Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: what makes the (macro) theory of evolution scientific? What if it's not science at all?
Because it's a tested explanation and theory about the natural world. Plus there was large amounts of amounts of experiments and data put into it one of the key components of scientific process, therefore it's safe to conclude that evolution is a
Ahtman wrote:You aren't advocating skepticism though, what you are advocating is closer to outright denial of science.
Really... where have I ever said that ALL science was to be denied?
This is pretty damn close.
generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me.
Cheesecat wrote:Because it's a tested explanation and theory about the natural world. Plus there was large amounts of amounts of experiments and data put into it one of the key components of scientific process, therefore it's safe to conclude that evolution is a
scientific theory.
How did they test it?
I mean, obviously they know that fruitflies can evolve, as they have controlled experiments for that. But I'm pretty sure they haven't come up with an experiment that turns a monkey-man into a human over a million years.
Cheesecat wrote:Because it's a tested explanation and theory about the natural world. Plus there was large amounts of amounts of experiments and data put into it one of the key components of scientific process, therefore it's safe to conclude that evolution is a
scientific theory.
How did they test it?
I mean, obviously they know that fruitflies can evolve, as they have controlled experiments for that. But I'm pretty sure they haven't come up with an experiment that turns a monkey-man into a human over a million years.
Alright maybe there was no experiments but he did take a bunch of data and made some observations. Then he made up a theory by combining the data and observations he had, which is what the core of scientific theory is.
My understanding was that the core of a scientific theory is the ability to test it. A theory which cannot be tested in a controlled setting is therefore unscientific. Am I misunderstanding the method?
Orkeosaurus wrote:My understanding was that the core of a scientific theory is the ability to test it. A theory which cannot be tested in a controlled setting is therefore unscientific. Am I misunderstanding the method?
But isn't many things in astronomy untestable? So does that mean that most theories based around astronomy are therefore unscientific?
Hmm. Yeah, the use of the word "science" would have to be pruned quite a bit by my usage of it.
Well, let's say this: you can use the scientific method to arrive at principles/natural law. You can use these principles, along with logic/common sense to arrive at conclusions. Sometimes you can perform a test to see if these conclusions are accurate, and sometimes you can't. However, even a set of conclusions can't be proved/disproved through experimentation, can still be logical, and these should be accepted as true (unless the principles they were derived from change, or you decide that the conclusions aren't a logical derivative of those principles after all).
Orkeosaurus wrote:My understanding was that the core of a scientific theory is the ability to test it. A theory which cannot be tested in a controlled setting is therefore unscientific. Am I misunderstanding the method?
But isn't many things in astronomy untestable? So does that mean that most theories based around astronomy are therefore unscientific?
It's actually pretty crazy.
The best thing about it is if the LHC does what it's supposed to, everything we know about space that's based on String Theory will pretty much amount to feth-all.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. Yeah, the use of the word "science" would have to be pruned quite a bit by my usage of it.
Well, let's say this: you can use the scientific method to arrive at principles/natural law. You can use these principles, along with logic/common sense to arrive at conclusions. Sometimes you can perform a test to see if these conclusions are accurate, and sometimes you can't. However, even a set of conclusions can't be proved/disproved through experimentation, they can still be logical, and should be accepted as true (unless the principles they were derived from change, or you decide that the conclusions aren't a logical derivative of those principles after all).
Does this seem sensible?
Sure, I don't think that contradicts anything I said previously.
Well, the only question now is whether a set of these later conclusions should or shouldn't be called a scientific theory. I guess I don't know what else I'd call them.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, the only question now is whether a set of these later conclusions should or shouldn't be called a scientific theory. I guess I don't know what else I'd call them.
By "later conclusions" do you mean "evolution" or our discussion about what scientific theory is?
I meant conclusions which are logically derived from principles that have proven by the scientific method, but which cannot be tested through this method themselves.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I meant conclusions which are logically derived from principles that have proven by the scientific method, but which cannot be tested through this method themselves.
I think they should be a part of scientific theory, because I don't know what else to call or categorize it as. Also many thing in science will forever be untestable yet they're still considered science.
I don't disagree with the way science is being discussed. But claiming that astronomy and evolutionary biology are based on untestable theories is simply wrong.
:EDIT: In that case how would you conduct an experiment proving the hypothesis that "humans evolved from a type of ape over the last 100,000 years", or something to that effect?
@Orkeosaurus: I don't understand what you mean. Are you looking for detailed explanation of the scientific experiments used to test hypotheses about evolutionary biology and astronomy? From a lawyer? On an internet forum about miniatures wargaming?
What I'm asking isn't whether principles which went into the theory can be proven with the scientific method, but whether the theory as a whole can be. In other words, is there way to see if the theory's composite parts have been assembled correctly, and so can be scientifically proven to be historical.
That depends on what you mean by "as a whole." I don't think the specific steps (amoeba to fish to salamander, etc) from those old film strips is really the content of evolutionary theory. When I think of evolutionary biology, I think of the idea of common genetic descent--which has been "proven" by analysis of genes.
Hmm. I'm guessing you could test hypothesized connections by accurately predicting similarities in the DNA structure of the creatures in question, based on the similarities the theory would entail.
That would make the assembly of the theory a lot more experiment-driven than it was under Darwin.
True, but I would nonetheless say that conclusions based on these observations need to be empirically testable for them to be scientific. Otherwise how would you distinguish science from philosophy?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: what makes the (macro) theory of evolution scientific?
It has demonstrated predictive power (it suggested a range of things that subsequently turned out to be true) and has been observed (we've witness speciation in flies, for instance).
What if it's not science at all?
If it wasn't science then the origin of the species would become one more thing in the giant list of things that we don't understand at this point. People who confuse faith and science would attempt to use this gap in our knowledge to declare there must be a God.
Orkeosaurus wrote:How did they test it?
I mean, obviously they know that fruitflies can evolve, as they have controlled experiments for that. But I'm pretty sure they haven't come up with an experiment that turns a monkey-man into a human over a million years.
You can say 'if evolution had occured then we would observe very similar genetic markers between species believed to have reasonably recent common ancestors'. We have looked at the genetic markers and observed that very thing.
You can say 'if various parts of the body would be suboptimal because they evolved through a non-directed process, so the final result would be a lot less efficient than if someone had designed the part to perform it's final task.' We can observe this in things such as the eye, which are a mess of design, with veins going all over the place, and producing a final result that doesn't work anywhere near as well as it should. The design makes sense when you look at it as a series of evolutionary steps, but little sense as deliberate design.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. Yeah, the use of the word "science" would have to be pruned quite a bit by my usage of it.
Well, let's say this: you can use the scientific method to arrive at principles/natural law. You can use these principles, along with logic/common sense to arrive at conclusions. Sometimes you can perform a test to see if these conclusions are accurate, and sometimes you can't. However, even a set of conclusions can't be proved/disproved through experimentation, can still be logical, and these should be accepted as true (unless the principles they were derived from change, or you decide that the conclusions aren't a logical derivative of those principles after all).
Does this seem sensible?
Yes, but the trick is that 'testing' isn't restricted to direct observation. You can form a theory that proposes a billion years of geological forces would produce rock formations of certain types, and then you can go out and test this by observing the actual rock formations.
Ahtman wrote:You aren't advocating skepticism though, what you are advocating is closer to outright denial of science.
Really... where have I ever said that ALL science was to be denied?
This is pretty damn close.
generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me.
generalgrog wrote:
@ dogma...I don't think you realize it, but you just proved my point. Thanks.
Your point was that science is something other than what you said science is? That you don't understand science? That saying something is biased, and therefore bad, is a poor argument because any position based upon an attempt to describe reality will be biased towards truth?
Sorry, I didn't realize you were being satirical.
Regardless, I think its incredibly illustrative that you are using discredited studies to discredit scientific method. There will always be studies that produce incorrect conclusions, that's what happens when you attempt to describe reality, you will often be wrong. The point of the scientific method is to establish a system of observation whereby even negative results are used to bring us all closer to the truth; including the truth of what constitutes sound methodology.
generalgrog wrote:
Not saying Darwin believed it or not, but the FACT remains that it was held to be true and thought of as science during the late 19th and early 20th century, by many prominent people. I was surprised to see Teddy Roosevelt was one of them. G.K. Chesterson an English Christian spoke and wrote against it, and I am willing to bet there were quite a few Howard Treesongs he had to deal with... blowing the trumpet of the latest "scientific research" about eugenics.
GG
And they were proven wrong, so I'm not really sure what your point is.
Are you arguing that we should not try to achieve a greater understanding of reality?
I mean, modern science hasn't been around for very long, but the scientific method as a general concept has been around since Aristotle; meaning that it predates Christianity. This isn't about some war on religion or faith, its literally an argument about what constitutes rational observation and analysis. And, at least from my perspective, you appear to be contending that we shouldn't engage the world from a rational perspective.
Manchu wrote:That depends on what you mean by "as a whole." I don't think the specific steps (amoeba to fish to salamander, etc) from those old film strips is really the content of evolutionary theory. When I think of evolutionary biology, I think of the idea of common genetic descent--which has been "proven" by analysis of genes.
Manchu..what is the basis for this "proof"? Do you have some sources?
Also in what context are you referring to in common genetic descent? Are you referring to the commonality within kinds such as wolves/dogs and or tigers/lions/panthers. Or are you referring to end of spectrum speciation such as lizards and monkeys.
I heard Sir David Attenborough make the claim that bilateral symmetry in trilobytes "proves" evolution because almost all life has bilateral symmetry. I mean that is his example of actual proof? I actually laughed out loud at the absurdity, when I heard him say that. I mean there was no thought given to the "possibility" that it pleased the Creator to base his creations with bilateral symmetry.
I would be interested to see what assumptions are involved with the common genetic descent theory. I did a quick google but couldn't find much.
generalgrog wrote:I heard Sir Richard Attenborough make the claim that bilateral symmetry in trilobytes "proves" evolution because almost all life has bilateral symmetry. I mean that is his example of actual proof? I actually laughed out loud at the absurdity, when I heard him say that. I mean there was no thought given to the "possibility" that it pleased the Creator to base his creations with bilateral symmetry.
@ dogma...I think you are missing my point. Let me give an illustration.
I'm a scientist I do some research on something. For arguments sake lets say my research is on how the sun gave birth to the planet earth. I do a bunch of research and I come to conclusions that indeed say that the sun gave birth to the earth.
Now this is what often happens.
CNN news report...RECENT SCIENTIFIC STUDY...SUN GAVE BIRTH TO EARTH..Then a detailed journalist interviews said scientist who gives a very scientific sounding explanation as to why the sun gave birth to the earth. It takes 10 or 20 years to find out that this guy was all wet to begin with, but in the mean time people have started believing the nonsense about the sun giving birth to the earth.
The same kind of thing happened with the gay gene. The early scientific reports were wrong but people like howard treesong actually believe it to be true. Eugenics was also wrong but fooled a lot of people into believing it.
