OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
I don't think Johan was saying that wife-beating was right, or logical, just that the demonstration that it's wrong or illogical depends on accepting a big set of other principles, like "human life has inherent value" and "men and women have equal worth as people".

If that's where he's coming from, it's flawed. It's not necessary to invoke morality (and thus religion or ethics) to demonstrate that such behavior is illogical. The sexes don't even have to be "equal", nor the life of a specific person have a "value", however abstract.

I'm deliberately not explaining why, in the hopes *someone* (besides myself) understands the reasoning. It's not all that hard. But it may require some out-of-the-box thinking.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn,

Right. Newton's blind watchmaker isn't falsifiable. I don't believe that there is such a being, but we can't say that one exists or not. So, sensible people don't worry about it.

Viruses are *way* easier to create that actual living things. They are (to twist an analogy almost to the breaking point) just software, waiting to be acted on by living things. It may be possible to create life "from scratch". I kinda doubt it. The machinery barely works as designed -- our best guess is that about half of all conceptions spontaneously abort, generally in the first few cell divisions. I'm not sure we'll be able to manage "pure" in vitro creation of life, especially since folks who want to make new living things will find it much easier to simply change existing ones. (Ie, very few people will be interested in trying to figure out how.)

[Evil Dave]

Zen said:

Because "proof" is under the sway of "perception" and "understanding" which continually evolve. If you want to apply the "At this time, we believe:" to every fact that is presented by scientific conclusion, then it would be accurate. Science continually disproves other previsouly scientific facts, or finds and creates theories to plug the holes in otherwise grandly adopted factual systems.

It's hairier than that, but I don't wanna dig into Popper and Kuhn to remember how to argue the utter hairiness.

The short form goes kinda like this: some things which were previously the results of long chains of hypotheses are now considered facts. Mars isn't just a bright point in the sky that moves differently than the "fixed stars". We're positive it's a rocky world much more like the Earth than the Sun. Atoms are in the same Category, since you can (more or less) observe them directly with x-ray diffraction and electron microscopes. OTOH, the stuff that makes up atoms (or supposedly makes them up) isn't (yet) a real "fact".

Yeah, there's a lot of handwaving in that. Like I said, arguing it correctly is hard.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn said:

If that's where he's coming from, it's flawed. It's not necessary to invoke morality (and thus religion or ethics) to demonstrate that such behavior is illogical. The sexes don't even have to be "equal", nor the life of a specific person have a "value", however abstract.

I'm deliberately not explaining why, in the hopes *someone* (besides myself) understands the reasoning. It's not all that hard. But it may require some out-of-the-box thinking.

Then that someone is gonna have to explain it to me too, cause that's how I understand it. I buy into an ethical system that includes a Version of the Golden Rule. So, reasoning from that, I conclude I shouldn't beat my wife cause I don't want her to beat me. If there's a shorter route to that conclusion, it's beyond me.

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
I'm not sure we'll be able to manage "pure" in vitro creation of life, especially since folks who want to make new living things will find it much easier to simply change existing ones. (Ie, very few people will be interested in trying to figure out how.)

Just because it seems impossible to us now doesn't make it so. 200 years ago flying was impossible. Flying faster than sound was thought impossible 60 years ago.

(Yes, I know you didn't use the word "impossible". I use it to illustrate a point.)

It is easier (by far) to modify existing DNA than create DNA from scratch. By analogy, it used to be easier to dig up diamonds than make them in a lab. That's not true anymore. I think you see where I'm going with this.

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
Then that someone is gonna have to explain it to me too, cause that's how I understand it. I buy into an ethical system that includes a Version of the Golden Rule. So, reasoning from that, I conclude I shouldn't beat my wife cause I don't want her to beat me. If there's a shorter route to that conclusion, it's beyond me.

I hinted that reasons (note the plural) exist that are independent of ethics.

Ethical reasons such as the Golden Rule are valid. As are legal consequences such as going to jail, or social consequences such as marital breakup and the damage such behavior causes to children who witness it (directly or by seeing its effect upon their mother). But our system of laws are based on ethics, morality, and by extension, religion. However, there are other reasons why this particular behavior is irrational. As I said, think outside the box.

[daesthai]

Arryn said:

... let's pretend that religion is the prosecution side in a court of law. It's the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The only obligation the defense has (we can call it 'science' if you wish) is to point out to the jury (aka the public) whether the prosecution has made its case or not...

So why is religion the prosecution while science is the defense (rather than the other way around)? =)

[devil's advocate mode]

I know, I know....you're about to cite this as another example of attacking the attacker, but that's really not my point here. I'm not trying to prove or justify religion. I'm just saying that in a debate between science and religion (both of which as they've been used so far in this topic are VERY generalized and amorphous), science cannot be taken for face value either. Within "science", things are constantly being updated, discovered, and changed. Theories abound and things thought to be fact are constantly overturned as more is learned.

I agree with you on one point. "Religion" cannot prove itself. I cannot argue that statement. But, as you so vehemently point that out, keep in mind that science in general has trouble proving itself, too. Especially in terms of universal origins. There are theories and conjecture, some with supporting evidence, but nothing proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yes, religion fails the proof test. But you're seeming to infer that science would stand up better under the same litmus test. But if you step back objectively, just the same way religion is, science is defined and "proven" by itself. Scientific fact, rather than being universal truth, seems to be more of a sense of "this is what fits our knowledge at this time". Constantly changing, filled with exceptions and anomalies, is it any less of a fallacy to put all of our trust in science? So in this case, I think the attacking the attacker shoe fits on both feet. =)

[/devil's advocate mode]



~Dae

[johan osterman]

Arryn: I am not shifting the burden of proof. I am not claiming that there is a god or any other positive claim. I am however questioning your assertion that the activities you described warrants the conclusion that the persons engaged in said activities do not 'Subscribe to logic', that assertion on the other hand is a positive claim and the burden of proof comes to rest at your supremely arrogant feet, so if we are to continue this discussion I suggest you shoulder the burden and place it on your equally arrogant shoulders. And even were I to concede the point that theistic belief was irrational, I would not consider that sufficent evidence to label the theist an irrational person or a person not subcribing to logic, only ludicrous sci-fi entities go about their lives without inconsistant beliefs. As a final case in point I'd like to point out that Godel was a theist, and even tried his hand at an ontological proof of God. While this certainly in itself does not make theism rational it throws some very serious doubt on your assertion that theists does not Subscribe to logic.

Logic is a tool, it does not have normative moral implications. You can apply logic to ethical premises and arguably derive a functioning moral. But morally repugnant behaviour is not illogical, although it might be inconsistent with your other moral beliefs or premises.

Tuna: Infalsifiability does not render a theory false by default. It might be reason to consider it bad science or outside the scope of science or uninteresting but certainly not false by default. You might notice that any tautologies you produce are unfalsifiable, but they are certainly not false, if they were boys would not be boys and bachelors would not be unmarried men. I would also like for you to point out where exactly Arryn is making use of 'the scientific method'.

[johan osterman]

Arryn: I see you had some other reason to why wife beating was illogical. Don't be coy now and lest hear it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Evil Dave said:

Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.

For many there is the belief that the world was created or at least put in motion, to a plan. For many of those there is nothing saying that the plan couldnt be billions of years of evolution. Trying to push all creationists into the can of some 6-day timeline is going for an easy argument (and kindof christio-obnoxious which is what torqs me off)