Do you love ugly truths?

[Duxwing]

Aren't there only 3 races, White, Black, Asian(Mongoloid). Everything else is an extension of that according to science?

Race doesn't exist in science, only geneology. In general parlance, more 'races' exist, among them Latino and Native North American.

Also how is intelligence defined deductively. There is some epistemological problems regarding finding truths in humanity and the social sciences. All you can do is look at history and create theories. To find a truth in a logical sense, is to form an a priori statement that is self-evident without probabilities or empirical evidence.

We don't even have a working definition of intelligence, so don't worry. The human brain is not like a CPU, whose performance can be measured in GHz, or an engine whose output can be measured in Joules. It has plenty of embedded 'software' and is 'designed' to handle a broad range of ideas. We can only wait for neuroscience to march on far enough for the brain to be more fully understood.

-Duxwing

 

[Analyzer]

Race doesn't exist in science, only geneology. In general parlance, more 'races' exist, among them Latino and Native North American.

True, but the more general you get the more slippery it gets. For example, Latino technically means someone with latin background. So does this include Portuguese, Romanian, Italian, French, and Spanish? The average joe when thinks of Latino thinks of Mexicans or brown people. There are plenty of people from Latin countries who look Anglo-saxan, Asian, or black.

We don't even have a working definition of intelligence, so don't worry. The human brain is not like a CPU, whose performance can be measured in GHz, or an engine whose output can be measured in Joules. It has plenty of embedded 'software' and is 'designed' to handle a broad range of ideas. We can only wait for neuroscience to march on far enough for the brain to be more fully understood.
-Duxwing

I agree Neuroscience is a world to explore, hopefully we can get somewhere in our lifetime.

 

[Duxwing]

True, but the more general you get the more slippery it gets. For example, Latino technically means someone with latin background. So does this include Portuguese, Romanian, Italian, French, and Spanish? The average joe when thinks of Latino thinks of Mexicans or brown people. There are plenty of people from Latin countries who look Anglo-saxan, Asian, or black.

And that's why scientists don't use race. I don't think that we laypeople ought to, either: like you said, it's too vague.

I agree Neuroscience is a world to explore, hopefully we can get somewhere in our lifetime.

Then send an INTPf poster called Radiant Shadow some encouragement. He works in the field.

-Duxwing

 

[ApostateAbe]

ApostateAbe, you are calling your beliefs "truths." If something is rationally debatable, it is not a truth. For example: a truth would be, "there are 24 hours in a day on planet Earth." if someone argued with that statement, they would not be able to logically get far. However, the statement "there is no God" has two impossible-to-prove sides.

I see a lot of "all," "never," and "believe" in your statement. You are aware, I assume, that statements with the words "all" and "never" are rarely true, and that "belief" has nothing to do with "truth"? The title of your thread should really be "Do You Love Ugly Beliefs?"

Nah, I typically include both certain conclusions and probable conclusions under the title, "truth," but I can understand your objection. The real problem is the ideological abuse inflicted on the word, "truth."

 

[Wolf18]

Nah, I typically include both certain conclusions and probable conclusions under the title, "truth," but I can understand your objection. The real problem is the ideological abuse inflicted on the word, "truth."

So by your definition, anything that is has not been proven INcorrect is a truth?

 

[kvothe27]

The problem with "ugly truths" or "brutal honesty" or whatever is that they tend to contain a lot of implied subjective values, such as your example of evolution weeding out losers via suicide. The winning/losing dichotomy strikes me as a simplistic way of analyzing the world and human behavior, much like viewing moral behavior in terms of good and evil. It just seems incomplete somehow -- by using it, we're reducing something potentially theoretically complex to something simplistically normative. I'm obviously not saying that complexity is always valued, to be sure.

Also:

I believe that pedophilia is a natural sexual inclination for some people and should be socially acceptable.

Whether it is a natural sexual inclination is neither here nor there as to whether it ought to be socially acceptable. If you think it is, please demonstrate how you've derived an "ought" from an "is." By what logical principle have you done this? Also, the word "natural" contains many definitions with much equivocation committed among them. The word "natural" is a very abused term. Please clarify what you mean by "natural."

 

[ApostateAbe]

Race doesn't exist in science, only geneology. In general parlance, more 'races' exist, among them Latino and Native North American.