Yes.... science can correct itself... but in the mean time the damage has been done.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
generalgrog wrote:I heard Sir Richard Attenborough make the claim
I don't know man, after that Jurassic Park fiasco I'm not sure I'd use him as a source for anything.
Crap your right Meant David...oh those attenborough boys!
Ahtman wrote:You may not mean to sound that way, but that is how you are coming across. So yes....yes you are.
"I perceive you as X, therefore you are X"?
No, but as far as language is concerned if you can't make a point clearly and people don't understand your point, it isn't necessarily the listener/readers fault. It's like the old Dave Chapel joke where he is dressed like a cop and someone runs up and says "help, we need a policeman" and he says "Oh, just because I'm dressed like a cop you automatically assume I'm a cop". Act and/or say things that make you appear as if you don't trust science and people will think you don't trust science. GG is coming across as someone who distrusts science, period, not that he is a skeptic.
generalgrog wrote:Yes.... science can correct itself... but in the mean time the damage has been done.
I'm not sure that the scientific method is the problem in either your hypothetical or in the example of the "gay gene." The breakdown in both cases seems extra-scientific. In fact, it seems like you're talking about the so-called liberal news media more than anything else.
Again, do any of those statements I posted earlier trouble you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:GG is coming across as someone who distrusts science, period, not that he is a skeptic.
I suspect its actually about cultural and political associations with science.
Yeah allready went there..wikipedia isn't exactly the place I like to rely on. Guess I'll need to check out amazon or something.
GG
Yeah, I would use that page a bibliography.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thought, GG, that I've had about Christians finding evolutionary theory difficult to accept revolves around the limitations of the human imagination trying to pin the existence of the Creator into a temporal rather than eternal mode. It is difficult to imagine, but is there any reason that God could not have ordained in His creation the "becoming-ness" of life, among other aspects of creation, that human minds have described with evolutionary theory? I think this is very possible.
generalgrog wrote:
CNN news report...RECENT SCIENTIFIC STUDY...SUN GAVE BIRTH TO EARTH..Then a detailed journalist interviews said scientist who gives a very scientific sounding explanation as to why the sun gave birth to the earth. It takes 10 or 20 years to find out that this guy was all wet to begin with, but in the mean time people have started believing the nonsense about the sun giving birth to the earth.
The same kind of thing happened with the gay gene. The early scientific reports were wrong but people like howard treesong actually believe it to be true. Eugenics was also wrong but fooled a lot of people into believing it.
Yes.... science can correct itself... but in the mean time the damage has been done.
Well, science can't correct itself, it isn't a thing which takes actions and I think a lot of the misconceptions regarding what the scientific method actually is can be traced back to the fact that people seem to view it as a monolith.
But, on to your main point, the issue there isn't one with the scientific method, as what you're describing is its good and proper function whereby bad theories are discarded and good theories are maintained. The problem is with the news media, and the general gullibility of people. Unfortunately, people will always believe stupid things about which they know little, it just sort of comes with the territory. Sure, scientists could probably do more to bring their work to the public, and some of them have been pretty vocal about doing (Carl Sagan is a great example) but doing so is hard work; especially for people accustomed to throwing around technical terminology with their peers.
And, quite honestly, there isn't a whole lot of reason to bring legitimate science into public discourse; excepting certain issues regarding politics. Whether or not Joe the Plumber has a good understanding of general relativity, evolution, or string theory is irrelevant because he isn't likely to be doing any work in any of those fields, and such knowledge isn't going to make him a better plumber, or even a better person.
More importantly, what you're talking about is true of any body of knowledge; including religion. There have been a ton of crap theological concepts thrown around over the centuries, and even though they were often quickly discredited amongst those in the know they still managed to do a number on society. Its really just a fact of the human condition that bad things will happen in the course "testing" our theories against the world in which we live.
Manchu wrote:
Again, do any of those statements I posted earlier trouble you?
Sorry missed it...
- All matter is composed of atoms, which are themselves made up of sub-atomic particles. No trouble
- Genetic material is made up of nucleic acid in almost all known life. I wouldn't have a problem with this statement
- The sun radiates a continuous stream of particles, which spread outward at the speed of 1.5 million kph No problem with solar wind.
- There are approximately 22,000 species of ant. Based on my current understanding of phyla classification... no problem
- Matter exhibits both wave and particle properties. I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to say either way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:GG is coming across as someone who distrusts science, period, not that he is a skeptic.
I suspect its actually about cultural and political associations with science.
You know you could be onto something..but also I would add how these cultural and political associations create biases in scientists. (That goes for both secular and creation scientists)
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thought, GG, that I've had about Christians finding evolutionary theory difficult to accept revolves around the limitations of the human imagination trying to pin the existence of the Creator into a temporal rather than eternal mode. It is difficult to imagine, but is there any reason that God could not have ordained in His creation the "becoming-ness" of life, among other aspects of creation, that human minds have described with evolutionary theory? I think this is very possible.
Well, when you start talking about God..all things are possible. To me it comes down to what you believe about the Bible and what it says and how you interpret it. But, we've gone down that road before and really don't want to go there in this thread.
dogma wrote:More importantly, what you're talking about is true of any body of knowledge; including religion. There have been a ton of crap theological concepts thrown around over the centuries, and even though they were often quickly discredited amongst those in the know they still managed to do a number on society.
Ooh, that's a good point.
GG, think about all the nonsense that's been spoken about Christianity over the centuries, by people inside the Church and those outside. Now consider whether you think that nonsense should discredit the speaker, or the Church at large.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:You know you could be onto something..but also I would add how these cultural and political associations create biases in scientists. (That goes for both secular and creation scientists)
GG
As I pointed out in another one of these threads, you seem to be continuing under the assumption that scientists are atheists. While there are more atheists in science than in the general population, they remain a minority are not atheist.
Ultimately, most are comfortable with having faith and following the scientific method.
dogma wrote:More importantly, what you're talking about is true of any body of knowledge; including religion. There have been a ton of crap theological concepts thrown around over the centuries, and even though they were often quickly discredited amongst those in the know they still managed to do a number on society.
Ooh, that's a good point.
GG, think about all the nonsense that's been spoken about Christianity over the centuries, by people inside the Church and those outside. Now consider whether you think that nonsense should discredit the speaker, or the Church at large.
Nooo... I agree with what dogma is saying there, in fact I was getting ready to respond to him and say just that.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
generalgrog wrote:You know you could be onto something..but also I would add how these cultural and political associations create biases in scientists. (That goes for both secular and creation scientists)
GG
As I pointed out in another one of these threads, you seem to be continuing under the assumption that scientists are atheists. While there are more atheists in science than in the general population, they remain a minority are not atheist.
Ultimately, most are comfortable with having faith and following the scientific method.
Uhh that's why I included this little nugget..."(That goes for both secular and creation scientists)" So I'm not sure how you missed that?
sebster wrote:Ultimately, most are comfortable with having faith and following the scientific method.
True but I can understand where GG is coming from. Howard's statement that homosexuality has been observed in nature is a good example. This is the kind of statement that links the scientific method to extra-scientific ideologies and agendas in a negative association.
generalgrog wrote:Really... where have I ever said that ALL science was to be denied?
This is pretty damn close.
generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me.
Actually no.... not close at all.
What, the text I quoted by you isn't close to what you think? Any research in any field of science that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible is automatically ignored by you. I would say that you are limited to 'scepticism' in just those fields but apparently you're equally mistrustful of cancer research because, horror of horrors, two separate scientific studies (probably by two separate scientists) came up with two different theories at different times.
You clearly are deeply mistrustful of what you think modern science is and given that any science could become 'modern' science as old theories are overturned you are in essence mistrustful of all science. You were half right earlier though when you wrote that science doesn't have the answers. That's true, science doesn't have The Answers, that's religion's job. Maybe if you stopped thinking that science is providing (The) answers you'd get on a little better.
As for hating 'the sins' (whatever they are ) of gays. As someone who is as convinced of the non-existence of an Abrahamic god as you are convinced of it's existence, your position comes across as a pretty weak reason for elevating yourself above them.
generalgrog wrote:Uhh that's why I included this little nugget..."(That goes for both secular and creation scientists)" So I'm not sure how you missed that?
GG
I think I misunderstood your point. I read creation scientists as 'scientists who believe in creation science', so intelligent design, irreducible complexity and all that. And that science consisted of them and secular scientists. Given that, I thought it was necessary to point out that most scientists are believers who go about conducting secular science.
Anyhow, you're right that there's political and cultural bias in science, it's a human institution, by rights it has to have some. The thing is that science requires testing, and is always open to being re-tested or replaced with a better idea.
I mean, I'm a political scientist (whether or not that's an oxymoron can be debated later) and I can tell you from experience that there is bias in my work. For one thing, I never engage realist literature because I long ago concluded that its crap. As such, like GG's Attenborough example, I don't include possible realist explanations of phenomena in my work, because I believe that many other events in the past have discredited it as an explanatory 'theory'.
sebster wrote:Ultimately, most are comfortable with having faith and following the scientific method.
True but I can understand where GG is coming from. Howard's statement that homosexuality has been observed in nature is a good example. This is the kind of statement that links the scientific method to extra-scientific ideologies and agendas in a negative association.
True, so it's prone to being misused for political ends. But if a thing isn't true, others can go on to test that. I think it's wise to treat with scepticism any new scientific announcement, simply because scientific journalism really isn't all that interested in waiting for something to be properly peer reviewed before reporting it. But to continue to doubt things that have been tested and repeated again and again is just not sensible.
sebster wrote:It has demonstrated predictive power (it suggested a range of things that subsequently turned out to be true) and has been observed (we've witness speciation in flies, for instance).
Yep.
If it wasn't science then the origin of the species would become one more thing in the giant list of things that we don't understand at this point. People who confuse faith and science would attempt to use this gap in our knowledge to declare there must be a God.
Or we would still understand it, but just understand it without the use of the scientific method.
You can say 'if evolution had occured then we would observe very similar genetic markers between species believed to have reasonably recent common ancestors'. We have looked at the genetic markers and observed that very thing.
Yep; already covered that one, I'm so quick you know.
You can say 'if various parts of the body would be suboptimal because they evolved through a non-directed process, so the final result would be a lot less efficient than if someone had designed the part to perform it's final task.' We can observe this in things such as the eye, which are a mess of design, with veins going all over the place, and producing a final result that doesn't work anywhere near as well as it should. The design makes sense when you look at it as a series of evolutionary steps, but little sense as deliberate design.
I wouldn't consider this as scientific, because I don't see how the similarities could be quantified. Also, for it to function as a test of the theory these inefficiencies would have to be unknown prior to the theory's conception (in some cases I'm sure this is true, in other cases it wouldn't be).
Ahtman wrote:And anyone who chooses to believe in something, no matter how irrational, will always come up with excuses to believe.
Wow, it's like we're all back in day one of Phil 101.
Did you see the dakka discussions thread were people were talking about how probability wasn't real? If you've been through that thread then nothing here could possibly worry you.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I wouldn't consider this as scientific, because I don't see how the similarities could be quantified. Also, for it to function as a test of the theory these inefficiencies would have to be unknown prior to the theory's conception (in some cases I'm sure this is true, in other cases it wouldn't be).
