Nicker on 8/5/2023 at 04:48
Quote Posted by Qooper
Definitions are ideas and as such don't exist in the physical world. Definitions vary between cultures, people and ideologies, as do classifications. The scientific method does not give us definitions.
Exactly. Definitions apply to words and we always define words with other words and the meanings of those words change constantly.
IMHO, explaining the world is what science does - crafting the best explanation using the best existing evidence. Defining the terms it uses to form its explanations is preparatory to those explanations. In fact, science often falls short with it's definitions, using ambiguous words like "theory" when more precise terms are available.
Not-God save us if science is called upon to "define" reality.
Tocky on 8/5/2023 at 05:25
Quote Posted by Nicker
I never said that science was a logical fallacy. I said that improperly appealing to its authority was a logical fallacy.
You still have not resolved the non sequitur of drawing a line between the fact that a zygote is dividing cells and conclusion that it is not a person. You simply asserted it.
Actually you did not say that improperly appealing to it's authority was a logical fallacy. Go back and read. The only authority of science is in provable fact. That is all it has ever been. There is nothing improper about believing in provable fact. Fallacy does not exist in it because of the word provable. Something perforce cannot be a fallacy if it is provable. There are admitted conjectures based on past information but those are admitted. Those cannot be a fallacy because they are admitted at the outset.
You are still going to claim a mass of cells from a human are what a person is then? Okay. Then you have to claim a quart of blood is. That is also a mass of dividing cells from a human. Are you prepared to do that? BTW the "at what point" part is the important part to be defined by science and I base that on what makes us a person.
The rest I will get to later. I have to make tunafish sandwiches which are a mass of cells not still dividing.
BTW if you can't even define what a word is then good luck arguing.
Also I would prefer this were taken to the abortion debate. There is very little of the methods of argument here.
Qooper on 8/5/2023 at 19:42
Quote Posted by Tocky
Defining the world around us is all that science does. Definition is the whittling down of what a thing can be to what it is. We define to determine reality. Is this thing a rock or a million other things? See what it is made of then. That is the definition science does.
I apologize, I was not precise enough. A scientific method that is completely free from philosophy and worldview does not give us definitions. To clarify, I will need to decompose the scientific method:
- Based on observations, the scientist chooses what to hypothesize.
- An experiment is designed to test the hypothesis (, and hopefully predictions are made).
- The experiment is carried out and (hopefully quantitative) data is collected.
- Finally, the scientist analyzes the data to see if the measurements are evidence that support the hypothesis.
The scientific method can be divided into two types of actions, and several steps contain both types:
1. Actions, where the scientist uses instruments and senses to perform measurements on the physical reality.
2. And actions, where the scientist decides what to ask, what to assume, what to test for and how to interpret.
The second type of action is influenced by philosophy and worldview, and is more creative and allows for more freedom. As for the first type, the person doesn't (shouldn't) affect the measurement and in many cases this can even be automated. I was talking about the first type.
Going back to your rock example, we can determine that a physical thing (a specific instance) is a rock by examining (measuring) it, but the definition of a rock (the idea) doesn't exist in the physical world and we can't acquire it by measuring it. The ideas and the instances do not share the same world.
Quote:
That is nothing as amorphous as an idea.
What do you mean 'amorphous'? I don't necessarily consider ideas amorphous - some are, some aren't. I'm trying to figure out which concept you're assigning to the word 'idea' in this context, and why you're calling this concept amorphous. Could you clarify?
Quote:
Cultures, people, and ideologies be damned. If they want to call a rock a tree then they are wrong. They can have all the ideas that a rock is a tree that they want. It makes no difference in whether it is or not.
This isn't quite a strawman yet, but why would you give an example like that? I obviously didn't mean anything like that when I said that definitions vary between cultures, people and ideologies. There are many different ways to classify insects, for instance. Number of legs, number of wings, whether or not there is a vertebral column, you can form an inheritance hierarchy, or even a tag system based on features. In western natural science, there is one widely adopted classification, but it is by no means the only possible one. All of these are approaches from different perspectives, each giving significance to some particular aspects while placing less importance on others.
Quote:
After noticing your location I begin to understand your confusion in understanding the difference between definition and idea.
I understand that this is the internet, but I believe I've set the tone for a respectful conversation. Don't you think it's a bit inappropriate and disrespectful to claim someone is confused? It certainly isn't productive to the conversation.