"Races" exist in science, but they don't necessarily match the popular notions of "race" (i.e. all black-skinned people are popularly the same race), and many (not all though perhaps most) biologists join the popular denial of race. I think a better issue is not whether race exists in science but whether race exists in reality. It very clearly does, the same as breeds of cats and dogs and strains of potato, denoting the classifications of genetic tendencies within a species caused by geographic dispersions. I believe it unwise to deny race in the sciences, as you most certainly don't want to presume i.e. that an East Asian is just as likely to be adult lactose tolerant as a White, as they most certainly are not, with a definitive evolutionary explanation. Here is an article arguing for the acknowledgment of races in science:

bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf‎

We don't even have a working definition of intelligence, so don't worry. The human brain is not like a CPU, whose performance can be measured in GHz, or an engine whose output can be measured in Joules. It has plenty of embedded 'software' and is 'designed' to handle a broad range of ideas. We can only wait for neuroscience to march on far enough for the brain to be more fully understood.

-Duxwing

I think we do have at least a working definition of intelligence, though an objectionable one. Intelligence is measured by an IQ test, with the score of 100 set at the mean score of the UK and the standard deviation set at 15. The test corresponds to a measure of the abilities of pattern recognition and logic. IQ scores of a population tend to follow patterns that match other data (for example, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 for the IQs of identical twins reared apart), which means it is scientifically useful, whatever the objections may be.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So by your definition, anything that is has not been proven INcorrect is a truth?

No, because not nearly all unfalsified claims are probable.

 

[Duxwing]

"Races" exist in science, but they don't necessarily match the popular notions of "race" (i.e. all black-skinned people are popularly the same race), and many (not all though perhaps most) biologists join the popular denial of race. I think a better issue is not whether race exists in science but whether race exists in reality. It very clearly does, the same as breeds of cats and dogs and strains of potato, denoting the classifications of genetic tendencies within a species caused by geographic dispersions. I believe it unwise to deny race in the sciences, as you most certainly don't want to presume i.e. that an East Asian is just as likely to be adult lactose tolerant as a White, as they most certainly are not, with a definitive evolutionary explanation. Here is an article arguing for the acknowledgment of races in science:

bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf‎

I think that you're taking the concept of race too far. Different breeds of dog have measurably different levels of intelligence, size, strength and speed far in excess of whatever one could find in humans. And besides, the advent of modern genealogy means that we can be sure of whether someone is lactose intolerant or not; nevertheless, I doubt that scientists deny that people from certain ethnic backgrounds have higher or lower risks for this or that disease, etc.

I think we do have at least a working definition of intelligence, though an objectionable one. Intelligence is measured by an IQ test, with the score of 100 set at the mean score of the UK and the standard deviation set at 15. The test corresponds to a measure of the abilities of pattern recognition and logic. IQ scores of a population tend to follow patterns that match other data (for example, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 for the IQs of identical twins reared apart), which means it is scientifically useful, whatever the objections may be.

My point was that the IQ test is not working because it is objectionable. It flattens many facets of intelligence into one number, thereby eliminating the possibility to distinguish between intelligence in different areas, e.g. language versus mathematics. Currently, psychologists use a multivariate analysis to determine intelligence--I've taken one, scoring in the 99.9th percentile of not language intelligence, but one subsection of language intelligence.

Nevertheless, a .7 correlation is impressive.

-Duxwing

 

[ApostateAbe]

The problem with "ugly truths" or "brutal honesty" or whatever is that they tend to contain a lot of implied subjective values, such as your example of evolution weeding out losers via suicide. The winning/losing dichotomy strikes me as a simplistic way of analyzing the world and human behavior, much like viewing moral behavior in terms of good and evil. It just seems incomplete somehow -- by using it, we're reducing something potentially theoretically complex to something simplistically normative.

That's a fair objection.

Also:

Whether it is a natural sexual inclination is neither here nor there as to whether it ought to be socially acceptable. If you think it is, please demonstrate how you've derived an "ought" from an "is." By what logical principle have you done this? Also, the word "natural" contains many definitions with much equivocation committed among them. The word "natural" is a very abused term. Please clarify what you mean by "natural."

By "natural" I mean "biologically innate," as in independent from an individual's environmental influences. I actually didn't mean to imply that it is right because it is natural, but "right" and "natural" are two independent claims that require two separate arguments, though they may be related. I am considerably less certain of the claim that pedophilia is natural in light of BloodCountess88's points, but I have about the same position that it should be socially acceptable. I can explain further if you would like.