It was observed subsequent to the theory's inception. When Darwin first proposed the idea we didn't know that much about the workings of the human body.
That said, the observation of the eye in and of itself isn't science, and it certainly doesn't 'prove' evolution, but the observation is part of the scientific method. That and countless other observations build into a greater thing.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, for it to function as a test of the theory these inefficiencies would have to be unknown prior to the theory's conception (in some cases I'm sure this is true, in other cases it wouldn't be).
Not necessarily. A theory constructed on the basis of a given set of observations has already effectively passed the tests presented by those observation. If that weren't true we couldn't really theorize about everything. For example, if I say that eyes allow us to see my theory has implicitly passed the tests presented by the observed existence of eyes and sight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Did you see the dakka discussions thread were people were talking about how probability wasn't real? If you've been through that thread then nothing here could possibly worry you.
Not just that probability wasn't real, but that it wasn't real because improbable events occur. It hurt my head.
Orkeosaurus wrote:While what you're describing is relevant to determining the accuracy of the theory, I consider it to nonetheless be outside of the scientific method.
How so? The formulation of a hypothesis, which is essentially an untested theory, is central to the scientific method.
I'm confused then, because it seems like you're talking about two different things. Are you talking about the whole scientific method, or just conclusions derived using the scientific method?
Because I think that, if you want to evaluate the extent to which a conclusion is scientific, you need to look at the method by which it was reached, and not just the conclusion itself. Essentially, if a conclusion was reached using the scientific method, then it is scientific.
Perhaps it would help if you explained what you consider the scientific method to be, because I'm not clear on where we're disagreeing.
Orkeosaurus wrote:What? You're going to have to explain this one to us!
Some of the best examples;
“I think that if the math-hammer route was completley true, you would never really get those 100-1 rolls, i think that you must have done something to please the dice gods”
“And even barring that statistics is a math anyway as the odds are infinitesimally small of rolling straight it is still a mathematical possibility.”
“Mathhammer is flawed in that nothing works how it should 100% of the time. Just because you SHOULD wound 4 times doesn't mean you will.”
“I hate Math-Hammer I have found it to be a total load of bollocks that very rarely works. It works if you take an average over a thousand games but that doesn't work for me because you can never add different circumstances into it.”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I didn't mean the eye specifically, I meant things like men having nipples.
In that case there probably can't be a case for it, but with the eye there certainly is. Also women being poorly adapted to giving birth to babies with heads the size of human babies. It's understandable in terms of evolution, we've been adapting for intelligence so quickly (relatively speaking) and it's resulted in a rapid expansion in the size of the baby's head but women aren't that well adapted to birth of such a big thing. But it doesn't make much sense at all in terms of an intelligent creator, unless you consider that intelligent creator really didn't like women.
Thinking about it, are there any male mammals that don't have nipples?
By the way: GG, why would God put nipples on men? Especially if he dislikes homosexuality? That seems really weird.
I don't know about God, but if I was in charge I'd be putting nipples on everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:While what you're describing is relevant to determining the accuracy of the theory, I consider it to nonetheless be outside of the scientific method.
I know what you're getting at, and you're right that simply observing things and coming up with a reason why is just a hypothesis and not the full scientific process. But we've spent more than hundred years testing and refining Darwin's idea. It has demonstrated predictive power.
Darwin speculated that whales must have their origin in bears or a similar mammal that hunted fish by the shore, spending more and more time at sea and becoming better adapted to it. This idea was mocked, yet now we've found that very species in (going off of memory) Kazakstan. I mean, being able to say 'if this is true then we should be able to find XYZ out there' and having no reason to believe in XYZ beyond that theory... then finding XYZ is a very powerful thing.
dogma wrote:I'm confused then, because it seems like you're talking about two different things. Are you talking about the whole scientific method, or just conclusions derived using the scientific method?
Because I think that, if you want to evaluate the extent to which a conclusion is scientific, you need to look at the method by which it was reached, and not just the conclusion itself. Essentially, if a conclusion was reached using the scientific method, then it is scientific.
Perhaps it would help if you explained what you consider the scientific method to be, because I'm not clear on where we're disagreeing.
I'm talking about conclusions, and whether or not they are in fact derived from the scientific method.
Which I basically see as: make a hypothesis -> design an experiment with intent to prove or disprove it -> conduct experiment (in a controlled setting, etc) -> collect data from experiment -> analyze data -> make conclusion (possibly making a new hypothesis as well).
In this regard, observing something and coming up with a theory that explains it - and leaving it at that - is insufficient to reach a scientific conclusion. Either you only have a hypothesis, or you have a non-scientific conclusion.
Cutting open an eye to see if it's inefficiently designed might be enough to qualify as an experiment, but if you already know that men have nipples, then you don't really have the basis for an experiment (or even a quasi-experiment, really).
sebster wrote:I know what you're getting at, and you're right that simply observing things and coming up with a reason why is just a hypothesis and not the full scientific process. But we've spent more than hundred years testing and refining Darwin's idea. It has demonstrated predictive power.
Yep, I know. I'm just talking about science in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:“I think that if the math-hammer route was completley true, you would never really get those 100-1 rolls, i think that you must have done something to please the dice gods”
“And even barring that statistics is a math anyway as the odds are infinitesimally small of rolling straight it is still a mathematical possibility.”
“Mathhammer is flawed in that nothing works how it should 100% of the time. Just because you SHOULD wound 4 times doesn't mean you will.”
“I hate Math-Hammer I have found it to be a total load of bollocks that very rarely works. It works if you take an average over a thousand games but that doesn't work for me because you can never add different circumstances into it.”
Orkeosaurus wrote:Yep, I know. I'm just talking about science in general.
Oh, in that case I agree. A lot of people confuse 'speculation from a guy in a lab coat' and tested, peer reviewed science.
It's just that I've seen people use doubts about some science to attempt to discredit any science they don't like, I thought you were trying to do that.
Oh, it was one of those threads.
They came up a bit? I thought I'd seen everything, and I've never seen that.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Which I basically see as: make a hypothesis -> design an experiment with intent to prove or disprove it -> conduct experiment (in a controlled setting, etc) -> collect data from experiment -> analyze data -> make conclusion (possibly making a new hypothesis as well).
You don't necessarily have to design an experiment. Much of the time you simply need to decide what to observe, and how you are going to interpret your observation, both given the hypothesis being tested.
My interpretation of the method is as follows:
Observation -> Hypothesis -> Test -> Conclusion
And I'm not convinced that they need to follow in that order, excepting the fact that conclusion must be at the end.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
In this regard, observing something and coming up with a theory that explains it - and leaving it at that - is insufficient to reach a scientific conclusion. Either you only have a hypothesis, or you have a non-scientific conclusion.
Honestly, I think it is. A lot of times the steps of experimentation and hypothesis formation are conflated; especially in the social sciences. I mean, ultimately observation isn't just looking at something; its looking at something in a manner that presumes more detail than is otherwise common.
I mean, Einstein wrote his paper on Brownian Motion by watching small particles moving in containers of water.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Cutting open an eye to see if it's inefficiently designed might be enough to qualify as an experiment, but if you already know that men have nipples, then you don't really have the basis for an experiment (or even a quasi-experiment, really).
See, I don't think that's the case. It seems to me that you're falling into the common trap of assuming that a study must produce novel conclusions in order to be worthwhile. The nipple case, for example, is clear grounds for experiment when considered in a vacuum. I know that the men I've seen without shirts have nipples, but I don't know that the statement "men have nipples" is true where the meaning of the statement is "all men have nipples". As such, I could devise a procedure (not necessarily an experiment) by which I would sellect a sample of men, or observe all men, and determine whether or not they had nipples.
Simply having a very strong suspicion of correctness such that we can say that we 'know' something does not preclude the possibility of empirically testing that suspicion. Moreover, even if we 'know' that all men have nipples because the study I described had been done before there would still be cause to call repeated experiments scientific despite repetition. After all, maybe all men had nipples before, but there isn't necessarily a reason to presume that they still do.
Manchu wrote:Something I've been meaing to post for a few days is a rejection of the notion that homosexuality is observed in non-human species. Sexual behaviors between animals of the same sex have been observed, but that alone is hardly what we mean by homosexuality when we're talking about people. It's like saying that lifelong mating is an observation of marriage among non-human species.
That's hardly a fair comparison unless you were to claim that marriage is somehow as natural a drive as sexual orientation. Regardless of marriage, which is a creation as a result of our complex societies, humans frequently do pair for life, and have done for millennia. Fundamentally, lots of people pair now and don't get married, and lots of animals pair for life. So the reflection in the animal kingdom isn't that far away.
If I had said "heterosexuality is observed in animals" would you have said "Sexual behaviors between animals of the opposite sex have been observed, but that alone is hardly what we mean by heterosexuality when we're talking about people. It's like saying that lifelong mating is an observation of marriage among non-human species".
Hardly, lifelong mating is an observation of lifelong mating in animals. And humans life long mate too, regardless of whether specific marriage customs are respected in that process.
Homosexuality is observed in animals as is heterosexuality, or at least equivalents of each, I'm not claiming there's a higher social element involved or that they feel love, but the behaviour does exist and animals exhibit heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality, and they also exhibit monogamy and polyamory, which humans do as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:The same kind of thing happened with the gay gene. The early scientific reports were wrong but people like howard treesong actually believe it to be true. Eugenics was also wrong but fooled a lot of people into believing it.
You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't bring up the Xq28 gene a specific example, you did. I've read around a bit more broadly than that, that why I keep talking about factors like prenatal hormones.
I heard Sir David Attenborough make the claim that bilateral symmetry in trilobytes "proves" evolution because almost all life has bilateral symmetry. I mean that is his example of actual proof? I actually laughed out loud at the absurdity, when I heard him say that. I mean there was no thought given to the "possibility" that it pleased the Creator to base his creations with bilateral symmetry.
Because bilateral symmetry is something shared by all organisms descended from a certain point. There is a lot of evidence supporting evolutionary statements like that one, more than enough to fill a thread like this one. Shrugging it off with "god probably liked it that way" really is laughable.
Did god like the way the human eye was designed? Because it's crap. We have a blind spot caused by the location of the optic nerve, a number of people whoa re colour blind and many people need glasses by the time they are adults. Clearly they weren't designed to last.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Especially if he(God) dislikes homosexuality? That seems really weird.
You think that's bad!? What about where the male g-spot is apparently located??
Before I'm taken literally, I'm not well read on the science of the g-spot.
sebster wrote:Oh, in that case I agree. A lot of people confuse 'speculation from a guy in a lab coat' and tested, peer reviewed science.
