|
On July 02 2013 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:22 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:11 ZackAttack wrote:
I never said that science would discover civil or criminal law. Science is merely the best tool is trying to predict what will happen if a law is implemented. Scientific reasoning and logic gives us the information to to make sound decisions about how that law will affect the people it pertains to. With this information we can decide what laws are good and bad ideas and which to use. However, the religious right wants no abortion ever no matter what because it is "the word of god". One is an honest attempt at improving society, and one is arbitrary bullshit. I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). But if they have practical reasons for arguing against abortion, then why even mention the religious reasons. I don't see the point of, "abortion is a negative thing because of this, this, and this. Oh and god agrees with me". The only point to that is getting people in the Bible Belt to vote for you. It's completely dishonest. Because those reasons are invariably ties up in religion themselves, and because most Christians see the sinful nature of it to be reason enough. It is perfectly valid for a Christian politician to make an appeal to Christian sensibilities if his constituents (or a majority of) are Christian. It's not dishonest, it's just common sense.
I'm not a fan of this sort of raw majoritarianism where the 51% are allowed to tyrannize the minority.
|
If you use the rules in a holy text as a historical record, then it is just a record of what the laws were, not if they were effective or not. The people that lived then don't know anything more about whether a law is actually effective then we do. The only way to get that information is through objective scientific study.
|
On July 02 2013 03:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:22 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:11 ZackAttack wrote:
I never said that science would discover civil or criminal law. Science is merely the best tool is trying to predict what will happen if a law is implemented. Scientific reasoning and logic gives us the information to to make sound decisions about how that law will affect the people it pertains to. With this information we can decide what laws are good and bad ideas and which to use. However, the religious right wants no abortion ever no matter what because it is "the word of god". One is an honest attempt at improving society, and one is arbitrary bullshit. I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). But if they have practical reasons for arguing against abortion, then why even mention the religious reasons. I don't see the point of, "abortion is a negative thing because of this, this, and this. Oh and god agrees with me". The only point to that is getting people in the Bible Belt to vote for you. It's completely dishonest. Because those reasons are invariably ties up in religion themselves, and because most Christians see the sinful nature of it to be reason enough. It is perfectly valid for a Christian politician to make an appeal to Christian sensibilities if his constituents (or a majority of) are Christian. It's not dishonest, it's just common sense. I'm not a fan of this sort of raw majoritarianism where the 51% are allowed to tyrannize the minority.
I'm wary of majority rule too, but I don't think we should shoehorn majorities into irrelevance under a misguided attempt to protect minorities from ever not getting their way. Minority protections should, and do, exist. But the majority should have the most power in determining the specifics of how their government works.
|
On July 02 2013 03:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:22 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:11 ZackAttack wrote:
I never said that science would discover civil or criminal law. Science is merely the best tool is trying to predict what will happen if a law is implemented. Scientific reasoning and logic gives us the information to to make sound decisions about how that law will affect the people it pertains to. With this information we can decide what laws are good and bad ideas and which to use. However, the religious right wants no abortion ever no matter what because it is "the word of god". One is an honest attempt at improving society, and one is arbitrary bullshit. I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). But if they have practical reasons for arguing against abortion, then why even mention the religious reasons. I don't see the point of, "abortion is a negative thing because of this, this, and this. Oh and god agrees with me". The only point to that is getting people in the Bible Belt to vote for you. It's completely dishonest. Because those reasons are invariably ties up in religion themselves, and because most Christians see the sinful nature of it to be reason enough. It is perfectly valid for a Christian politician to make an appeal to Christian sensibilities if his constituents (or a majority of) are Christian. It's not dishonest, it's just common sense. I'm not a fan of this sort of raw majoritarianism where the 51% are allowed to tyrannize the minority.
The point of Democracy is to give strength to the majority... Would you rather the 1% tyrannize the majority?
|
On July 02 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:On July 02 2013 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:22 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:11 ZackAttack wrote:
I never said that science would discover civil or criminal law. Science is merely the best tool is trying to predict what will happen if a law is implemented. Scientific reasoning and logic gives us the information to to make sound decisions about how that law will affect the people it pertains to. With this information we can decide what laws are good and bad ideas and which to use. However, the religious right wants no abortion ever no matter what because it is "the word of god". One is an honest attempt at improving society, and one is arbitrary bullshit. I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). But if they have practical reasons for arguing against abortion, then why even mention the religious reasons. I don't see the point of, "abortion is a negative thing because of this, this, and this. Oh and god agrees with me". The only point to that is getting people in the Bible Belt to vote for you. It's completely dishonest. Because those reasons are invariably ties up in religion themselves, and because most Christians see the sinful nature of it to be reason enough. It is perfectly valid for a Christian politician to make an appeal to Christian sensibilities if his constituents (or a majority of) are Christian. It's not dishonest, it's just common sense. I'm not a fan of this sort of raw majoritarianism where the 51% are allowed to tyrannize the minority. The point of Democracy is to give strength to the majority... Would you rather the 1% tyrannize the majority?