 

[kvothe27]

Why do you think pedophilia ought to be socially acceptable?

 

[Etheri]

Why do you think pedophilia ought to be socially acceptable?

Because it stems from an arbitrairy line based on age which is not universally accepted : age of consent goes from 12 (japan) to 18 (usa) as far as i'm aware. Pedophilia is often linked with rape, which is clearly bad, but if it is consentual by both sides... I do not see why this is diffrent than any other fetish? I've heard of stranger (legal) fetishes.

Ofcourse consent is often an issue. There's also the question on how easy it is to influence teenagers as an adult. I certainly draw the line at people who are physically mature. Children are children, and children shouldn't have sex. (Anyone that hasn't gone through puberty yet)

This is all just my opinion, and I don't consider myself a pedo. Also, you didn't quite direct that question to me, but I felt I'd answer it anyways!

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

ApostateAbe, you are calling your beliefs "truths." If something is rationally debatable, it is not a truth. For example: a truth would be, "there are 24 hours in a day on planet Earth." if someone argued with that statement, they would not be able to logically get far. However, the statement "there is no God" has two impossible-to-prove sides.

I see a lot of "all," "never," and "believe" in your statement. You are aware, I assume, that statements with the words "all" and "never" are rarely true, and that "belief" has nothing to do with "truth"? The title of your thread should really be "Do You Love Ugly Beliefs?"

1. "Truth" doesn't exist objectively (So so much for rational debate as a veracity mechanism). I happen to share many of the same beliefs. Most people are inclined not to because they are conditioned otherwise and/or it makes them feel good. The truth is that either, neither, and both are true simultaneously, so absolutes are actually acceptable and equally valid if not overwhelmingly preferred.

Veracity pie is a subjectively acquired taste. This is what he meant by "The real problem is the ideological abuse inflicted on the word, 'truth.'"

2. There are 23 hours and 56 minutes in a day.

I think that you're taking the concept of race too far.

This is what Snafu was good for. Knock yourself out.

Race: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=12495

Sex: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=12307

Why do you think pedophilia ought to be socially acceptable?

Is there any evidence that it causes damage in an environment where it is acceptable?

Follow up: Is damage bad?

 

[kvothe27]

Because it stems from an arbitrairy line based on age which is not universally accepted : age of consent goes from 12 (japan) to 18 (usa) as far as i'm aware. Pedophilia is often linked with rape, which is clearly bad, but if it is consentual by both sides... I do not see why this is diffrent than any other fetish? I've heard of stranger (legal) fetishes.

Ofcourse consent is often an issue. There's also the question on how easy it is to influence teenagers as an adult. I certainly draw the line at people who are physically mature. Children are children, and children shouldn't have sex. (Anyone that hasn't gone through puberty yet)

This is all just my opinion, and I don't consider myself a pedo. Also, you didn't quite direct that question to me, but I felt I'd answer it anyways!

So, pedophilia (with those who have gone through puberty) ought to be socially acceptable because of cultural differences in the age of consent and because you're unsure of how easily teenagers can be taken advantage of? This seems to be more of an argument for coming up with a better way of measuring consent among people of differing levels of maturity than an argument for the social acceptance of pedophilia (with those who have gone through puberty).

The problem with your argument about the social acceptance of some ethical quandary differing among cultures (or is not universally accepted) is that other social systems of morality, such as slavery, were acceptable among cultures different than our own (our modern culture obviously being different than our past culture). Systems of morality or legal laws differing among cultures is not an argument for abolishing that system of morality or legal law. Just because legal laws differ among cultures on slavery (past or present), for example, is not an argument for slavery (if you think slavery is fine and dandy, replace it with genocide or cannibalism or something else that you find morally reprehensible but differs among cultures because I'm not interested in derailing this thread in that way).

Also, your argument for drawing the line at puberty is a tautology ("Children are children, and children shouldn't have sex.").

Also, while in Japan, the national age of consent is 13, "prefectures can have ordinances that prohibit sexual activities with any minor under 18."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Japan

@thehabitatdoctor

I have not revealed my position on the matter, so I feel no responsibility to take on the burden of proof. I simply asked a question.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

@thehabitatdoctor

I have not revealed my position on the matter, so I feel no responsibility to take on the burden of proof. I simply asked a question.