I'll tell you what people really confuse with actual science, this bs where some "scientific" survey claims that wearing red clothes makes you live longer or something, which appears in the newspapers and on main news for all of a day. Then when you look into it, you find that it's not actually received an academic publication, just a press release and there's no follow up research. Typically these 'silly season' stories are cooked up by a PR company working on behalf of a company making spreadable butter or clothes or something and want to promote a story to reach the newspaper. And yes, some scientist somewhere can usually be found to be paid to take a few hours to put his name to it and give a few quotes to a couple of newspapers. There might be some tiny worthless study done, but they then weave a story out of almost nothing. Real science involves the long process of official publication first, and usually there are no massive breakthroughs but a ever progressive creep over the years. But these stories are either not headline grabbing, or they are too complex for the public. So instead the science pages of the news like a story about how some spreadable butter "may make you see in the dark" better. Anyone work published in a national newspaper before an academic journal is highly suspect.
The problem is that a lot of people think that what appears in the newspapers is an accurate reflection of real science today. When the cuts were going to be announced in the UK it took all of a matter of minutes before I saw someone declaring that science could afford to be cut because we wouldn't have to see any more money wasted on science stories announcing like bleeding obvious like "watching too much TV makes you fat" or something equally dumb about spreadable butter products. But the fact is that these kind of dumb ass stories are not based on work that is government funded, they are PR companies hired by manufacturers trying to plant an idea in the mind of the public. Proper everyday science is not promoted in the media.
Howard A Treesong wrote:That's hardly a fair comparison unless you were to claim that marriage is somehow as natural a drive as sexual orientation. Regardless of marriage, which is a creation as a result of our complex societies, humans frequently do pair for life, and have done for millennia.
The comparison is only "unfair" because you are looking at it backwards. It's not the case that marriage need be a "natural drive" like sexual attraction (the word "orientation" is more problematic) but rather that human sexuality, like marriage, is--in your very apt description--"a creation as a result of our complex societies."
All of GGs pseudo Science is nonsense and which does not even warrant a response. Get your stuff peer reviewed and then astound the world with your findings.
Regards the gay thing, im pretty much 100% certain that you are biologically inclined to be attracted to said sex because i am a slave to my brain which demands i have sex with women. I do not have the urge to have sex with a man, and i am pretty sure I wouldnt be able to become erect enough to perform said act even if i wanted to (large sum of money or something)
Ergo, common sense tells me that your sexuality is predetermined unless you are privvy to something that could mentally screw you up. For example, i expect it is not uncommon for a girl who is sytematically raped at a young age by a male relative to become a lesbian in adulthood, but this would be relatively easy to explain.
But lets just be honest, if you have a nice normal life, and you grow up to be a nice normal adult, you KNOW what you fancy. Its not like all the straight guys in the world secretly have urges to go and get oiled up with the cast of "Queer eye"
And if you are demanding that this is not the case... and it is just a "lifestyle choice" that we all make.. well.. i think that says alot more about you then you should be confident telling people you dont know very well.
mattyrm wrote:All of GGs pseudo Science is nonsense and which does not even warrant a response. Get your stuff peer reviewed and then astound the world with your findings.
And then, literally right after that :
mattyrm wrote:Regards the gay thing, im pretty much 100% certain that you are biologically inclined to be attracted to said sex because i am a slave to my brain which demands i have sex with women.
Howard A Treesong wrote:That's hardly a fair comparison unless you were to claim that marriage is somehow as natural a drive as sexual orientation. Regardless of marriage, which is a creation as a result of our complex societies, humans frequently do pair for life, and have done for millennia.
The comparison is only "unfair" because you are looking at it backwards. It's not the case that marriage need be a "natural drive" like sexual attraction (the word "orientation" is more problematic) but rather that human sexuality, like marriage, is--in your very apt description--"a creation as a result of our complex societies."
No but same-sex attraction is not a creation of societies, it just is what some animals and humans are driven to do. That's what I mean by homosexuality being expressed in animals. I'm not attempting to anthropomorphise them or label them with complex human qualities beyond the simple expression of the attraction. There's a fair bit of human baggage associated with the term homosexuality, but this doesn't change the fact that same-sex behaviour is observed in animals which is the point I've been making. The wiki page does have a paragraph at the start that tries to address this at the beginning. If the accurate term would merely be same-sex attraction then so be it, but it's a matter of etymology, it shouldn't change the fundamental point that same-sex sexual interactions and pairings are seen in the wild. There doesn't seem to be a better word to use for same-sex behaviour in animals but the context should make the difference.
I don't think that same-sex sexual behavior in giraffes indicates anything about same-sex behavior in dragonflies. Certainly neither has anything do with human sexuality. My point is that the attempt to draw inferences regarding social policy from such observations and comparisons has a strictly literary (at best) value. There is nothing "scientific" about it, at least not in the sense that people use the word "scientifc" to validate their opinions.
Here's an interesting article on the attempt to do that sort of thing with ants, regarding the encouragement in humans of traits like industriousness and obedience:
mattyrm wrote:All of GGs pseudo Science is nonsense and which does not even warrant a response. Get your stuff peer reviewed and then astound the world with your findings.
And then, literally right after that :
mattyrm wrote:Regards the gay thing, im pretty much 100% certain that you are biologically inclined to be attracted to said sex because i am a slave to my brain which demands i have sex with women.
That guy is awesome, so i would, but.. you know, i didnt go for a fancy nickname, my actual name is Matty so.. im pretty happy with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and he is attractive to every woman he seems to come into contact with. I once got punched in the throat by a woman i propositioned suggestively in a kebab shop so i can merely say "most" and as a result i am unworthy of Flashhearts name.
Manchu wrote:I don't think that same-sex sexual behavior in giraffes indicates anything about same-sex behavior in dragonflies. Certainly neither has anything do with human sexuality. My point is that the attempt to draw inferences regarding social policy from such observations and comparisons has a strictly literary (at best) value.
Actually I claim social policy is to be base on the fact that homosexuality is harmless and consensual. For instance, I've said that even if it were a 'choice' to be gay, that's no reason for it not to be treated equally to heterosexuality. The point about it existing in numerous other animals is to counter the claims that it is a matter of choice and that it isn't natural. Animals to my knowledge aren't considered sentient and capable of making lifestyle choices like humans, their behaviour is largely instinctual. So same sex activity occurring in the animal kingdom particularly among higher organisms like mammals, particularly primates, is both a sign of it being 'natural' and an indicator that it operates on a level beyond simple 'choice'.
When people say that homosexual acts are not "natural," I don't think the language they're evoking is about whether or not such acts are "found in nature." I think there is an unconcious latency in thought process; a throw back to (or half-remembering of) neo-scholastic jargon about morality. Whether or not the ruins of this philiosphical perspetive in the mind of one individual or another consititutes a sound basis for their opinions, pointing at some animals having same-sex intercourse is not a meaningful response.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:So same sex activity occurring in the animal kingdom particularly among higher organisms like mammals, particularly primates, is both a sign of it being 'natural' and an indicator that it operates on a level beyond simple 'choice'.
Also, you're still assuming that "it" is a universal thing. Homosexuality (if we have to call it that) in animals is not the same thing as homosexuality in humans.
Manchu wrote:When people say that homosexual acts are not "natural," I don't think the language they're evoking is about whether or not such acts are "found in nature."
That is odd because I have found that they usually mean exactly that: it is against (what is perceived to be) the natural order.
I'm not claiming that people have a good understanding of their attempts to use neo-scholastic terminology. The phrase "natural order" does not merely refer to whatever is in nature. So, for example, the violence of nature is not usually a part of this moral vision of society. I think the use of such a phrase regarding sexuality--again, reflecting its neo-scholastic origin--has to do with the concept that reproduction validates sexuality.
Coming back at people with an overly literal contradiction of their ideas, even when they're also being overly literal, does not foster any genuine understanding. I think that's exactly what makes people like GG say that they're suspicious of "science."
The problem with your statement (besides possibly mis-using neo-Scholastic) is that it seems that you creating an ideal situation where you can refute something by ignoring the reality of that thing. Or to put it more simply, you are warping the use to what you want it to mean, so that you are right.
I can see what Manchu means though with "natural" and "unnatural" as more of a colloquial meaning. Society may say 'It seems (more) natural for opposite genders to express romantic love than same gendered people'. Referring to morays and 'laws' that bind the group into a society. But the word natural is, in its broadest meaning, that which occurs in the physical world. If it's possible it is natural or able to occur. When I hear unnatural I think beyond that which is possible/read as Cthulu mythos unnatural.
@Ahtman: There is the possibility that Person X's qualification of homosexuality in humans only reflects Person X's ignorance of certain animal behaviors. I think it's a rather insignificant possibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Oh and he is attractive to every woman he seems to come into contact with. I once got punched in the throat by a woman i propositioned suggestively in a kebab shop so i can merely say "most" and as a result i am unworthy of Flashhearts name.
I'm sure the same thing happened to Lord Flasheart in one of his lives. He likely just punched her back.
WOOF!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:I can see what Manchu means though with "natural" and "unnatural" as more of a colloquial meaning.
Well, what I really mean is that people are referring to a very techinical term in an unintentionally colloquial way. People talk about science in this way all the time (see this thread) but somehow forget that we also talk about morality in this way all the time.
Right, right. Like how something is only a 'theory' like it's an idea you're mechanic said might be wrong with your car when a scientific theory is an accepted set of evident laws which in turn is a rigorously tested hypothesis. Idea/observation, hypothesis, law, and then theory. It's a long road and not to be said lightly.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
No but same-sex attraction is not a creation of societies, it just is what some animals and humans are driven to do.
I'm not necessarily sure that's true. We don't really know enough about neuroscience and the way in which the brain is affected by its environment in order to say that with any certainty. Particularly given that homosexual behavior, literally the tendency to engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex, is only ever witnessed amongst social species. At least as far as I know.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a better word to use for same-sex behaviour in animals but the context should make the difference.
Absolutely. For example, no one would argue that describing the sexual behavior of wolves was tantamount to imposing human sexual qualities on observed patterns. The use of the word 'homosexuality' shouldn't be any different.
dogma wrote:For example, no one would argue that describing the sexual behavior of wolves was tantamount to imposing human sexual qualities on observed patterns
That is something that the observer should be aware of, however, and avoid. Similarly, a person reading about those observations should also be aware of it.
Also, I would argue that Howard's post are an example of context not making the difference.
Its all a moot point anyway, as the argument against homosexuality from nature is self-refuting. Homosexuals plainly exist (at least ignoring arguments from delusion) and are therefore natural, because everything is natural by definition.
Really I think "its observed in nature" reply grants the argument more credit than it deserves. Especially since, even we're positing a dichotomy of natural qualities and human qualities, homosexuality in humans would be necessarily unnatural by virtue of being human; rendering the 'unnatural' argument nonsensical.
mrwhoop wrote:Right, right. Like how something is only a 'theory' like it's an idea you're mechanic said might be wrong with your car when a scientific theory is an accepted set of evident laws which in turn is a rigorously tested hypothesis. Idea/observation, hypothesis, law, and then theory. It's a long road and not to be said lightly.
Sort of. Laws are different from theories in that they don't include an explanation for the phenomenon. Thus, the phenomenon of evolution is a law. Evolution via natural selection would be a theory.
