Cuba

It's not lost and I stand by that I said, If people in a tyrannical society do not resist the decisions of who is forcing them they are acting in a form of agreeance, despite being coerced. That brings that society into a state of consensus. The decision is made, therefore society moves on. The action is what is important, as it contributes to the end result more than when someone simply disagrees with what they are being forced to do. Do I agree with this? No. Does it make it not true? No. The reason I am persisting is because of the incredible amount of wishy washy mabyes, possiblies, and perhaps' rather than solutions to the question at hand. Ethics is largely dictated by humanity, humanity is opinionative, Ethics is opinionative. Its ok to share an opinion so that we can argue towards something that is less opinion and more ethically correct.

I understand that reasoning. Thank you for providing it. I do agree with your last statement, but I will try and make a few posts about the field of achaeology in respective boards to try and garner more intrest on this forum. Maybe if I can get enough I will bring this up again with a bit more local evidence to back my request up. Thanks again.

I suppose I am less concerned with the technical definition, everything could be considered science I suppose if you break it down enough. But I get your point. I just think science can be conveyed threw imagry via stimulation of the brain. Its the same with observing an experiment without knowing the parameters. You make assumptions automaticly, loose hypothisis. Which can lead to further ideas. I'm not saying art is an exact science, or that its a science at all, it can however be a powerful form of inspiration.

How can we make decisions without coming to a consensus of some sort? If we couldent society would never progress. Even if that consensus is forced its still a consensus. The reason for this forum is so that decisions can be made threw discussion and argumentation, rather than a tyrannical authority. Whether or not its the right way to go about it is up for debate, regardless thats the purpose of this forum. (I hope)

I was initially baffeled as to why such a forum would not exist here, I am also familiar with how physical scientists have treated social sciences with disdain in the past (personal experience from past arguments and lectures,) So I will freely admit that I am a touch defensive about it (even though my studies are vastly in the field of ethics.) Saying that I did not present a case however seems to be a bit much, thats pretty much all I have been doing for the last three posts. I gave reasons why a board for archaeology would be viable, I explained some of the impact social sciences can have and have had with physical sciences and how they interact. You want me to make a case for change, yet I made it rather clear in my first post that I think there should be a Social Science Board, subsequent posts explains why I think that. If that is not making a case then I'm not really sure what you are after. If I thought I had leverage I would simply demand that there be a board, I have made no such demand. I have displayed my dismay at the lack of apparent intrest in what I find to be an interesting and easy to discuss brance of study. I would never try an intimidate a moderator, that is just stupid. Unless you consider defending my point of view as intimidation. Your forum rules specifically mention to not take it personally when critisism is given. I am not attacking you personally, I however am a critic of the fact that there is no social science board. Saying that "something could be discussed is not the same as should be" could be said about anything depending on your perspective field of study and intrest in the topic at hand. Edit: Swansont: I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to read and reply. Nothing argued, nothing gained. I am learning and I appreaciate your input. I have seen several excellent posts made by you and I do respect your knowledge. Not trying to brown nose, just making it clear that despite one argument I'm not trying to disrespect anyone.

I made a musket and the only education I have to really back up gunsmithing is a ton of experience with fixing guns growing up, a couple metal shop classes in high school, and a hell of a lot of trial and error. Blacksmiths in the early days of guns learned their trade threw apprenticeship or the same way as I did. I might also mention when you say basic weapon systems I think of a slingshot and a lead ball, not an assult rifle. Thats a modern magazine fed auto/semi-auto firearm, developed over centuries. Nothing basic about it. Swan, yes Browning had employees. Some of his original concepts were purely his imagining however. Which are indeed still being manufactured.

I agree. So that says you would not be a proponent for re-introducing species, but what about keeping them in captivity? Is it ethical to proverbally bring them back from the dead only to keep them tightly controlled?