The difference between definition and idea... What exactly do you think I mean by 'idea' here? I'm claiming that definitions are ideas. When you read that and to you it looks like confusion or nonsense, there are two options: either I am confused, or you are not getting what I mean. Out of these two options, it is more respectful to ask what the other person means. If nothing else, it'll get the other person to talk and blurt out more things for you to shoot down ;)
I like Plato's idea world to a certain extent, at least in this context, because it provides a useful way (and perhaps some common vocabulary) to look at ideas vs physical things. Things like numbers cannot be found in the physical world, yet we attach quantities to groups and amounts of things. And like I've explained, definitions cannot be found in the physical world either. The only physical things that we know of are fundamental particles and forces. From a certain reductionist perspective, not even atoms exist because the fundamental laws of physics only deal with fundamental particles. But the reason I choose not to look at the world through that lens is because I've found it useless as a foundation. The concept itself of reducing things to their parts I've found useful as a tool and framework to be applied in certain cases. I mean as an engineer I reduce problems into their components and those into further subcomponents until I have the necessary control.
Quote:
Religion declares an idea based on no definition of reality. It declares and demands faith. Science does not. It proposes based on definitions previously determined to be true through observation. It then tests to determine if true. Cultures, peoples, and ideologies may have no science. They may have ideas untested because they demand faith. Only science defines based on tangible reality. Science tests and finds out if an idea holds true with no faith in anything but observation. Having faith in things unobserved is not a way to determine reality. I would rather personhood were determined by reality.
Science can definitely be presented in that way, that it does not demand faith, but of course it demands faith. Faith that the physical reality can be reliably observed, and faith in the cognitive faculties and the sensory accuracy (and perhaps precision) of the observer. Some posit that the scientific method is the best (and some even claim the only) way to extract truth from the objective reality. But the scientific method hasn't been scientifically proven to hold this position. In fact, the foundation for the scientific method itself resides outside science, and sits comfortably in the cozy realm of philosophy.
Quote:
Also I would prefer this were taken to the abortion debate. There is very little of the methods of argument here.
This we can agree on. However, there's more to this than just the topic of abortion. I'd rather not derail that thread, so maybe I'll create another or find an old thread that's close enough.
One more thing. Nicker had an interesting point:
Quote Posted by Nicker
Exactly. Definitions apply to words and we always define words with other words and the meanings of those words change constantly.
I mean I don't exactly agree with Wittgenstein, if that's where you were going with this? I do think concepts themselves are immutable and objective, the same to us all and equally reachable. This is why I try to understand what concept the other person means, instead of arguing about definitions.
Nicker on 9/5/2023 at 12:58
This is still about argumentation so I choose to reply here. We already agree on the conclusion, just not the way to get there.
Quote:
You are still going to claim a mass of cells from a human are what a person is then? Okay. Then you have to claim a quart of blood is.
Are you going to strawman me again? I let it pass the first time but OK. A zygote is not a blood sample. That's a false equivalent (category error and the zygote of your straw-man). It is a special configuration of organic matter "designed" to replicate the form of its parents, with variations. However, you can also clone a replica from other differentiated cells. So it seems that a blood sample could be made into a human and your fallacious argument fails a second time.
If you are going to claim that this question is resolvable as a matter of objective fact, then you need to tell us, at what point along the continuum between zygote and baby, did the mass of cells become human.
Or you can skip the distraction argue about the actual issue in the debate over reproductive rights, bodily autonomy. And bodily autonomy is a concern for every person, even those without wombs.
That's been my point all along and that's why this is still relevant to a thread on argumentation.
Nicker on 9/5/2023 at 13:21
Quote:
I mean I don't exactly agree with Wittgenstein, if that's where you were going with this?
Hahahaha. I was on the verge of citing Ludwig: "Philosophy is merely a byproduct of misunderstanding language."
Quote:
This is why I try to understand what concept the other person means, instead of arguing about definitions.
Regrettably that must be done with abstract symbols, the language of our semantic circuit, and often we only have a shaky understanding of our own internal dialogue, let alone a firm grasp of the externalised internal dialogue of others.
That's why I think that defining terms within a particular discussion is the clearest path to understanding the concepts buried inside the speech of others but there is benefit to your end-run approach, Qooper.
Either way, I think both parties need to check in and correct definitions as they proceed.
On the other issue. I think there is still value in continuing the reproductive rights topic here, since it is proving to provide some grist for the mill despite being a confounding and provocative topic.
Tocky on 9/5/2023 at 15:10
"A scientific method that is completely free from philosophy and worldview does not give us definitions."
That's all that it does. It does not tell us how to feel about it's results or what to think. Maybe it was labeled a "philosophy" back in the 1400's but it certainly isn't now and it truly was not then either.
Science isn't etymology. But why are we bringing the meaning and morphology of words into this? That's just distraction. We are trying to get down to the bone of what a thing is. That is what science does. You can apply any feelings or philosophy to it after that you want. That isn't going to change what it is. That is a distraction from what it is. All it needs is the parameter for finding fact and that does not include philosophy. It defines the reality of a thing and not how we feel about it.