I'm not necessarily sure that's true. We don't really know enough about neuroscience and the way in which the brain is affected by its environment in order to say that with any certainty. Particularly given that homosexual behavior, literally the tendency to engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex, is only ever witnessed amongst social species. At least as far as I know.
I wouldn't precisely call fruit flies social. There's also several genes identified that predispose the flies to such behavior, although of course corresponding genes in humans haven't been conclusively proven yet.
I heard Sir David Attenborough make the claim that bilateral symmetry in trilobytes "proves" evolution because almost all life has bilateral symmetry. I mean that is his example of actual proof? I actually laughed out loud at the absurdity, when I heard him say that. I mean there was no thought given to the "possibility" that it pleased the Creator to base his creations with bilateral symmetry.
I would be interested to see what assumptions are involved with the common genetic descent theory. I did a quick google but couldn't find much.
GG
edit..fixed Richard to David attenborough
Absurdity?
You're one to talk.
Some people may find it "absurd" that you believe a celestial being looked down at the earth one fine day and said "you know what, this Bilateral Symmetry stuff is rather nice. Think I'll apply it to something. I know, I'll call it life, that's a nice catchy name." I personally find it absurd to think that the Creator of All is as petty and vindictive as he is made out to be; I cannot believe that something that took the time and effort to create the Universe could ever find it within itself to hate minor things about what it had created, regardless of how it turned out, and it is that reason I find myself at odds with some of the more fundamental Religion-practicers.
Perhaps David Attenborough was wrong to state that it is "proof," when it is fact merely evidence. But even then, stating someone's views as more absurd than yours stinks to me of hypocrisy, especially given that all humans, whether of Faith or of rationalism, are at heart remarkably absurd animals, and have done absurd things in the past regardless of their religious outlook.
dogma wrote:And I'm not convinced that they need to follow in that order, excepting the fact that conclusion must be at the end.
I'm convinced that a test must come after a hypothesis. You may be able to derive true conclusions in other ways, but that's not science.
Honestly, I think it is. A lot of times the steps of experimentation and hypothesis formation are conflated; especially in the social sciences. I mean, ultimately observation isn't just looking at something; its looking at something in a manner that presumes more detail than is otherwise common.
If what is done "in science" determines what "science" is we're going in circles.
I mean, Einstein wrote his paper on Brownian Motion by watching small particles moving in containers of water.
That doesn't sound like a scientific conclusion, then.
See, I don't think that's the case. It seems to me that you're falling into the common trap of assuming that a study must produce novel conclusions in order to be worthwhile.
Well, novel information must be gained from them. Even if that information is merely "repeating experiment A gets us the same result".
Simply having a very strong suspicion of correctness such that we can say that we 'know' something does not preclude the possibility of empirically testing that suspicion. Moreover, even if we 'know' that all men have nipples because the study I described had been done before there would still be cause to call repeated experiments scientific despite repetition. After all, maybe all men had nipples before, but there isn't necessarily a reason to presume that they still do.
The problem I have with this is that I don't consider cutting open an eye to be exceptionally scientific itself. Scientific enough to be called science, but not so that scientific that things which are analogous to it are necessarily science.
In essence, I "define" science pretty narrowly. Because the alternative seems to be to make any sensible theory about material world into science. I ate too much ice cream and now I have a headache. My hypothesis is that eating ice cream gave me a headache, which is retroactively tested by the fact that I ate ice cream and got a headache, and yesterday I didn't eat any and didn't get a headache (perhaps I can conduct a poll on myself in which I confirm this if I feel the need for increased formality), and now my scientific conclusion is that eating ice cream gives you headaches. Well, the conclusion is probably correct. And if I were to put this process on one end of a scale and an actually scientific analysis of ice cream headaches on the other I probably wouldn't know exactly where to draw the line that should separate the science from the non-science. So I guess if someone wanted to call it all science I wouldn't try and stop them.
Your ice cream testing is scientific, but if you just stop once you have the basic answer (eating ice cream causes headaches), then you have failed the scientific method. Science goes one. Why is it causing the headache? Are there conditions in which it doesn't cause headaches? Does the type of ice cream matter? Science isn't about one single answer, but creating new questions from the answers we do get. Science doesn't have to be overly complex, but we've been doing it for so long that many of the basic questions are well behind us and the complex ones are here. Stuff that is complicated today will be simple in 100 years and it goes on and on. At least that is what Star Trek teaches us.
Manchu wrote:I don't think that same-sex sexual behavior in giraffes indicates anything about same-sex behavior in dragonflies. Certainly neither has anything do with human sexuality. My point is that the attempt to draw inferences regarding social policy from such observations and comparisons has a strictly literary (at best) value. There is nothing "scientific" about it, at least not in the sense that people use the word "scientifc" to validate their opinions.
There is science in the hypothesis 'humanity is not alone in having members who engage in homosexuality' and then going out and testing that hypothesis by seeing if we are actually alone or if other species also have homosexual practice. That we have observed such doesn't make the practice acceptable automatically*, afterall we've also observed rape and infanticide in the animal kingdom.
But observing sexual practice among animals, and noting where it is similar or different to our own is certainly science.
*It is, of course, acceptable because it is undertaken by consenting adults, and affects no-one outside of those two adults.
Ahtman wrote:Your ice cream testing is scientific, but if you just stop once you have the basic answer (eating ice cream causes headaches), then you have failed the scientific method. Science goes one. Why is it causing the headache? Are there conditions in which it doesn't cause headaches? Does the type of ice cream matter? Science isn't about one single answer, but creating new questions from the answers we do get. Science doesn't have to be overly complex, but we've been doing it for so long that many of the basic questions are well behind us and the complex ones are here. Stuff that is complicated today will be simple in 100 years and it goes on and on. At least that is what Star Trek teaches us.
Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Manchu wrote:When people say that homosexual acts are not "natural," I don't think the language they're evoking is about whether or not such acts are "found in nature." I think there is an unconcious latency in thought process; a throw back to (or half-remembering of) neo-scholastic jargon about morality. Whether or not the ruins of this philiosphical perspetive in the mind of one individual or another consititutes a sound basis for their opinions, pointing at some animals having same-sex intercourse is not a meaningful response.
Honestly, references to something being 'natural' and therefore good, or 'unnatural' and therefore bad, are built with so many in-built assumptions and inherent assumptions (they're generally talking about natural things being good while posting on the internet, for starters...) that they should just be dismissed automatically.
Homosexuality (if we have to call it that) in animals is not the same thing as homosexuality in humans.
Well, sexuality in animals will be very different to human sexuality, more so once you move outside of mammals. But difference does not prevent comparisons being drawn. One should note assume that it is good for our sexuality to mimic that found in other species, but it is still worth recognising where our sexuality is similar to other species, and where it is different.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Also, clone wars were supposed to have happened in the mid-90s. Given they destroyed about a quarter of the Earth's population, I'm pretty sure it would have made the news.
I'm beginning to suspect Star Trek is just something somebody made up.
Manchu wrote:@sebster: You ought to read about the ants in the article I posted.
I'd opened it but hadn't read it. Having read it, it's just pointing out that other species are very alien to ourselves, but we assign human values for various reasons. Which seems to be exactly what I said earlier, when I posted this; “sexuality in animals will be very different to human sexuality, more so once you move outside of mammals. But difference does not prevent comparisons being drawn.”
You’ll note that the author still makes comparisons to human society in the article, afterall. The point is not that we shouldn’t make comparisons, it’s that those comparisons should be informed by as complete an understanding of the animal species as possible.
I think the point of the article is that we used have the example of ants to propagate certain values. I think this is what is going on when most talk about homosexual behaviors in animals in response to people calling homosexuality unnatural. It's a silly comparison that is not informed by any understanding of any animal.
Manchu wrote:I think the point of the article is that we used have the example of ants to propagate certain values. I think this is what is going on when most talk about homosexual behaviors in animals in response to people calling homosexuality unnatural. It's a silly comparison that is not informed by any understanding of any animal.
It would only apply if people were using homosexual animals as a means of arguing that being natural made it okay, beyond any other consideration. I don't think that's what is happening.
Instead, people are arguing that homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore bad, and in response people are pointing out that it does happen in nature, and therefore the charge that it is wrong because it is unnatural is wrong. That doesn't make it right, as I noted earlier by pointing out rape is also observed in nature.
Really, it'd be like someone saying laziness is bad because it is unnatural, and someone responding by posting that article that states ants spend a lot of time idle. That wouldn't make laziness right or wrong, but it would discredit the argument that laziness is wrong because it is unnatural.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
In essence, I "define" science pretty narrowly. Because the alternative seems to be to make any sensible theory about material world into science. I ate too much ice cream and now I have a headache. My hypothesis is that eating ice cream gave me a headache, which is retroactively tested by the fact that I ate ice cream and got a headache, and yesterday I didn't eat any and didn't get a headache (perhaps I can conduct a poll on myself in which I confirm this if I feel the need for increased formality), and now my scientific conclusion is that eating ice cream gives you headaches.
Well, the conclusion is probably correct. And if I were to put this process on one end of a scale and an actually scientific analysis of ice cream headaches on the other I probably wouldn't know exactly where to draw the line that should separate the science from the non-science. So I guess if someone wanted to call it all science I wouldn't try and stop them.
I don't see how that isn't scientific. I mean, your conclusion falsely generalizes given that the dat set was limited to one person, but that's not really a huge deal in terms of adhering to the method itself.
As far retroactive confirmation of the hypothesis: any hypothesis which cannot account for the observations from which it is drawn is a really bad hypothesis, which is why its important to test against the data that was originally observed. Now, any conclusions that you might derive from that are going to be really badly supported, but that why science always marches on. You don't just account for one observation and call your conclusion true, you keep testing it until you've tested all possible, relevant instances; if such a thing is even possible.
Orkeosaurus wrote:In essence, I "define" science pretty narrowly. Because the alternative seems to be to make any sensible theory about material world into science.
The process undertaken is science, a sensible theory is a theory, the process of arriving at it is the scientific process.
I ate too much ice cream and now I have a headache. My hypothesis is that eating ice cream gave me a headache, which is retroactively tested by the fact that I ate ice cream and got a headache, and yesterday I didn't eat any and didn't get a headache (perhaps I can conduct a poll on myself in which I confirm this if I feel the need for increased formality), and now my scientific conclusion is that eating ice cream gives you headaches. Well, the conclusion is probably correct. And if I were to put this process on one end of a scale and an actually scientific analysis of ice cream headaches on the other I probably wouldn't know exactly where to draw the line that should separate the science from the non-science. So I guess if someone wanted to call it all science I wouldn't try and stop them
No, but there is difference in quality of scientific process being exhibited. For a start, you were ok saying that no icecream one day gave you no headache, and the next day eating it did give you a headache. That's an observation. From this you can form a hypothesis, but that is all. You can't then use that same data set, which is all of couple of results to then claim that they prove the hypothesis. You made the hypothesis from the observations, of course the observations fit them. So that's just circular logic. What you have to do is put your initial observations aside and take your hypothesis and construct a new rigorous experiment to test it.