No. We allow majorities to make decisions on some issues. We remove others from the reach of majorities in the form of rights. This is how a functioning democracy works.
|
On July 02 2013 03:46 ZackAttack wrote:
If you use the rules in a holy text as a historical record, then it is just a record of what the laws were, not if they were effective or not. The people that lived then don't know anything more about whether a law is actually effective then we do. The only way to get that information is through objective scientific study.
Historical data is just that--data. Science studies data--like the data historical texts provides....
Historical data is showing that a society previously used ______ rule sets and found them effective; we either ignore their experience or we accept them.
Science takes up multiply data points and analyzes them. We can either ignore history and pretend those data points are irrelevant, or we can learn from history and actually deal with those data points directly.
|
On July 02 2013 03:49 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:On July 02 2013 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:22 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:11 ZackAttack wrote:
I never said that science would discover civil or criminal law. Science is merely the best tool is trying to predict what will happen if a law is implemented. Scientific reasoning and logic gives us the information to to make sound decisions about how that law will affect the people it pertains to. With this information we can decide what laws are good and bad ideas and which to use. However, the religious right wants no abortion ever no matter what because it is "the word of god". One is an honest attempt at improving society, and one is arbitrary bullshit. I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). But if they have practical reasons for arguing against abortion, then why even mention the religious reasons. I don't see the point of, "abortion is a negative thing because of this, this, and this. Oh and god agrees with me". The only point to that is getting people in the Bible Belt to vote for you. It's completely dishonest. Because those reasons are invariably ties up in religion themselves, and because most Christians see the sinful nature of it to be reason enough. It is perfectly valid for a Christian politician to make an appeal to Christian sensibilities if his constituents (or a majority of) are Christian. It's not dishonest, it's just common sense. I'm not a fan of this sort of raw majoritarianism where the 51% are allowed to tyrannize the minority. The point of Democracy is to give strength to the majority... Would you rather the 1% tyrannize the majority? No. We allow majorities to make decisions on some issues. We remove others from the reach of majorities in the form of rights. This is how a functioning democracy works.
And hence the argument is not actually about the validity of the majority but is instead about what counts as rights and what doesn't count as rights. Simply wishing the majority has no say is, in itself, tyrannical.
|
On July 02 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:49 NovaTheFeared wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:On July 02 2013 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:22 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 03:11 ZackAttack wrote:
I never said that science would discover civil or criminal law. Science is merely the best tool is trying to predict what will happen if a law is implemented. Scientific reasoning and logic gives us the information to to make sound decisions about how that law will affect the people it pertains to. With this information we can decide what laws are good and bad ideas and which to use. However, the religious right wants no abortion ever no matter what because it is "the word of god". One is an honest attempt at improving society, and one is arbitrary bullshit. I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). But if they have practical reasons for arguing against abortion, then why even mention the religious reasons. I don't see the point of, "abortion is a negative thing because of this, this, and this. Oh and god agrees with me". The only point to that is getting people in the Bible Belt to vote for you. It's completely dishonest. Because those reasons are invariably ties up in religion themselves, and because most Christians see the sinful nature of it to be reason enough. It is perfectly valid for a Christian politician to make an appeal to Christian sensibilities if his constituents (or a majority of) are Christian. It's not dishonest, it's just common sense. I'm not a fan of this sort of raw majoritarianism where the 51% are allowed to tyrannize the minority. The point of Democracy is to give strength to the majority... Would you rather the 1% tyrannize the majority? No. We allow majorities to make decisions on some issues. We remove others from the reach of majorities in the form of rights. This is how a functioning democracy works. And hence the argument is not actually about the validity of the majority but is instead about what counts as rights and what doesn't count as rights. Simply wishing the majority has no say is, in itself, tyrannical.
