[thinker_jeff]

Moontanman, on 24 September 2011 - 11:33 PM, said:

Really? Just where is that line?

If you have read every post before this, you should know it has been answered already.
One knows that something exists, but may not know where it is exactly.

[Moontanman]

thinker_jeff, on 25 September 2011 - 02:50 AM, said:

If you have read every post before this, you should know it has been answered already.
One knows that something exists, but may not know where it is exactly.

Many people "know" many things that are not real in any sense of the word, I think there is no line between animals and humans because humans are animals. If you know where that line is i suggest you tell us instead of assuming we all "know" something when in fact you cannot possibly "know" what "One" knows any more than I can....

[thinker_jeff]

Moontanman, on 25 September 2011 - 03:32 AM, said:

Many people "know" many things that are not real in any sense of the word, I think there is no line between animals and humans because humans are animals. If you know where that line is i suggest you tell us instead of assuming we all "know" something when in fact you cannot possibly "know" what "One" knows any more than I can....

I don't understand why you jump into a discussion but don't want to read what have been discussed.
I said that the OP's animal means the animal not in human species, otherwise he shouldn't ask this question. For some reason we don't know, the OP hasn't clarified his concept.
The animal not in human species is a different identity from human; therefore, by logic, there must be a line between these two identities. Do you agree with that?

[Phi for All]

thinker_jeff, on 25 September 2011 - 03:56 AM, said:

The animal not in human species is a different identity from human; therefore, by logic, there must be a line between these two identities. Do you agree with that?

No.

Some things are easy to distinguish with a line between them. Shoes and socks are both something you wear, they're similarly shaped and they both go on your feet. A sock can be thickened and reinforced, almost made to do what a shoe does, but there will be a point where your efforts to toughen the sock will turn it into a shoe. When it's so tough and thick that you can't put a shoe on over it, the sock crosses the line and becomes a shoe.

You can't do the same thing with animals and humans. There are too many shared characteristics and not enough truly distinguishing factors.

Evolution doesn't always move towards complexity. Refinements that increase survival in an environment are generally selected, but there is no overall best structure to have. Put me in the ocean and I'd rather be a shark than human. Put me 1000 feet in the air and I'd survive better as a bird. 1000 feet underground and blind troglofauna are more skilled than I am.

[TonyMcC]

I sometimes wonder about how much of what we do is instinctive and how much is taught. Examples:-
Some animal species live in groups and some live solitary lives only coming together during mating times.
Are we instinctively gregarious (except for the odd loner or hermit)?
Some animal species generally mate for life and for some species sex is some kind of free for all when the opportunity arises.
Do we instinctively generally prefer to mate for life (except for a minority who prefer variety)?
Some animal species build a home which they inhabit all the time or return to regularly at breeding time whereas some animal species have no fixed abode.
Do we instinctively want to make a fixed home for ourselves and our offspring?
The male of some animal species care for and will protect their offspring against any threat. Some species impregnate the female and then leave her to bring up her offspring alone.
Do human males instinctively feel they must care for and protect their offspring ?
At the very least, I think it must be said that without answers to such questions the line between a human and an animal must be very hard to determine
- even if you feel that it does exist.

[thinker_jeff]

Phi for All, on 25 September 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

You can't do the same thing with animals and humans. There are too many shared characteristics and not enough truly distinguishing factors.

Phi for All, you are still repeating the some argument: the line between animals and humans doesn't exist because there are too many shared characteristics and not enough truly distinguishing factors.

Although you haven't mentioned the meaning of "animal", I assume that you mean animal as I do.

I don't want to repeat my logic once more, instead, I want to give one of the factors distinguished human and animal.

Human beings are scientifically studying animals; however, animals do not study humans scientifically.

[Phi for All]

thinker_jeff, on 25 September 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

I don't want to repeat my logic once more, instead, I want to give one of the factors distinguished human and animal.

Human beings are scientifically studying animals; however, animals do not study humans scientifically.

And if they did, would they cross the line and suddenly become human?

That's part of the problem. You can list all the things you think make us different from animals, but if animals suddenly started doing each and every one of those things, they wouldn't cross some sort of line and become human, would they? Just because you think humans aren't animals doesn't mean there is a line that separates them. You think you're being logical but you aren't taking everything into account. You are being very simplistic about it. You are making an Argument from Incredulity ("We're different; I can't believe there isn't a definite line you can point to that shows it").