There are a pile of things wrong in the ice cream experiment that would need to be addressed before hoping to draw conclusions. Firstly you need a large sample group. Because you can't draw any wider conclusions from saying that there was a headache on monday and not on tuesday. That's a fact, you know the days were different. And no two days are the same, it's virtually impossible that the only variable between Monday and Tuesday was eating ice-cream, it could be just a normal headache unrelated to the icecream, it could be the weather or anything. What you want to say is that in general terms, a day when you eat ice cream you get a headache more often than when you don't. If you had two people of different heights and they ran different speeds. You couldn't then claim a 'trend' that people who are taller run faster, which is what you want to be able to claim from the icecream experiment. All you have proven from comparing these two people is that two people are different, and saying that two people are different is worthless. So you would want a huge crowd of tall people and a crowd of short people, or you'd want a variety of sizes and chart height against speed. You want to draw the conclusion by showing a trend, a different between two days is not a trend.
Thus you need to test many days. And the more days you test the stronger it will be statistically, because if you test just a couple of days the result is still nearly worthless, the more days you test the easier it will be to prove a trend, and overcome any freak results. Then you have to query whether your results apply to other people. Even if you prove that icecream and headaches correlate for you, that only really applies to you as an individual, maybe you have a medical condition. You can't apply that to everyone as a trend just because you carry out repeat trials on yourself. So you'd need to repeat it with lots of other people a few times each. Then you have not only carry out repeat experiments but you have trialled a sample of the population. But then you have to be sure that you don't have a bias in that population, for instance you trial 20 people who are all family members related to you or have some other shared characteristic that links them disproportionately compared to the background population. This is why trials on people need to be in the thousands to be high quality statistically...any why these cosmetics adverts where they claim that 70% of people show better skin, but reveal in the small print that they only sample the opinions of 40 people, are suspect.
And then you have to be sure to control as many variables as possible, everyone has to eat the same icecream at the same time of day. We know that when you eat food can affect digestion and the like, and because all icecreams are different you need to control the type and flavour. Because there may be an active ingredient causing the headache, or the temperature, or the amount.
So even if you do find a trend that 100 grams of Walls Vanilla ice cream causes headaches when eaten at midday when tested across a group of 2000 people tested every day for a fortnight, you may decide that it's now safe to conclude "that eating ice cream gives you headaches". Or you could build some variables in, so out of the 2000 people they break down as trying one of four different flavours at one of two times of day, so you have 8 groups of people (250 in each). You could then simultaneously test the overall hypothesis that icecream causes headaches whilst being able to factor in the time of day and the flavour.
So you describe the trend, lay down the statistical significance of the data, describe the effects of icecream in general and the significance of any effect caused by flavour/time, and then make conclusions. And they you'd have to say what the drawbacks, were, any anomalous results, and suggest further avenues of future work, because you still haven't tested a whole load of other things that may influence the results beyond what you have tested.
And that's 'science'. But no experiment is perfect because you run out of time and money, and sometimes it's just impractical. So concessions have to be made. So if there were a sliding scale the icecream experiment as you proposed would be near the bottom. It can still be called 'science' but it's certainly not of a standard where anyone would publish it and in fact does not reach a level where you can draw a decent conclusion. Non-science is where someone does not attempt to follow the scientific method, once following it you are on the scale of 'doing science', but the quality is all important and that scale goes from the highest quality to very poor. But this is only a problem if you try to hang to much on a poor experiment. Just because you have a handful of observations does not mean they have no value at all, they are enough to support a hypothesis maybe someone else has the time and money to do something with them. So it's ok to report them...as observations. What you shouldn't do is attempt to hang great claims on them, such as drawing conclusions that ice cream causes headaches.
ETA: sorry I went on a bit, to summaraise, as long as you follow the scientific method it's science, but the quality is a different matter all together. Orkeosaurus's experiment is 'science' but just of a very low quality.
@sebster: As I've tried to explain, the argument that "homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural" has nothing to do with whether or not animals exhibit homosexual behaviors. Responding with such anecdotes is silly because it does not actually respond to the argument (however misunderstood it is by those who attempt to articulate it) and in its mismatched application it far overstates what could be, as you have pointed out, but fundamentally is not a valid comparison.
Manchu wrote:@sebster: As I've tried to explain, the argument that "homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural" has nothing to do with whether or not animals exhibit homosexual behaviors. Responding with such anecdotes is silly because it does not actually respond to the argument (however misunderstood it is by those who attempt to articulate it) and in its mismatched application it far overstates what could be, as you have pointed out, but fundamentally is not a valid comparison.
If that is not what it means, generally, than you haven't given a better alternative to what it actually does mean (when others say it). You aren't telling us that 2+2=4, you are just telling us that 2+2 isn't 11. If the argument, typically made by laymen, not Catholic academics, isn't that it goes against what is colloquially termed as the natural order, than what does it mean? Most of the time I've heard the argument used, it was done so by people who aren't all that bright, and certainly wouldn't know a thing like Neo-Scholastic. Which leads to me thinking we are spending to much time focused on the arguments of idiots and not on ones of substance.
Manchu wrote:@sebster: As I've tried to explain, the argument that "homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural" has nothing to do with whether or not animals exhibit homosexual behaviors. Responding with such anecdotes is silly because it does not actually respond to the argument (however misunderstood it is by those who attempt to articulate it) and in its mismatched application it far overstates what could be, as you have pointed out, but fundamentally is not a valid comparison.
If that is not what it means, generally, than you haven't given a better alternative to what it actually does mean (when others say it). You aren't telling us that 2+2=4, you are just telling us that 2+2 isn't 11. If the argument, typically made by laymen, not Catholic academics, isn't that it goes against what is colloquially termed as the natural order, than what does it mean? Most of the time I've heard the argument used, it was done so by people who aren't all that bright, and certainly wouldn't know a thing like Neo-Scholastic. Which leads to me thinking we are spending to much time focused on the arguments of idiots and not on ones of substance.
Originally labelling homosexuality unnatural is derived from religious prejudice where 'natural' means 'in a state of gods grace.' But still, most people these days labelling homosexuality unnatural are not doing so in that context, and so yeh...you can tell them about queer goldfish.
Why more educated people insist on arguing at the level of less educated people is a great mystery to me. Or rather, it should be in the better world you've accused me of preferring.
"Nature" in the neo-scholastic sense does not refer to biology of humans but rather to the ontology of humans, especially in a moral sense. The concept is used in the sense of the phrase "the nature of God" rather than in the sense of the phrase "found in nature."
@whatwhat: You're getting closer but no, "natural" is not merely a stand in for the relationship of grace to humans (which Aquinas and his imitators would have talked about as supernatural).
Manchu wrote:@whatwhat: You're getting closer but no, "natural" is not merely a stand in for the relationship of grace to humans (which Aquinas and his imitators would have talked about as supernatural).
Come again? In gods grace, as in: in gods vision, preferable by god etc. Most homophobic views are inherent from hundreds of years of religious dominance where nature was generally thought as as what god has created, hence something heretical to the religion (homosexuality for example) could be described as unnatural.
But again most people these days Manchu really aren't thinking that laterally when they call homosexuality unnatural.
I agree, whatwhat. Most people who call homosexuality "unnatural" have a very confused idea of what that word means. I've also come to the conclusion that people who claim it is "natural" are just as confused.
That's giving them too much credit. There are certainly some people who do recognise the current common definition of "natural" and are genuinely arguing that homosexuality is not natural by that definition.
When people say that homosexuality is unnatural, they seem to be making a moral judgment. That does not indicate that they are merely thinking about what does or does not occur "in nature," that is, among various species of animals.
Some maybe but some (in this very thread for example) are actually arguing on that 'it does/doesn't happen in nature' level.
For example I have heard people before bring up evolution and how if everyone were homosexual it would not happen and the species would be extinct etc. in an argument that homosexuality is unnatural. That was certainly not brought up to back an argument that homosexuality is unnatural as in it is immoral.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for homosexuality being immoral Stuart Lee says it best...
You mean, there are people who say "homosexual behavior does not occur in animals and thus it is wrong for humans to exhibit homosexual behavior." The first premise in that argument is equivalent to saying "grass is not green." What can be said in the face of this? Nothing. Best to ignore it. (Just like the idea that God created fossils to fool scientists.) Moreover, what animals are doing or not doing has nothing to do with human morality.
Manchu wrote:You mean, there are people who say "homosexual behavior does not occur in animals and is thus it is wrong for humans to exhibit homosexual behavior." The first premise in that argument is equivalent to saying "grass is not green." What can be said in the face of this? Nothing. Best to ignore it. (Just like the idea that God created fossils to fool scientists.) Moreover, what animals are doing or not doing has nothing to do with human morality.
Well yes there are people that biggoted and stupid. But no not really what I mean is there are people who say homosexuality is unnatural, which does not necessarily mean it doesn't not occur in animals yet still is in the context of the modern definition of 'natural'.
Moreover, what animals are doing or not doing has nothing to do with human morality.
Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?
Manchu wrote:So why is it necessary to bring up homosexual behaviors in animals to counter that argument?
It's not. I'm not relating what I have said to your previous discussion with others in this thread btw. What they have said may be unnecessary. I'm just saying there are people who oppose homosexuality on the basis that's unnatural on many different levels. Some are just dumb, agreed.
For example here is another argument realting to homsexuality being unnatural in the context of the modern definition of 'natural' rather than one concerning mora,lity. Courtesy of generalgrog...
generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.
Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?
generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.
Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?
GG
It's 'purpose' is whatever we choose to do with it.
This merely mechanical evaluation of the penis is deficient, seeing as how it does not take into account the neurological dimension or the relationship to the rest of the body. Moreover, it entirely ignores a "natural" (bilogical or moral) account of sexual fulfillment, even within the bounds of heterosexual marriage, and I don't think it can be taken seriously (assuming you meant it to be taken seriously).
If you believe in creationism yeh . Or just 'purpose' on it own, is what I should have said without 'intended.'
Thing is by the way generalgrogg said that point it's obvious that he actually finds the idea of anal sex disgusting rather than having any issue with something not being used for it's purpose. If that was the case he'd probably be living a very mundane life.
generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.
Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?
GG
You're being too obviously functional. Humans enjoy recreational sex, it's about more than mere reproduction but there is a requirement for sexual fulfilment for mental health. Masturbation and oral sex similarly have their benefits without the goal being reproduction. Anyway, you seem to be assuming that anal sex is exclusive to homosexuals, it isn't. Quite simply, anal sex isn't for everyone, some gay people don't do it and some heterosexual people do.
Moreover, what animals are doing or not doing has nothing to do with human morality.
...this is a repitition of my response to Howard.
Manchu - I don't think I've said that homosexuality in animals proves it's a 'moral act'. I've used it to demonstrate that it is an act that occurs widely in nature. I've not created a moral argument for homosexuality beyond saying that it is a harmless consensual act...which as a moral argument should stand on its own. What animals do should not instruct our morals, animals kill and rape each other, we shouldn't do that. I've made that quite clear in previous pages. It's separate to the point being made that addresses the claims that homosexuality is either unnatural, or a 'choice'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:If you believe in creationism yeh . Or just 'purpose' on it own, is what I should have said without 'intended.'