You have correctly stated my position. Well done.
|
On July 02 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:46 ZackAttack wrote:
If you use the rules in a holy text as a historical record, then it is just a record of what the laws were, not if they were effective or not. The people that lived then don't know anything more about whether a law is actually effective then we do. The only way to get that information is through objective scientific study. Historical data is just that--data. Science studies data--like the data historical texts provides.... Historical data is showing that a society previously used ______ rule sets and found them effective; we either ignore their experience or we accept them. Science takes up multiply data points and analyzes them. We can either ignore history and pretend those data points are irrelevant, or we can learn from history and actually deal with those data points directly.
What is it that shows that those how effective those laws were? Even if they were it could be for outdated reasons, and current study is still better. It is data but it is terrible data that can easily be replaced by better data by current study.
|
On July 02 2013 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. Thus the law exists, not for any scientific purpose, but for a moral purpose. The law itself is applied scientifically, but it's existence not based on scientific research.
Dude. Plenty of laws exist that stem directly from scientific research. Laws that promote driver and passenger safety cars are the direct result of a public health-driven research effort into methods to reduce automobile death & injury. One example is seat belts. Once upon a time the public did not wear seatbelts while traveling by car. Sometime around the 60s a large body of automobile death & injury research revealed by how much seatbelts stood to reduce automobile death & injury in the US.
Here's an example of a research paper much like those that compelled law makers to enact stricter requirements for seatbelt use:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3644739/
What about restrictive tobacco use and advertising laws? Did they emerge out of thin air? Absolutely not! They stem from an enormous amount of scientific research into the correlation between tobacco use and localized cancers.
|
Don't forget most regulation, especially pollution. CFCs, asbestos, etc. etc.
|
On July 02 2013 04:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Don't forget most regulation, especially pollution. CFCs, asbestos, etc. etc.
To be fair, those regulations rely on a distinctly ascientific value judgment as well as scientific metrics.
|
On July 02 2013 04:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. Thus the law exists, not for any scientific purpose, but for a moral purpose. The law itself is applied scientifically, but it's existence not based on scientific research. Dude. Plenty of laws exist that stem directly from scientific research. Laws that promote driver and passenger safety cars are the direct result of a public health-driven research effort into methods to reduce automobile death & injury. One example is seat belts. Once upon a time the public did not wear seatbelts while traveling by car. Sometime around the 60s a large body of automobile death & injury research revealed by how much seatbelts stood to reduce automobile death & injury in the US. Here's an example of a research paper much like those that compelled law makers to enact stricter requirements for seatbelt use: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3644739/What about restrictive tobacco use and advertising laws? Did they emerge out of thin air? Absolutely not! They stem from an enormous amount of scientific research into the correlation between tobacco use and localized cancers.
They stem from existing data points, analyzed, and then regurgitated out. Until we realized driving cars around caused accidents, we didn't do the studies. We didn't invent a car and scientifically said we need to make sure seat belts happen. We allowed cars to be built, then built infrastructure to support those cars. Then, after enough data was collected, added restrictions to the production, use, and practices of the cars.
Science works with present data, it doesn't work with "future" data.
Normally things are allowed, (asbestos for example) and over time do we amend those prior rules. And only when we have enough data to support said amendment.
|
On July 02 2013 04:10 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:46 ZackAttack wrote:
If you use the rules in a holy text as a historical record, then it is just a record of what the laws were, not if they were effective or not. The people that lived then don't know anything more about whether a law is actually effective then we do. The only way to get that information is through objective scientific study. Historical data is just that--data. Science studies data--like the data historical texts provides.... Historical data is showing that a society previously used ______ rule sets and found them effective; we either ignore their experience or we accept them. Science takes up multiply data points and analyzes them. We can either ignore history and pretend those data points are irrelevant, or we can learn from history and actually deal with those data points directly. What is it that shows that those how effective those laws were? Even if they were it could be for outdated reasons, and current study is still better. It is data but it is terrible data that can easily be replaced by better data by current study.
Yes--it is data point that needs to be either proven wrong/outdated/irrelevant. Just like I said in my prior post... Simply ignoring it doesn't show that it is "wrong" or "outdated."