Heres the score: You asked me what do these social sciences tell you? I answered, which you then turned to fit your own needs. Saying that since archaeology uses other sciences it does not deserve its own forum board is like saying Earth Sciences Should all be called Geology, or Physics should be confined to maths. No neither of those make sense, nether did what you said. Each of the subjects in red you spoke of could be discussed under the topic of archaeology for specifically achaeological reasons, and some simply do not have a place other than "other science" or your infamous "speculations" thread. You could just as easily have a discussion about realitivity in physics, maths, and philosophy under the named field for the named field. Social Sciences are the same way. Also determining the story of a 3000 year old campsite takes as much history and science as imagination(educated opinion), which is largely accepted in the achaeological community. This forum sees opinion and automatically goes full trash-can. So without its own thread such speculations would be filed with every other creationalist/unsupported crazy. Religion is an important part of Social Science. IT IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE. Though it is the least scientific of the bunch. Which is just ironic to me that it is here. You can call it phylosophy all you want its still a social science. I'll use your old institution defenition of what is and is not a physical science on that one. I will refrain from giving a come-back to the later comments, I am not a troll, I am however interested in discussing this. I can be civil if I try...even if Im screaming inside.

Not addressing the rest of my post because you agree, or? And to me Logic has an awfully profound influence on science to not at least be considered a major contributor.

Why is it wrong to consider in black an white? Seems to me you either support it due to the benifits outweighing the consquences, or visa versa. I wait with baited breath to be told I am wrong and why specifically.

Pehaps because I am new here or, maybe in reading threw some of the guidelines and news posts I missed the part about this being a Physical Science (i.e. as institutionalized education defines it) Forum. Which yes I believe is crap. The field of achaeology has advanced several fields of science, including medicine threw anylizing patturns of disease, geology threw digs, climate change threw movements of civilizations, advancement of society as a whole (pshycology of civilizations i.e. sociology,) supporting claims of prominent scientists from antiquity (History), discovering advancments in horiculture, the origins of domestication of animals (which no doubt Darwin used as a control to support his claims of natural selection), I could go on... All of which apparent "physical" sciences are more than happy to make use of in their own research and theories when its conveinent for them. Let alone anthropology, and while it is not a Social Science, Paleontology is an extreamly useful science in understanding evolution and the geological, and biological timescale of the earth. These are fields that not only have made huge advancments in history and science but also are massivly interested in scientific developments in all fields to futher improve their own research. Beyond even that the biggest blaring signal to me is that these fields are indeed science because they use the Scientific Method, or if not, something extreamly close! What could be discussed on a forum like this that would be relevant to physical science? Heck there are probably thousands of topics I could list... Carbon dating, Ethics of Civilization, New chemestry to determine dates or construction, mathematics used by ancients, changes in dialect (language would fit in here too), Human evolution, Natural selection, Psycological patturns threw out history, anylizing past genius, etc etc. The fact that you include religion and not these other social sciences is more of a slap in the face than not! You take the most fictional (though not unimportant) part of social science and include it on an apparently physical science forum. Its absolutly arse backwards in fact! I'm not angry I am simply impressed at the sheer size of the blinders being worn.

Where does "it depends" get us?

So you are really making the argument that fields like anthropology, achaeology, and Sociology are not science? Seems a bit like classic bigotry to me. I could argue that there is more science in achaeology than in several other fields discussed here and that it involves almost every field. Its mind boggling that the excuse for not having achaeology on this site is that this is a forum for "science." Its laughable.

The point was simply that it would effect the natural order. No I do not know presicsly which species would be effected, I am not a zoologist nor biologist. It takes neither however to understand Natural Selection. Nit pick if you like, add more variables but the question remains the same. Is it right that we bring back an individual species on an individual basis based on the consequences and/or benifits of that action, or not? The fact that you are picking apart my arguments via variable information that actually does not change the question makes me think you are more trolls than scientists. I am not making a claim, I am asking the question that I have yet to see any appropriate arguments for or against. Instead its simply a bunch of abnoxious proffessors pawing over symantics. If you do not like How I am presenting the question then present it better! Or better yet start an argument over why or why not! Make an argument of why it cant be black and white! Look for a solution! Instead I'm sure you will once again find every fallacy in the wording of this post and thumb it, which has nothing to do with the OP but rather your disparaging desire to correct others. /rantoff

Good to know someone else sees the circular patturn of this argument. I guess its time to leave at that...mic drop.