Thing is by the way generalgrogg said that point it's obvious that he actually finds the idea of anal sex disgusting rather than having any issue with something not being used for it's purpose. If that was the case he'd probably be living a very mundane life.
Well frankly I find the abuse of well designed tools like a screwdriver being used to prise open tins and stir paint disgusting. Manchu disappoints me, no wait is offends me actually. It's a sin against innocent household tools.
I'm starting to wonder how a screwdriver does operate as a tin opener. Do you just stab a hole through the top and pour out the contents or is there more to it?
whatwhat wrote:I'm starting to wonder how a screwdriver does operate as a tin opener. Do you just stab a hole through the top and pour out the contents or is there more to it?
I meant a flat screwdriver, usually associated with a bucket of housepaint.
whatwhat wrote:I'm starting to wonder how a screwdriver does operate as a tin opener. Do you just stab a hole through the top and pour out the contents or is there more to it?
I meant a flat screwdriver, usually associated with a bucket of housepaint.
Howard A Treesong wrote:...Anyway, you seem to be assuming that anal sex is exclusive to homosexuals...
Where did I say that?
I merely asked a question.
Similarly..what is the main purpose of the mouth? To eat, speak, breathe, taste? or something else. What about the ear? To hear? or something else? The nose? To smell or something else?
If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.
"If it feels good.. do it" is not necessarily natural, in that it may not be what was intended by the creator.
Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".
dogma wrote:As far retroactive confirmation of the hypothesis: any hypothesis which cannot account for the observations from which it is drawn is a really bad hypothesis, which is why its important to test against the data that was originally observed.
What I'm saying is that a test is irrelevant if there isn't a sizable unknown in play. Otherwise I see nothing distinguishing science from all perception of the material world.
Howard A Treesong wrote:It can still be called 'science' but it's certainly not of a standard where anyone would publish it and in fact does not reach a level where you can draw a decent conclusion. Non-science is where someone does not attempt to follow the scientific method, once following it you are on the scale of 'doing science', but the quality is all important and that scale goes from the highest quality to very poor.
I'm not talking about the quality of the conclusions though. What I'm saying is that the process I described is not following the scientific method, or is at least too far from it to be considered science.
generalgrog wrote:Similarly..what is the main purpose of the mouth? To eat, speak, breathe, taste? or something else. What about the ear? To hear? or something else? The nose? To smell or something else?
If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.
"If it feels good.. do it" is not necessarily natural, in that it may not be what was intended by the creator.
Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".
GG
Well...why can't we do whatever we want with our bodies? Really, I mean most of these things are harmless. If you want to argue about what isn't natural and healthy then cigarette smoking should be a lot worse than homosexuality. It's bad for you, bad for others and is an activity only rendered possible because of the ability of humans to manufacture and refine plants to produce an artificial product.
Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".
GG
To be fair GG that mucky dog also rubbed itself into a frenzy on my knee-cap once so you might be right there mate.
And i once saw my mate's rabbit trying to hump the corner of its cage?
Unless merely being in my proximity is enough to give other mammals an orgasm!?
mattyrm wrote:To be fair GG that mucky dog also rubbed itself into a frenzy on my knee-cap once so you might be right there mate.
That's actually a sign that your dog doesn't respect you. Dogs dry humping is a pack mentality thing, I'm not sure if domestic dogs are even capable of being 'gay'. Don't take this as any kind of argument against gay animals in general or any slight against the attractiveness of your leg, whichever one it is that your dog 'prefers'.
generalgrog wrote:Similarly..what is the main purpose of the mouth? To eat, speak, breathe, taste? or something else. What about the ear? To hear? or something else? The nose? To smell or something else?
If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.
"If it feels good.. do it" is not necessarily natural, in that it may not be what was intended by the creator.
Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".
GG
Unlikely that the dog finds the act pleasurable, as I think there are only a few animals that actually do engage in sex for more than just procreation.
But again, GG, so what? If a man wants to spend his life making free with a plastic doll, who am I to label him? "Judge not, lest ye be judged" says the Bible, and on that I'll agree. I find it very hard to believe that God has any real qualms with what humans, ant-like as they must be to him, do with their time. Why would he? It doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the Almighty has the need to micromanage human existence?
(not meant as a barbed comment, incidentally, am genuinely curious as to what you think about this)
Howard A Treesong wrote:...Anyway, you seem to be assuming that anal sex is exclusive to homosexuals...
Where did I say that?
I merely asked a question.
Similarly..what is the main purpose of the mouth? To eat, speak, breathe, taste? or something else. What about the ear? To hear? or something else? The nose? To smell or something else?
If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.
"If it feels good.. do it" is not necessarily natural, in that it may not be what was intended by the creator.
Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".
GG
Hmmm, ever consider that we may not know what exactly what our various body parts were "intended" to do? Perhaps nothing was "intended" at all?
And what about someone who is born blind? What is the purpose of their non-functioning eyes? God created them that way. Why did he make them blind? What about kids born with autism? What's the divine purpose behind that? Or infants born with heart complications? Surely God made them that way for a reason. There's got to be a purpose for it.
God knows everything right? When he was creating things like autism, heart conditions, and birth defects, surely he knew that they would bring nothing but suffering to those he created, right?
So clearly he has our best intentions at heart, and if God says that the purpose of a penis is not to be shoved up someone else's rectum, then we should obey without question.
Oh, I have some land to sell you. And don't worry, that's its purpose. It exists so that I can sell it to you. God told me.
rubiksnoob wrote:
Hmmm, ever consider that we may not know what exactly what our various body parts were "intended" to do? Perhaps nothing was "intended" at all?
And what about someone who is born blind? What is the purpose of their non-functioning eyes? God created them that way. Why did he make them blind? What about kids born with autism? What's the divine purpose behind that? Or infants born with heart complications? Surely God made them that way for a reason. There's got to be a purpose for it.
God knows everything right? When he was creating things like autism, heart conditions, and birth defects, surely he knew that they would bring nothing but suffering to those he created, right?
So clearly he has our best intentions at heart, and if God says that the purpose of a penis is not to be shoved up someone else's rectum, then we should obey without question.
Oh, I have some land to sell you. And don't worry, that's its purpose. It exists so that I can sell it to you. God told me.
rubicsnoob, what you are referring to is the classic problem of evil. The basic premise goes like this, "Why would an all loving God allow evil to exist." This has been a question asked even back to the ancients. Augustine dealt with the issue in his writings. There have been volumes of writings from theologians and philosophers about this issue. I wouldn't presume to be an expert on the issue, but I can point out a few things.
Two kinds of evil: Moral evil, such as murder, rape and theft..etc and Natural evil such as diseases, earthquakes, birth defects etc. From a Biblical perspective the Creation is under a curse going back to the fall of Adam and Eve. It's from the curse that the problem of evil began. God allows bad things to happen which can and will bring suffering to peoples lives.
I recomend you do a google search on "the problem of evil" as you can get much more detail from people that have spent their entire lives on the issue. But rest assured that you are not the first person to bring this objection up.
rubiksnoob wrote: Hmmm, ever consider that we may not know what exactly what our various body parts were "intended" to do? Perhaps nothing was "intended" at all?
And what about someone who is born blind? What is the purpose of their non-functioning eyes? God created them that way. Why did he make them blind? What about kids born with autism? What's the divine purpose behind that? Or infants born with heart complications? Surely God made them that way for a reason. There's got to be a purpose for it.
God knows everything right? When he was creating things like autism, heart conditions, and birth defects, surely he knew that they would bring nothing but suffering to those he created, right?
So clearly he has our best intentions at heart, and if God says that the purpose of a penis is not to be shoved up someone else's rectum, then we should obey without question.
Oh, I have some land to sell you. And don't worry, that's its purpose. It exists so that I can sell it to you. God told me.
rubicsnoob, what you are referring to is the classic problem of evil. The basic premise goes like this, "Why would an all loving God allow evil to exist." This has been a question asked even back to the ancients. Augustine dealt with the issue in his writings. There have been volumes of writings from theologians and philosophers about this issue. I wouldn't presume to be an expert on the issue, but I can point out a few things.
Two kinds of evil: Moral evil, such as murder, rape and theft..etc and Natural evil such as diseases, earthquakes, birth defects etc. From a Biblical perspective the Creation is under a curse going back to the fall of Adam and Eve. It's from the curse that the problem of evil began. God allows bad things to happen which can and will bring suffering to peoples lives.
I recomend you do a google search on "the problem of evil" as you can get much more detail from people that have spent their entire lives on the issue. But rest assured that you are not the first person to bring this objection up.
GG
Here's my problem with it:
God supposedly knows everything right? Well then he must've known in creating people who commit moral evils like rape, murder, and theft, that they would commit those evils. See what I mean? If God knew that Eve was going to bring about original sin and curse all of creation, why the hell did he create her in the first place??
If God does know everything, he's sadistic. If he doesn't, then the bible is wrong. (Isaiah 46:10, Act 2:23, Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5) <---- all these verses portray God as all knowing.
I do believe in God, but not in the traditional theistic sense of the word. I do not believe in a sentient creator; a thinking being who consciously makes decisions. My reasoning is that the traditional concept of God is overly anthropomorphized, and thus likely to be man-made and false. I find the idea that such a god exists to be highly dubious, and inherently flawed. If God truly exists, then there is no way that it could be fully comprehended, much less described by human beings in a 2000 year old book. All we have to base things off of is our own experiences, and as such, the way we perceive things cannot possibly be adequate to comprehend such mind-boggling ideas such as "God". Even our ideas of what constitutes sentience, and even existence are extremely limited. How can we know that our ideas of what constitute sentience or existence hold sway elsewhere in the universe? What about higher dimensions? Other universes? We simply do not have the mental faculties to comprehensively understand these things and the result it that our ideas of things such as God are patently flawed, if not flat out wrong.
But if the traditional concept of God is true and there is such a God, than he/she/it isn't worth worshiping in my opinion, as they haven't done too great of a job taking care of their creations.
generalgrog wrote:
Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?
Two things:
1) You're already implying design by discussing purpose.
2) Purpose does not imply singularity. One thing can have two purposes, or one purpose can be conceived of as a compound property. For example, the rectum can be thought of as a component of the waste system, and a source of sexual pleasure. In fact, both sexes of human sexual organs function loosely in both those roles (at least to the same extent that the solid waste tract does).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want"
But no one would actually argue that. No matter how badly you may want to, you cannot eat with your ear; barring some powerfully gruesome artifice.
generalgrog wrote:
You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.
Well, not really. Again, you still have to consider physical possibility.
generalgrog wrote:
Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.
You also have whole dens of evil in which they paint up little men and use them to act out fantastical battles simply because the desire to do so strikes them. If you're really going to argue from this standpoint, then you've got to be judicious about it, and doing that doesn't leave a lot of room for anything short of "eat, sleep, procreate". Oh, and worship, if your particular holy book calls for it.