Once it is proven wrong/outdated/irrelevant all one needs to do is show the work proving that and seeing if the findings are relevant.
|
On July 02 2013 04:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 02 2013 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. Thus the law exists, not for any scientific purpose, but for a moral purpose. The law itself is applied scientifically, but it's existence not based on scientific research. Dude. Plenty of laws exist that stem directly from scientific research. Laws that promote driver and passenger safety cars are the direct result of a public health-driven research effort into methods to reduce automobile death & injury. One example is seat belts. Once upon a time the public did not wear seatbelts while traveling by car. Sometime around the 60s a large body of automobile death & injury research revealed by how much seatbelts stood to reduce automobile death & injury in the US. Here's an example of a research paper much like those that compelled law makers to enact stricter requirements for seatbelt use: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3644739/What about restrictive tobacco use and advertising laws? Did they emerge out of thin air? Absolutely not! They stem from an enormous amount of scientific research into the correlation between tobacco use and localized cancers. They stem from existing data points, analyzed, and then regurgitated out. Until we realized driving cars around caused accidents, we didn't do the studies. We didn't invent a car and scientifically said we need to make sure seat belts happen. We allowed cars to be built, then built infrastructure to support those cars. Then, after enough data was collected, added restrictions to the production, use, and practices of the cars. Science works with present data, it doesn't work with "future" data. Normally things are allowed, (asbestos for example) and over time do we amend those prior rules. And only when we have enough data to support said amendment.
yeah.. that's how science works. Observe things and then find the best possible/parsimonious way to explain the things via inductive reasoning.
|
On July 02 2013 04:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 02 2013 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. Thus the law exists, not for any scientific purpose, but for a moral purpose. The law itself is applied scientifically, but it's existence not based on scientific research. Dude. Plenty of laws exist that stem directly from scientific research. Laws that promote driver and passenger safety cars are the direct result of a public health-driven research effort into methods to reduce automobile death & injury. One example is seat belts. Once upon a time the public did not wear seatbelts while traveling by car. Sometime around the 60s a large body of automobile death & injury research revealed by how much seatbelts stood to reduce automobile death & injury in the US. Here's an example of a research paper much like those that compelled law makers to enact stricter requirements for seatbelt use: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3644739/What about restrictive tobacco use and advertising laws? Did they emerge out of thin air? Absolutely not! They stem from an enormous amount of scientific research into the correlation between tobacco use and localized cancers. They stem from existing data points, analyzed, and then regurgitated out. Until we realized driving cars around caused accidents, we didn't do the studies. We didn't invent a car and scientifically said we need to make sure seat belts happen. We allowed cars to be built, then built infrastructure to support those cars. Then, after enough data was collected, added restrictions to the production, use, and practices of the cars. Science works with present data, it doesn't work with "future" data. Normally things are allowed, (asbestos for example) and over time do we amend those prior rules. And only when we have enough data to support said amendment. yeah.. that's how science works. Observe things and then find the best possible/parsimonious way to explain the things via inductive reasoning.
He was trying to create the axiom that Science is the opposite of holy texts; I'm showing that they are not comparable. Religious texts, by its nature, is a historical document that is either believed or disbelieved. Science is the analysis of data points. They are not related.
|
On July 02 2013 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:10 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:46 ZackAttack wrote:
If you use the rules in a holy text as a historical record, then it is just a record of what the laws were, not if they were effective or not. The people that lived then don't know anything more about whether a law is actually effective then we do. The only way to get that information is through objective scientific study. Historical data is just that--data. Science studies data--like the data historical texts provides.... Historical data is showing that a society previously used ______ rule sets and found them effective; we either ignore their experience or we accept them. Science takes up multiply data points and analyzes them. We can either ignore history and pretend those data points are irrelevant, or we can learn from history and actually deal with those data points directly. What is it that shows that those how effective those laws were? Even if they were it could be for outdated reasons, and current study is still better. It is data but it is terrible data that can easily be replaced by better data by current study. Yes--it is data point that needs to be either proven wrong/outdated/irrelevant. Just like I said in my prior post... Simply ignoring it doesn't show that it is "wrong" or "outdated." Once it is proven wrong/outdated/irrelevant all one needs to do is show the work proving that and seeing if the findings are relevant.
It has to be relevant in the first place before anyone needs argue that it isn't. Just because its old doesn't mean it was right. If the only thing we know is that no abortions no matter what was the law a thousand years ago and we have no way to tell whether it was good or bad for the population. As it stands, this data is not quantitative or qualitative in any way. It tells us nothing, so it is irrelevant.