I was hoping we were going to get down to the physical reality of abortion but we can't if we are mired down in feelings and sociological mores or societal trappings and things of that nature.
Science can define what a person is. It can define it through brain activity and physical attributes. It won't tell you how to feel about truth. If that is what you are after then I suppose it can't do that.
Tocky on 9/5/2023 at 15:29
Quote Posted by Nicker
This is still about argumentation so I choose to reply here. We already agree on the conclusion, just not the way to get there.
Are you going to strawman me again? I let it pass the first time but OK. A zygote is not a blood sample. That's a false equivalent (category error and the zygote of your straw-man). It is a special configuration of organic matter "designed" to replicate the form of its parents, with variations. However, you can also clone a replica from other differentiated cells. So it seems that a blood sample could be made into a human and your fallacious argument fails a second time.
If you are going to claim that this question is resolvable as a matter of objective fact, then you need to tell us, at what point along the continuum between zygote and baby, did the mass of cells become human.
Or you can skip the distraction argue about the actual issue in the debate over reproductive rights, bodily autonomy. And bodily autonomy is a concern for every person, even those without wombs.
That's been my point all along and that's why this is still relevant to a thread on argumentation.
A zygote quite literally is a mass of cells that divide as blood is. The only difference is in the zygote having potential to become a person (left to it's current path and thus cloning is a distraction here). It isn't yet. It is a mass of dividing cells quite literally. I've never been about bodily autonomy but if we are to talk about that then we have to find the point at which the fetus has bodily autonomy and that is brain function. The level of it when it becomes a person and not the end result which may vary over a lifetime.
You can clone another person from other cells and it too will be a person at a certain point. That point is brain activity. Can we at least agree that brain activity of zero is not a person? It's just a body and as such has no autonomy. Can we start from that? If we can't then I'm out. I was never here for philosophical discussion. I was here for actualities. I had expected to get to those quicker than these distractions and hurt feelings has allowed. I was not trying to strawman, I was trying to work the discussion back to physical reality. Can we do that?
Qooper on 9/5/2023 at 20:48
Quote Posted by Nicker
Hahahaha. I was on the verge of citing Ludwig: "Philosophy is merely a byproduct of misunderstanding language."
Heh, yeah I thought it sounded very much like him :D
Quote:
That's why I think that defining terms within a particular discussion is the clearest path to understanding the concepts buried inside the speech of others but there is benefit to your end-run approach, Qooper.
Either way, I think both parties need to check in and correct definitions as they proceed.
I do agree that it's very helpful and sometimes necessary to agree on definitions for a discussion. I meant that definitions are like "tags" that point to a set of concepts, and as such they are in a way arbitrary since they can be made to point to any concepts we decide, and concepts are the actual "building blocks".
Quote Posted by Tocky
"A scientific method that is completely free from philosophy and worldview does not give us definitions."
That's all that it does. It does not tell us how to feed about it's results or what to think. Maybe it was labeled a "philosophy" back in the 1400's but it certainly isn't now and it truly was not then either.
Maybe our conversation isn't going anywhere, but I'll try one more time. Definitions are
decided, not gotten or found in the physical world. Measurements, which are the mechanical parts of the scientific method, do not give definitions. They give data. The decision making parts of the scientific method are where the scientist decides what to make of that data and how to classify it, and the scientist has quite a bit of freedom in this. This decision making is most certainly influenced by the worldview of the scientist and the scientific authority, be it a professor, a dean, whoever decides on the funding for the research, or the scientific community in general. Just look at social sciences, if they even can be called science. A woman used to be an adult human female having two X-chromosomes. These days there are scientists who can't even define what a woman is. I rarely use such strong language, but this is an absolute disgrace.
Quote:
Science isn't etymology. But why are we bringing the meaning and morphology of words into this? That's just distraction.
It is not a distraction, quite the opposite. Initially I wasn't going to drill down into the specifics of what I mean, but when there was clear misunderstanding, I deemed it necessary in order to bring
focus to the topic of this thread and build common understanding. But that effort needs to be mutual.
Quote:
We are trying to get down to the bone of what a thing is. That is what science does. You can apply any feelings or philosophy to it after that you want. That isn't going to change what it is. That is a distraction from what it is. All it needs is the parameter for finding fact and that does not include philosophy. It defines the reality of a thing and not how we feel about it.
I have not referred to emotions or been emotional. Respect and manners are just proper etiquette, regardless of emotions. As for getting to the bone of what a thing is, it isn't so simple. Like I mentioned earlier, if you really
really want to get to the physical core of what something is, you're left with nothing but elementary particles. However, it's crucial to recognize that everything has two aspects: the substance and the purpose, and this dual nature is present at every level.