That's cute and all, but they were rhetorical.

Unless there's a society somewhere where pedophilia is acceptable. I mean hey, the Greeks made out pretty well with pederasty.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URDCkQCwAes

 

[Etheri]

So, pedophilia (with those who have gone through puberty) ought to be socially acceptable because of cultural differences in the age of consent and because you're unsure of how easily teenagers can be taken advantage of? This seems to be more of an argument for coming up with a better way of measuring consent among people of differing levels of maturity than an argument for the social acceptance of pedophilia (with those who have gone through puberty).

The problem with your argument about the social acceptance of some ethical quandary differing among cultures (or is not universally accepted) is that other social systems of morality, such as slavery, were acceptable among cultures different than our own (our modern culture obviously being different than our past culture). Systems of morality or legal laws differing among cultures is not an argument for abolishing that system of morality or legal law. Just because legal laws differ among cultures on slavery (past or present), for example, is not an argument for slavery (if you think slavery is fine and dandy, replace it with genocide or cannibalism or something else that you find morally reprehensible but differs among cultures because I'm not interested in derailing this thread in that way).

Also, your argument for drawing the line at puberty is a tautology ("Children are children, and children shouldn't have sex.").

Also, while in Japan, the national age of consent is 13, "prefectures can have ordinances that prohibit sexual activities with any minor under 18."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Japan

@thehabitatdoctor

I have not revealed my position on the matter, so I feel no responsibility to take on the burden of proof. I simply asked a question.

By all means, you're right and I wasn't trying to hide that. I realise I still draw an arbitrairy line - puberty.
My argument of age was merely to indicate that 18 is stupid, since most people are sexually active before that age regardless. In truth, I don't see the diffrence with certain other fetishes that are acceptable. You can fuck just about anything you like any way you like, but not a consenting young adult depending on the country you live in.

Yet then again I do see reasons of why it is illigal and why making it illigal can be beneficial, as pointed out. My main issue is : There are many cases in which people are labeled 'pedophiles' without actually harming anyone. We wish not to jail any innocent people, but if they break a law without harming anyone they're definitely still guilty. Why do we prohibit things simply because their is a chance of abuse, without trying to just handle the abuse. Same reasoning goes for other laws, running around naked in public, drinking and drugs, wearing your favourite islamic garment, whatever...

If doing these things is done in a non-harmful way, why are we so judgemental about them? I see the dangers and the harm, but I think those should be handled appropriately, rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Wolf18]

1. "Truth" doesn't exist objectively (So so much for rational debate as a veracity mechanism). I happen to share many of the same beliefs. Most people are inclined not to because they are conditioned otherwise and/or it makes them feel good. The truth is that either, neither, and both are true simultaneously, so absolutes are actually acceptable and equally valid if not overwhelmingly preferred.

Veracity pie is a subjectively acquired taste. This is what he meant by "The real problem is the ideological abuse inflicted on the word, 'truth.'"

2. There are 23 hours and 56 minutes in a day.

1. I hear what you are saying, and I also agree with some of ApostateAbe's beliefs. I simply do not see enough proof to consider those beliefs –even those I agree with– to be truths.

2. That wasn't my point, but a better example, if you insist: a triangle has 3 sides.

SW

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

1. I hear what you are saying, and I also agree with some of ApostateAbe's beliefs. I simply do not see enough proof to consider those beliefs –even those I agree with– to be truths.

2. That wasn't my point, but a better example, if you insist: a triangle has 3 sides.

SW

1. You're missing the point, which is that proof is not a prerequisite for truth.

2. A triangle has 6 sides, inside and out.

 

[Duxwing]

1. You're missing the point, which is that proof is not a prerequisite for truth.

2. A triangle has 6 sides, inside and out.

1.) Proof is a prerequisite for knowledge of truth, barring revelation.
2.) The sides of a triangle are one dimensional and therefore cannot have an inside or an outside, just one side. We can be even more rigorous and refer to 'sides' as 'line segments'.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

1.) Proof is a prerequisite for knowledge of truth, barring revelation.
2.) The sides of a triangle are one dimensional and therefore cannot have an inside or an outside, just one side. We can be even more rigorous and refer to 'sides' as 'line segments'.