|
On July 02 2013 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 02 2013 04:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 02 2013 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. Thus the law exists, not for any scientific purpose, but for a moral purpose. The law itself is applied scientifically, but it's existence not based on scientific research. Dude. Plenty of laws exist that stem directly from scientific research. Laws that promote driver and passenger safety cars are the direct result of a public health-driven research effort into methods to reduce automobile death & injury. One example is seat belts. Once upon a time the public did not wear seatbelts while traveling by car. Sometime around the 60s a large body of automobile death & injury research revealed by how much seatbelts stood to reduce automobile death & injury in the US. Here's an example of a research paper much like those that compelled law makers to enact stricter requirements for seatbelt use: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3644739/What about restrictive tobacco use and advertising laws? Did they emerge out of thin air? Absolutely not! They stem from an enormous amount of scientific research into the correlation between tobacco use and localized cancers. They stem from existing data points, analyzed, and then regurgitated out. Until we realized driving cars around caused accidents, we didn't do the studies. We didn't invent a car and scientifically said we need to make sure seat belts happen. We allowed cars to be built, then built infrastructure to support those cars. Then, after enough data was collected, added restrictions to the production, use, and practices of the cars. Science works with present data, it doesn't work with "future" data. Normally things are allowed, (asbestos for example) and over time do we amend those prior rules. And only when we have enough data to support said amendment. yeah.. that's how science works. Observe things and then find the best possible/parsimonious way to explain the things via inductive reasoning. He was trying to create the axiom that Science is the opposite of holy texts; I'm showing that they are not comparable. Religious texts, by its nature, is a historical document that is either believed or disbelieved. Science is the analysis of data points. They are not related.
Oh gotcha. I was responding to a guy that said "no laws exist that are based on scientific research". Didn't see the rest of the context, my bad
|
On July 02 2013 04:38 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:10 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:46 ZackAttack wrote:
If you use the rules in a holy text as a historical record, then it is just a record of what the laws were, not if they were effective or not. The people that lived then don't know anything more about whether a law is actually effective then we do. The only way to get that information is through objective scientific study. Historical data is just that--data. Science studies data--like the data historical texts provides.... Historical data is showing that a society previously used ______ rule sets and found them effective; we either ignore their experience or we accept them. Science takes up multiply data points and analyzes them. We can either ignore history and pretend those data points are irrelevant, or we can learn from history and actually deal with those data points directly. What is it that shows that those how effective those laws were? Even if they were it could be for outdated reasons, and current study is still better. It is data but it is terrible data that can easily be replaced by better data by current study. Yes--it is data point that needs to be either proven wrong/outdated/irrelevant. Just like I said in my prior post... Simply ignoring it doesn't show that it is "wrong" or "outdated." Once it is proven wrong/outdated/irrelevant all one needs to do is show the work proving that and seeing if the findings are relevant. It has to be relevant in the first place before anyone needs argue that it isn't. Just because its old doesn't mean it was right. If the only thing we know is that no abortions no matter what was the law a thousand years ago and we have no way to tell whether it was good or bad for the population. As it stands, this data is not quantitative or qualitative in any way. It tells us nothing, so it is irrelevant.
Being that its the law that was followed for about 1900 years of western history--saying it isn't quantitative or qualitative is just being stubborn. I agree it is irrelevant--but not because it is a law that didn't or doesn't work; I agree it's irrelevant because what is important is civil liberties and I believe in protecting the liberties of a woman's right to her body.
But saying something that was successfully used in the past is irrelevant because you don't like the source is foolish. One should not forget history; even the bad parts of history should be argued against and faced head on to show why it was bad.
|
the example i gave is already happening, it's live and it's called: sex-selective-abortion, google it. sure it's a small step but when you consider the feminist agenda:
In contrast, in the dawn of this beautiful new fourteenth baktun where abortions may soon be free and safe and bountiful, we have arrived at the era of feminist selection. Instead of male gametes winning the evolutionary game by being the most aggressive, most violent, or by having the brightest chin feathers, women now calibrate male evolutionary success by choosing to procreate with men who are emotionally supportive, or intelligent, or who possess a host of desirable traits. Empowered with the ability to abort the offspring of sexually violent aggressors or men who cannot sustain lasting relationships, women will now cognitively decide the course of human history. Feminist selection protects women’s best interests, and, in turn, the best interests of their offspring -– at the expense of male sexual aggression.
In effect, free and legal access to safe abortions is the ultimate tool against patriarchy and the masculine dominance structure.
one can't help but be a sexist.
you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a girl, she decides to abort it, you go to sleep crying.
you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a boy, you decide to abort it, oh wait ... you go to sleep crying.
women want late term abortion to be legal so it'll make it easier for them to go for a sex-selective-abortion since the sex is roughly seen at 5months/20weeks by ultrasound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