- An up-quark and two downs are the substance, but their purpose is the neutron they form.
- A bunch of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorous is swimming about in a mucus, but turns out it's actually a long string that encodes volumes of information.
- Our measurements indicate there are some pieces of wood in an interesting configuration, but its purpose is to be sat on - it's a chair after all.
- The same five people spend 8 hours in the same room every Mon-Fri. I don't know the name of the company.
Quote:
Science can define what a person is.
I don't think the term 'person' is scientific to begin with. 'Human', 'mammal', 'male' and 'female' are terms that scientists have decided commonly agreed definitions for, but there is no agreed upon scientific definition for person. We don't even understand what consciousness is.
Quote:
It can define it through brain activity and physical attributes.
A definition like this can be made, but it wouldn't be a very useful one. By making such a scientific definition of the term 'person', you erase important context. If you still want, I can write more on this.
Quote:
It won't tell you how to feel about truth. If that is what you are after then I suppose it can't do that.
I believe I've made it clear that "how to feel about truth" is not what I'm after, unless you equate morals, convictions and our conscience with emotions, which I doubt you do.
Quote Posted by Tocky
Can we at least agree that brain activity of zero is not a person?
Brain-death means the person is permanently dead, although with our modern medical equipment we can keep the lungs breathing and the heart beating.
Quote:
If we can't then I'm out. I was never here for philosophical discussion.
Well the name of the thread is 'Argumentation', and philosophy is very closely tied to that, along with logic and reasoning. But I understand if you want to focus on the physical aspect only. I am still interested in discussing topics such as abortion, but not from a purely physical perspective devoid of morals and conscience. If this is not a deal-breaker for you, then I'll prepare my arguments and write more later.
RippedPhreak on 9/5/2023 at 20:58
Quote:
A zygote quite literally is a mass of cells that divide
Why do you keep banging on about zygotes? The main "abortion issue" isn't about a zygote. Leftist extremists want the right to kill a baby that could survive outside the mother's body. That's really what people are fired up about.
Tocky on 10/5/2023 at 02:52
Quote Posted by Qooper
A definition like this can be made, but it wouldn't be a very useful one. By making such a scientific definition of the term 'person', you erase important context. If you still want, I can write more on this.
I believe I've made it clear that "how to feel about truth" is not what I'm after, unless you equate morals, convictions and our conscience with emotions, which I doubt you do.
Brain-death means the person is permanently dead, although with our modern medical equipment we can keep the lungs breathing and the heart beating.
Well the name of the thread is 'Argumentation', and philosophy is very closely tied to that, along with logic and reasoning. But I understand if you want to focus on the physical aspect only. I am still interested in discussing topics such as abortion, but not from a purely physical perspective devoid of morals and conscience. If this is not a deal-breaker for you, then I'll prepare my arguments and write more later.
I don't care to scatter shot various points which are not what the important thing is about abortion. The only important thing is when an embryo becomes a person. I don't care if you want to call it human or any other word. Personhood is what is used in law and defining when it becomes that is very very damn important. It's the only thing that IS important. The "physical aspect" determines whether a woman is charged with murder or not. The zygote HAS NO BRAIN ACTIVITY. As such it is only alive as much as blood is alive. We need to determine when brain activity has progressed enough to call the embryo a person (or baby) because of the law and that law needs to be based on that.
Look at what RippedPhreak said. I mean, aside from it being a paranoid lie to get right wingers worked up, it is what some think about a mass of dividing cells with no brain activity. Sure he doesn't know what a zygote is but when laws are made the person making the law will have to know. The one thing he hit on that was true is that the end date for when an abortion will be allowed has to be decided. He said "leftist extremists" want to kill a baby that could live outside the womb and I suppose there are a miniscule few crazies that do but that only makes it all the more important to define a person. Those who think a day old zygote is a person are just as crazy as those who think a developing baby that can live outside the womb is okay to kill (with the exception of saving the mother).
Time. Parameters of when an abortion can be done. THAT is what is important. Nobody here seems to want to discuss that. Every time I try to work it around to that it goes off on what the word "is" means or some such and frankly that makes me want to tear my hair out. I never said definitions were not decided. What I was doing was trying to define with science and what we have previously determined is alive and human. Can we possibly do that? It not only is very damned useful it is going to be very damned used once codified into law. We do have an idea what a person (human or whatever damned term you choose to use) is. We do also have a good idea of what consciousness is and both are determined by a level of brain activity. I have no idea why anyone would deny that in favor of placing value on philosophical discussion particularly when a woman's life is at stake who is and can be defined as a human or person or whatever nomenclature you wish to label.
After you do that you can have all the morals and convictions you want. Have a big morals and convictions party if you want. Not discussing the important detail and dancing around it is driving me crazy.