I'm not thinking of further choices I simply see more choices when I look at your model. In fact the instant I see it I automatically am dubious of either choice you present. Seems like a trick question. As for the odds adding to 1, you factor in the left and right choices but not outside influence, which regardless of the motion in your model there will always be. You imply that we are observing, is not that in itself an outside influence?

My aunt did this, she subsequently went compleatly insane. Backstory: Her brother and stepfather sexually assulted her when she was a child. She became a school counciler later in life in a backwoods hick town were similar expereinces were common with the children in the area. The pain of her experiences and those of the children she was supposed to be helping compounded into extreme anxiety. Instead of seeing a professional she went to her Baptist pastor who determined that the reason she was anxious was because she was not being honest with her community. Essentially he was blaming her, the victim. So in following with the pastors advise, basically what you are suggesting, she proclaimed to the entire town during mass that she had been raped. Rather than the supprt she needed she received hateful judgments, disgust, and social distancing. Even her husband began sleeping with other women. None of these things were justified of course but the result was none-the-less bad. She began acting erraticly, never left home, bacame excessivly parinoid and quit eating. She is now getting shock therepy under the authority of her cheating husband, whom has posted a restraining order against anyone in my aunts family that have actually tried to legitamatly help her. So no, personally I do not think this is a good idea at all as its a shot in the dark, it might work for some people, but I can attest that it does not work for everyone.

Looks like he just wants you to make a choice between A or B and define the probabilty of either choice. I agree the model is flawed as it implies further choice. However I will play along, I'd most likely take a right probably because I am right handed and American. I am still taking into account outside forces though (my own experience) which I think futher flaws your statement that the odds add up to 1. Bit out of my depth on this one though as far as the maths go.

Well statements like "smoking can lead to cancer" are considered true. Its the physicists that are going to argue with you when you start applying statements to reality (which is what they define as truth.) I think the source of this whole arguement is a misunderstanding of the definition of truth to different fields. The reason I was confused is when you say casual I automaticly think of it socially.

Are you saying that science can be socially defined as true? I'm confused. I'm a recovering hooligan, spent too much time away from what I love, logical argumentation.

SOCIAL SCIENCE -anthropology -achaeology -economics -History -Sociology -Religion -Political Science -Fine Art -More I'm sure. WHY is this not a thing here?!?!

Religious archaeology is both the worst and most lucrative form of archaeological research in my opinion. There is so much disinformation in religious history that it becomes a maze to research. The popularity of the subject matter however means any claim will be sensationalized. Which makes for bad archaeology. Until remains are identified or documents dating from the period specifically mention a man named Jesus who follows loosely with events detailed in the bible I am inclined to beleive that it is a very fictionalized account of a period rabbi that accumulated a substantial following which developed into religious theory over centuries. Which would follow with how a lot of other religions developed.

I would tell them yes, as peceptions have in impact on how we live our lives. That is interaction, which is not defining the truth of reality.

Then why beat a dead horse? The point is we cant prove it so we do the next best thing, observe and describe that which we perceive. Its pointless to chase truth, it will not change actions, nor will it change how we perceive them.

Really thats all I wanted to see, an admission that its a belief. You can have all the opinions you want, it will not give strength to a logical statement however. My stance is that I cannot prove it either way, which is in fact a true logical statement. Edit: I cannot prove reality exists Nor can I prove reality does not exist Therefore reality (truth) may or may not exist Is there a fallacy in that?