1. Qualia
2. Don't blame me for mirroring another's lack of rigorousness.

 

[The Introvert]

QUALIA!

But to OP:

What are you going to do about ugly truths? Hate them? I don't even think that your post references truths, but rather hypotheses. Whether or not they are testable is another question.

I personally don't like truth, because I would rather do dare. Always been a wild one.

 

[Wolf18]

1. Qualia
2. Don't blame me for mirroring another's lack of rigorousness.

Then we have a problem, don't we? I think we need to define truth. When truth becomes subjective, it becomes meaningless.

SW

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Then we have a problem, don't we? I think we need to define truth. When truth becomes subjective, it becomes meaningless.

SW

You're forgetting that if objective truth exists, it can never be known. It is subjective.

Would you like to pick up where Cog left off?

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14995

 

[Wolf18]

You and Cog were just throwing logical fallacies at each other, and I see this going the same way. You believe that truth is subjective, and I believe that it is subjective... and we're back to belief. Can you believe anything about Truth?

I'm rather not continue the debate between the two of you, as interesting as it looks. Sorry.

SW

 

[The Introvert]

You're forgetting that if objective truth exists, it can never be known. It is subjective.

It could be known if you were outside the limits of the system, looking in.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It could be known if you were outside the limits of the system, looking in.

Which is impossible given that the only closed system that exists is the universe.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Which is a caveat of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

How about this for an ugly truth?

"Objective truth doesn't exist."

 

[TheScornedReflex]

How about this for an ugly truth?

"Objective truth doesn't exist."

Look at a duck. Is it a duck? If we are both looking at and seeing the same duck, can it not be assumed that the duck objectively exists?

Could not help but to throw some fuel on the fire .

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Look at a duck. Is it a duck? If we are both looking at and seeing the same duck, can it not be assumed that the duck objectively exists?

Could not help but to throw some fuel on the fire .

Triangulation isn't good enough, sir. I mean we haven't even defined "duck" let alone solicited perspectives unbiased by the human condition. How do I know you see the same thing I do? How do I know that you even exist outside of a figment of my imagination?

 

[SpaceYeti]

I love truth. If a truth happens to be ugly, then it's true that the truth is ugly.

 

[Hadoblado]

How about this for an ugly truth?

"Objective truth doesn't exist."

This is getting absurd.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

This is getting absurd.

Indeed. *pelvic thrust*

 

[The Introvert]

Which is impossible given that the only closed system that exists is the universe.

The only one that we know of. What about something that's outside of our universe?

I think of it like a computer programmer and the computer program. The program can be manipulated and understood by the programmer, but not likewise. The programmer can directly influence the data of the program, but only by inputting the data himself.

Who's to say that something similar isn't true with our universe?
//derail
(sorry, but I can't help it. I see something and think of it and have to say it)

 

[SpaceYeti]

The only one that we know of. What about something that's outside of our universe?

I think of it like a computer programmer and the computer program. The program can be manipulated and understood by the programmer, but not likewise. The programmer can directly influence the data of the program, but only by inputting the data himself.

Who's to say that something similar isn't true with our universe?
//derail
(sorry, but I can't help it. I see something and think of it and have to say it)

Who's to say it is true? Perhaps this is a fun train of thought, but that's all it is. Nothing more.

 

[The Introvert]

Who's to say it is true? Perhaps this is a fun train of thought, but that's all it is. Nothing more.

Well, I dunno. Current physics seems to be knocking on the door of new dimensions and alternate universes (or maybe I'm just crazy). That's the kind of thing I would be talking about.

Different rules apply to different boundaries.

Alternatively, this could all be bullshit nonsense and everything just is, no creator and no objective truth. How the Hell am I supposed to know?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Well, I dunno. Current physics seems to be knocking on the door of new dimensions and alternate universes (or maybe I'm just crazy). That's the kind of thing I would be talking about.

Different rules apply to different boundaries.

Alternatively, this could all be bullshit nonsense and everything just is, no creator and no objective truth. How the Hell am I supposed to know?

Knocking on the door is not entering. All physicists who speak of the possibility are certain to remind you it's only a possibility. A very interesting one, but one we ultimately know nothing about.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The only one that we know of. What about something that's outside of our universe?

I think of it like a computer programmer and the computer program. The program can be manipulated and understood by the programmer, but not likewise. The programmer can directly influence the data of the program, but only by inputting the data himself.

