). At the end of the day your position at best has been explained or rationalized poorly to the extreme; at worst it smply makes no sense at all and lacks a logical foundation. You are at liberty to update, correct, or expand upon your initial comments in hopes of making a coherent, logical statement that has some impact with respect to the thread. You've shown yourself to be a moron who is in desperate need of an education. Why would anyone be trying to gain your respect? You should be begging me to teach you. And you just showed this again above where you're conflating the idea of changing definitions with the revisability of empirical claims. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 18:15:14 GMT
Can you provide an objective ethical example? Any correct ethical few. can you give me an example of an objective ethical stance? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 18:38:07 GMT
can you give me an example of an objective ethical stance? Any correct ethical stance. Then give me an example of one, give me an example of an ethical stance that is objectively correct. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 18:51:49 GMT
Then give me an example of one, give me an example of an ethical stance that is objectively correct. Up da ra Yeah that is kind of what I thought. You see there are no objective ethical or moral stances, and every time someone claims there are I ask them to give an example of one, most times people say things like 'killing is wrong' or something and of course I can show them that actually there are circumstances where killing is the correct ethical action, other times people avoid the question as they begin to understand that what they said was something they did not really think about at all and want to avoid the embarrassment of conceding their lack of understanding. You clearly fall into the latter category. Thanks though. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 19:05:56 GMT
Yeah that is kind of what I thought. You see there are no objective ethical or moral stances, and every time someone claims there are I ask them to give an example of one, most times people say things like 'killing is wrong' or something and of course I can show them that actually there are circumstances where killing is the correct ethical action, other times people avoid the question as they begin to understand that what they said was something they did not really think about at all and want to avoid the embarrassment of conceding their lack of understanding. You clearly fall into the latter category. Thanks though. Just kidding. An example would be the principle of utility. Oh look it only took you 7 (or so) goes to answer the question. are you talking about Utilitarianism? how is utility objective in your view? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 19:12:32 GMT
Oh look it only took you 7 (or so) goes to answer the question. are you talking about Utilitarianism? how is utility objective in your view? Utility is objective for the same reasons Quantum Mechanics is objective. No. I don't want a comparison, I would like you to explain in your own words why you think utility is objective, an example of how this can be applied in an objective manner to an ethics issue would be nice too. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 19:26:09 GMT
No. I don't want a comparison, I would like you to explain in your own words why you think utility is objective, an example of how this can be applied in an objective manner to an ethics issue would be nice too. The logic behind it is sound. Who can tell, you won't explain your stance. so I guess I have to ask 100 questions. By Utility do you mean Utilitarianism? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 19:45:36 GMT
Who can tell, you won't explain your stance. so I guess I have to ask 100 questions. By Utility do you mean Utilitarianism? Why does it matter you "tell" or not? Yes. Utilitarianism is 100% subjective, not objective. It holds that each action must be evaluated based on the circumstances, and in some circumstances it is ok to kill (for example) while in others it is not. |
|