[thinker_jeff]

Phi for All, on 25 September 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

And if they did, would they cross the line and suddenly become human?

I don't think this is a scientific argument (we're discussing in science, aren't we?) , maybe is a philosophical one.

Show me the evidence about "if they did".

[Moontanman]

thinker_jeff, on 25 September 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

Human beings are scientifically studying animals; however, animals do not study humans scientifically.

So then, before humans discovered the scientific methods we were just animals?

[Ringer]

thinker_jeff, on 25 September 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

I don't think this is a scientific argument (we're discussing in science, aren't we?) , maybe is a philosophical one.

You can't have a scientific discussion without using scientific definitions. Choosing your own definition took this out of scientific discussion. Scientifically humans are animals so there is no distinguishing factor. Your definition is circular, as I have said before, and is blatantly non-scientific. As is saying we are above other animals, although it wasn't you who said this, because we cannot have an unbiased view. How do we know that there are not animals studying us? Maybe they are doing observational studies right now and don't want to interfere with our natural interactions.

If we wanted a purely scientific standpoint on what separates h. sapiens from other animals we would just give the biological species concept, which has its own problems. So the fact that we cannot mate and produce viable offspring is what separates us from other animals.

[thinker_jeff]

Moontanman, on 25 September 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

So then, before humans discovered the scientific methods we were just animals?

No. From my statement, it cannot derive out you statement logically.

Before human discovered the scientific methods we created lots of elements for scientific methods, such as language and math.

Ringer, on 25 September 2011 - 05:30 PM, said:

You can't have a scientific discussion without using scientific definitions. Choosing your own definition took this out of scientific discussion.

I have not defined anything, instead, I used a short term "animal" to replace a long term "the animal not in human specise". If you don't mind the bothering by the long term, I can do that just for you.

Ringer, on 25 September 2011 - 05:30 PM, said:

How do we know that there are not animals studying us? Maybe they are doing observational studies right now and don't want to interfere with our natural interactions.

Same issue as Phi. Show me the evidence.

This post has been edited by thinker_jeff: 25 September 2011 - 08:13 PM

[Ringer]

thinker_jeff, on 25 September 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

I have not defined anything, instead, I used a short term "animal" to replace a long term "the animal not in human specise". If you don't mind the bothering by the long term, I can do that just for you.

Actually you said "Does anyone believe that a human and an animal (not in human species) are the same?" and "The OP's "animal" means the animal not in human species, otherwise he asked a wrong question." So you are using a different definition of animals than is scientifically correct. As I said you are using a circular definition and is therefore not scientific. If you want to have a discussion of what makes us different from other animals you would have to be more precise. We are different from non-mammals in that we have hair and nurse our young.

Quote

Same issue as Phi. Show me the evidence.

Where is your evidence they are not? Just because we have never personally been witness to something doesn't mean it is not possible. Where is the evidence for your conclusion that there is a line between humans and non-humans that is less arbitrary than the biological species concept?

[Phi for All]

thinker_jeff, on 25 September 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

No. From my statement, it cannot derive out you statement logically.

I realize that English may be a second language for you, but it's frustrating to see you using the word "logically" so often when you are not being logical, and not putting sentences together correctly. It's not very precious of you.

Quote

Before human discovered the scientific methods we created lots of elements for scientific methods, such as language and math.

The scientific method (singular) was not "discovered". It was created from many techniques, put together as a way to reduce bias and opinion and, well, exactly the sort of thing you're doing when you say, "One knows that something exists, but may not know where it is exactly".

Quote

I have not defined anything, instead, I used a short term "animal" to replace a long term "the animal not in human specise". If you don't mind the bothering by the long term, I can do that just for you.

You continue to add phrases that make no sense in this context and further remove this from a scientific discussion. What do you mean by short term and long term with regards to animals and humans?

Quote

Same issue as Phi. Show me the evidence.

thinker_jeff, how can you possibly ask for evidence when you are the one who made the statement everyone is questioning you about? Where is your evidence that a line exists between animals and humans? Honestly, the cracking sound you hear is not only the thin ice upon which you stand, and the knuckles of frustration amongst the participants, it is the sound of patience drying up quickly.