Who's to say that something similar isn't true with our universe?
//derail
(sorry, but I can't help it. I see something and think of it and have to say it)

The universe by definition is all that is. "Multiverse" tends to be used when referring to the universe as all that man is able to know, but yeah...

everything just is, no creator and no objective truth.

 

[The Introvert]

Knocking on the door is not entering. All physicists who speak of the possibility are certain to remind you it's only a possibility. A very interesting one, but one we ultimately know nothing about.

Well, duh.

But this is a silly thread, so I can have silly thoughts and have fun with them.

Shoo! Be gone, realist! There's no room for you on this ferry!

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Triangulation isn't good enough, sir. I mean we haven't even defined "duck" let alone solicited perspectives unbiased by the human condition. How do I know you see the same thing I do? How do I know that you even exist outside of a figment of my imagination?

Duck= A big pink fluffy thing that resembles a bunny with wings and a horn.

Also, I am a part of everyone's imagination. I don't even exist!

 

[ApostateAbe]

Why do you think pedophilia ought to be socially acceptable?

I didn't forget about your question, so here is my answer. It is grounded in the evolutionary theory with respect to sex and human psychology. Following from evolutionary theory, rape of an adult woman by an adult man is expected to cause trauma in the mind of the woman because it means that the victim is used as a vehicle for undesired reproduction, squandering the opportunity for reproduction with better genes. If there was no evolutionary reason for such a trauma to occur, then the trauma could occur only with the assistance of society, per "role theory." Psychological trauma may be imposed by the social expectation that psychological trauma should occur. Social expectations are needed for such trauma to occur.

There is room for pedophilia to be expected to cause trauma following from evolutionary theory and not just role theory, but only when the victim is female. When the victim is female, then child sexual abuse carries risk that the reproductive organs of the female may be permanently damaged, rendering her less able to conceive and/or give birth as an adult. When the victim is male, then there is no such risk, and victims would experience trauma after child sexual abuse following only from role theory.

It turns out there are scientific meta-analyses that confirm this perspective, including "A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)" by Ulrich et al., which tested "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse" by Rind et al. See the Wikipedia article on the Rind et al. controversy.

But I do think there needs to be more and better science on the issue, one that fully accounts for the age of victims (a sexually molested 17-year-old is not nearly the same as a sexually molested 7-year-old) and all the confounding variables that accompany child sex abuse. If we let ideology and tradition decide whether child sex abuse should cause trauma, then it may needlessly contribute to the trauma and other baggage, forcing a victim into the social role of damaged goods.

The consequences for assailants are even worse, as there is no greater scarlet letter in western society than a "pedophile." Legislators in some southern states have considered the death penalty for repeat child sexual abusers. The point holding back such bills is that some criminals would be more persuaded to kill the children for the sake of staying uncaught. But, I think a greater issue is that any earthly sense of scale has been lost. Even if child sexual abuse does cause trauma following from biology, is the trauma so great that it merits the most horrible penalties imaginable? If so, what leads us to this extreme conclusion, but a Puritan-style runaway hatred?

 

[Wolf18]

What about something that's outside of our universe?

I think of it like a computer programmer and the computer program. The program can be manipulated and understood by the programmer, but not likewise. The programmer can directly influence the data of the program, but only by inputting the data himself.

Who's to say that something similar isn't true with our universe?
//derail
(sorry, but I can't help it. I see something and think of it and have to say it)

Good explanation. 2 questions about it:
1. How much proof is required to make something true?
2. Who –or what– is inputting the "data"?

SW

 

[Cherry Cola]

yeah I generally love them, they often get me laughing and I like to use them to annoy other people

in the wrong mood I can be a total wuss about them though :P

 

[Wolf18]

No, because not nearly all unfalsified claims are probable.

Interesting. How would you measure this? Where is the "line" between truth and everything else?

And, sorry to derail a bit, but THD, maybe that's the problem. There is a difference between a) "true" and "not true" and b) "true" and "false." There is "truth and everything else" vs "false and everything else." Therefore, there is probably a space for both "true" and "false" to intersect (try and imagine a venn diagram).

SW

 

[Brontosaurie]

I mean we haven't even defined "duck" let alone solicited perspectives unbiased by the human condition.

beautiful sentence