Surely eating Cheetos must be more unnatural than nearly any sexual act a person can perform. I mean, what in nature even vaguely resembles a Cheeto? A carrot maybe?
@ dogma....can children be created through buggery?
And playing with toy soldiers is hardly a sexual act....come on keep on subject.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ rubicsnoob..You are certainly entitled to reject your creator just like Adam and Eve did. He gave you freewill, just be prepared to accept the consequences of it later.
Manchu wrote:Why more educated people insist on arguing at the level of less educated people is a great mystery to me. Or rather, it should be in the better world you've accused me of preferring.
"Nature" in the neo-scholastic sense does not refer to biology of humans but rather to the ontology of humans, especially in a moral sense. The concept is used in the sense of the phrase "the nature of God" rather than in the sense of the phrase "found in nature."
My knowledge of the good book is pretty limited, so perhaps I’m not seeing a subtlety here, but how does that statement materially differ from the statement 'it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong'?
Manchu wrote:When people say that homosexuality is unnatural, they seem to be making a moral judgment. That does not indicate that they are merely thinking about what does or does not occur "in nature," that is, among various species of animals.
Nah, people make arguments all the time based on the idea that something is wrong because it doesn’t happen in the animal kingdom, or something is right because it does.
It makes no damn sense to me, but it certainly happens.
generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.
Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?
GG
If humanity’s moral and immoral actions were to be assessed on using body parts for their intended purpose, well then posting on the internet would be a very immoral act. Afterall, what’s the purpose of your fingers – to type on the internet or to wield tools to hunt your prey? What the purpose of your eyes – to read political arguments off of a monitor or to spot your prey?
Yet here you are, so obviously some forms of unnatural behaviour don’t bother you.
generalgrog wrote:If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.
Only if you take the example at its absolute most extreme. Obviously, some forms of deviance from the vanilla sexuality are more healthy than others, and some are less healthy.
The guy with the fetish for the plastic doll is almost certainly not in a healthy place, and is very unlikely to be happy. It would make sense for his friends to say ‘dude, you’re substituting human contact and intimacy for a plastic doll’ and hopefully in time he’ll get past it.
That’s the real issue, though, ‘is the person able to have a healthy, happy life?’ I know many homosexual couples who live healthy, well adjusted lives. They have built strong relationships with a single partner, to the point where they want to stand in front of all their friends, and tell them they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Compare that to the folk that suppress their homosexuality, and end up in incredibly unhappy marriages until something breaks.
Call either one natural or unnatural, it doesn’t matter. But the former is a whole lot healthier than the latter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:@ dogma....can children be created through buggery?
They can't be created through kissing either? Should we stop kissing?
And playing with toy soldiers is hardly a sexual act....come on keep on subject.
Manchu wrote:"Nature" in the neo-scholastic sense does not refer to biology of humans but rather to the ontology of humans, especially in a moral sense. The concept is used in the sense of the phrase "the nature of God" rather than in the sense of the phrase "found in nature."
My knowledge of the good book is pretty limited, so perhaps I’m not seeing a subtlety here, but how does that statement materially differ from the statement 'it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong'?
Trying to separate the Bible from Catholic philosophy and theology is like trying to separate light from reflection. Biblical insights have for this tradition the same value as observable phenomena to the scientific method. That said, this line of thought isn't merely legalistic. There is no satisfaction taken in the statement "it's wrong because we read as much in holy scripture." Thomas Aquinas and his imitators believed that God is the very soul of reason. Sin for them was finally unreasonable for the fact that it was incompatible with the ultimate destiny of human beings, as revealed in Christ--a destiny which they held to be the perfection of human nature.
Manchu wrote:Trying to separate the Bible from Catholic philosophy and theology is like trying to separate light from reflection. Biblical insights have for this tradition the same value as observable phenomena to the scientific method. That said, this line of thought isn't merely legalistic. There is no satisfaction taken in the statement "it's wrong because we read as much in holy scripture." Thomas Aquinas and his imitators believed that God is the very soul of reason. Sin for them was finally unreasonable for the fact that it was incompatible with the ultimate destiny of human beings, as revealed in Christ--a destiny which they held to be the perfection of human nature.
So it is different, because it isn't a purely relying on scripture. Instead it is to be taken as self-evident, in a sense?
Evident in the nature of man, where man is only wholly known in the light of divine revelation.
Personally, I've never been too moved by the methodology and language or scholastics or neo-scholastics. As far as moral theology goes, I think this is one of the loveliest and most persuasive bits of text ever penned:
In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.
In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.
That is very similar to the Apostle Pauls writings in his epistle to the Romans.
It is from a document called "Gaudium et spes." As I said, GG, separating the Bible from Catholic teaching is like trying to separate light from reflection.
Manchu wrote:Evident in the nature of man, where man is only wholly known in the light of divine revelation.
Personally, I've never been too moved by the methodology and language or scholastics or neo-scholastics. As far as moral theology goes, I think this is one of the loveliest and most persuasive bits of text ever penned:
In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.
While I don't always agree with Neo-Scholastic writing, they certainly had some interesting things to say.
I would disagree that it is impossible to separate Christianity from Catholicism. Since Protestantism has been around around for more than a week there are some forms of it that are not centered around it. In the West it is certainly going to affect the great majority but some Eastern forms of Christianity are night and day different. Than of course Eastern Orthodox, which grew up along side Catholicism would probably not give them that much credit. I don't disagree with the basic point, just the absolute degree to which you posit it.
Manchu wrote:Why more educated people insist on arguing at the level of less educated people is a great mystery to me. Or rather, it should be in the better world you've accused me of preferring.
"Nature" in the neo-scholastic sense does not refer to biology of humans but rather to the ontology of humans, especially in a moral sense. The concept is used in the sense of the phrase "the nature of God" rather than in the sense of the phrase "found in nature."
My knowledge of the good book is pretty limited, so perhaps I’m not seeing a subtlety here, but how does that statement materially differ from the statement 'it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong'?
Manchu wrote:When people say that homosexuality is unnatural, they seem to be making a moral judgment. That does not indicate that they are merely thinking about what does or does not occur "in nature," that is, among various species of animals.
Nah, people make arguments all the time based on the idea that something is wrong because it doesn’t happen in the animal kingdom, or something is right because it does.
It makes no damn sense to me, but it certainly happens.
generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.
Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?
GG
If humanity’s moral and immoral actions were to be assessed on using body parts for their intended purpose, well then posting on the internet would be a very immoral act. Afterall, what’s the purpose of your fingers – to type on the internet or to wield tools to hunt your prey? What the purpose of your eyes – to read political arguments off of a monitor or to spot your prey?
Yet here you are, so obviously some forms of unnatural behaviour don’t bother you.
generalgrog wrote:If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.
Only if you take the example at its absolute most extreme. Obviously, some forms of deviance from the vanilla sexuality are more healthy than others, and some are less healthy.
The guy with the fetish for the plastic doll is almost certainly not in a healthy place, and is very unlikely to be happy. It would make sense for his friends to say ‘dude, you’re substituting human contact and intimacy for a plastic doll’ and hopefully in time he’ll get past it.
That’s the real issue, though, ‘is the person able to have a healthy, happy life?’ I know many homosexual couples who live healthy, well adjusted lives. They have built strong relationships with a single partner, to the point where they want to stand in front of all their friends, and tell them they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Compare that to the folk that suppress their homosexuality, and end up in incredibly unhappy marriages until something breaks.
Call either one natural or unnatural, it doesn’t matter. But the former is a whole lot healthier than the latter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:@ dogma....can children be created through buggery?
They can't be created through kissing either? Should we stop kissing?
And playing with toy soldiers is hardly a sexual act....come on keep on subject.
Natural only matters when it comes to sex?
Indeed. At the end of the day, a great deal of what humans do is to be considered unnatural. We artificially create new compounds from chemicals found naturally, we have discovered the use of pills to alter the way our bodies function for a limited time and we can even split atoms to release massive amounts of power to use. The very food you eat could be considered unnatural, as it is forced to grow in great quantities under controlled conditions as opposed to in the wild, often pushing the species far beyond the population barriers that would have limited it were it not being farmed, yet I would be surprised to find anyone on here willing to call agriculture wrong because of that. Why then single out homosexuality? There are far, far worse things that humans do that are worthy of your attention.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Indeed. At the end of the day, a great deal of what humans do is to be considered unnatural. We artificially create new compounds from chemicals found naturally, we have discovered the use of pills to alter the way our bodies function for a limited time and we can even split atoms to release massive amounts of power to use. The very food you eat could be considered unnatural, as it is forced to grow in great quantities under controlled conditions as opposed to in the wild, often pushing the species far beyond the population barriers that would have limited it were it not being farmed, yet I would be surprised to find anyone on here willing to call agriculture wrong because of that. Why then single out homosexuality? There are far, far worse things that humans do that are worthy of your attention.
QFT.
Screw natural. If they can scan my baby gravy in the future and make sure my kids wont have cancer or diabetes or genetic defects or whatever, im all for it. Natural gives us dodgy eyes and dodgy backs and dodgy knees and hereditary illness and male pattern baldness. Im all for playing "God" using modern Science.
For example, my time in the commandos has given me a dodgy knee, i want a robot one by the time i am 50.
generalgrog wrote:@ dogma....can children be created through buggery?
Actually, yes, it can happen; it just isn't terribly efficient.. But then neither is the vaginal method. Its simply more efficient, in terms of pregnancy rates, than anal sex.
Of course, that only matters if you think there is a purpose to anything other than those that we inject into the world.
To put it another way, I don't find arguments from the nature of God as especially distinct from arguments from the nature of morality; meaning that you're still talking about an individuated sort of preference justified according to a tradition of which you are a part. In my mind, if you really want to get at morality, then you have to generalize in a fashion that is inclusive of all traditions, which is why I almost always argue from a sort of iterated utilitarianism.
generalgrog wrote:
And playing with toy soldiers is hardly a sexual act....come on keep on subject.
You were talking about the general attitude of "eat, drink, be merry", so I developed an example indicating that everyone adopts that attitude to some extent. As such, singling out sexual behavior is pointless without a judicious use of informational context, which even the Bible largely fails to provide.
The comparison seems apt to me. These days especially, fellas snogging fellas (and whatever else) isn't any more deviant than grown men playing with children's dolls.
Monster Rain wrote:What the hell are we even talking about, anymore?
I'm mostly just trying to keep the thread going, because having the phrase 'George Takei is great' on the first page of OT makes OT and DakkaDakka in general an objectively better place.
@ Manchu: First of all, I think your sig is pretty wonderful.
Secondly, I think the real question here is whether or not Golden Age Sulu would win in a fight against Harold. Or Kumar. Or whoever is playing him in these new movies.
sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:What the hell are we even talking about, anymore?
I'm mostly just trying to keep the thread going, because having the phrase 'George Takei is great' on the first page of OT makes OT and DakkaDakka in general an objectively better place.
So does that mean that most theories based around astronomy are therefore unscientific? 
