Intoscience

I agree, and understand, I started out by stating that iNow is a very intelligent and knowledgeable person (which I believe to be true). I respect this, and also his opinions, whether in agreement or otherwise. I have no intention to attack anyone personally, but will point out an error (if I believe it to be one) in a person's approach, interpretation or judgement. Obviously I'm as guilty as anyone else and should be held to account should I present in the same manner, which maybe I have or appeared to do so on occasion within this thread. I'm part of this forum to enjoy the discussions, hopefully learn lots and in doing so gain a greater understanding in all aspects of philosophy and science. Debate and often some confrontation can be useful and or constructive (provided it stays civilised not personal).

I never said a dog hasn't the capability, I'm saying it's less likely since its choices are more limited. Why does a dog get jealous? What drives that jealousy? Is our interpretation of a dog being "jealous" correct?

I don't think it assumes unlimited free will, it assumes more options of choices to make. Even with those extra choices and greater intelligence, humans still often follow instinctual urges, many of which are traits that go back millennia. A human however has a greater, though not infallible, ability to control those urges. Hence why there can be often a clear distinction between a human acting malicious and a dog acting instinctively.

Depends on your definition of evil to begin with? As humans we have developed the intelligence to make better more informed decisions, which includes moral ones. A dog maybe (I suggest most likely) acting out of instinct, fear or just a pure inability to understand and reason, rather than malice. A human has more choices, and has the ability to consider the moral implications to a far greater level than most, if not all, other animals which (I suggest most)are/or maybe completely incapable of doing so. This is one of the things that sets us aside, we have a moral responsibility born from our intelligence to act in a certain way. Though I don't disagree with the premise of second chances for all, I still believe those chances should be earned not freely given. The possible ramification of offering second chances willy nilly is that someone may suffer the consequences, then where is their second chance?

The riddle or not: A barber lives and works in a small town, he is the only barber in the town. The barber only ever cuts and shaves the hair of all the men who live in the town that never shave or cut their own hair. He never ever cuts and shaves the hair of all the men that do their own. Zeno's moving arrow paradox: Zeno suggested that the arrow never really moves because each of the smallest possible moments of its journey = 0 time and 0 distance so concluded that even every moment even to infinity only ever adds up to 0. This has since been proven a fallacy and as we all know in reality an arrow shot from a bow will have a journey of some distance over time. So my question is, was Zeno's concept on the right lines/ With modern understanding of the quantum era, do we not describe space & time in discrete quantities, i.e the Planck scales where each moment of space and time may well be made up of a undetermined quantity though never 0? In addition, if the arrow (though not physically possible) was to travel at C then from its own perspective would it not indeed never travel anywhere (obviously assuming instant light speed acceleration)? I appreciate this second thought is rather metaphysical and not to be taken too literally.

Yes, and this example is what I'm alluding to and have advocated in this thread. Some people with all the will in the world are just not fixable.

yes, and the people I'm talking about are the far right extremists who just want to make an issue out of nothing and thus undermining the genuine issues, like those that you keep mentioning. Ok, I'll leave this line of argument since I did accept iNow's refute. Though personally I felt like it was more of a back pedal than a refute, but there you go... I still standby my opinion that iNow often comes cross as self opinionated and doesn't like it when someone argues iNow's opinion. But maybe my opinion is wrong, not that it matters much anyhow.

I think the difference is, since we have greater intelligence (debateable with some people) than other animals we have a greater ability to consider and control our choices. So we do (should) have the ability to make a moral judgement before acting. Some animals may well be capable of this also, who knows? some do appear to do so at times. Others act only out of instinct to survive, which is the main goal in evolution. Humans share the same goal but have evolved in a way to be able to consider others before acting, (again this is debateable). The problem arises when a person has the "uncontrollable" urge to do something that is considered evil. Some of these urges, can be argued, stem back from millions of years and have remained with us through evolution. So what is to be done with these people, to protect society and to either "punish" or reform them? Priority is to protect society, followed by reform. Protecting society should take precedent at all times, to achieve this may require different actions, some to start with, some to follow, then maybe some to return to. Seeking justice and punishment come thirdly to protecting society (this as priority), followed by reform thereafter. However punishment and justice may be deemed necessary (at least initially) to achieve the main priority, and may also serve to aid reform.

No disrespect iNow, you are clearly a very intelligent and knowledgeable person, which I have the upper most respect for. However, although I have only known you through this forum for a short period of time. You do tend to post (at least from my own perspective) in a style which portrays a hint of self opinionated belief, with an inflexibility towards other opinions. You did during the course of this long and circular thread, infer that I was transphobic, when I had never once prior to this referenced sexual identity or gender. My argument has always been one of the extreme right, where I feel (or rather my opinion is) that people who have an agenda that aims to be disruptive rather than productive, by jumping on the PC bandwagon, are undermining the real issues, so are either; delusional, attention seekers, being ridiculous or over sensitive.

When you say you believe in religion in what sense do you mean? I believe in religion in the sense that religions exist, but may not believe in the doctrine of one or many particular religions. Some of which may revolve around or include super natural events or beings.

Fortunately (for me maybe) I'm not "over sensitive" like some.

Well lets say you are investigating the possibility of a haunted house. The scientist conducting the study may personally believe that ghosts exist (in the super natural sense). However the study should follow the scientific method and the scientist remain completely objective and any personal belief set aside during the study. The results data should be verifiable and not subject to influence. If the results prove the existence of ghosts and this is verifiable by further independent tests then great, all good. The scientists personal belief have been verified and would be accepted by the mainstream. If however the results are inconclusive, then the scientist's personal belief should not be invoked in any of the study.

Do I need to answer that? Ok since you ask, any non scientific, non verifiable belief, should not be invoked in the scientific method. Since the scientific method requires objective, verifiable data not personal beliefs, irrelevant whether or not those beliefs match the results.

+1 Absolutely, and applies to all non scientific personal beliefs.

+1 Welcome!

Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure there are some delusional transgender people, like there are delusional people of all gender identities. I can't recall responding in agreement directly to the notion that transgender people are delusional or over sensitive. Though I may have inadvertently done so, by responding in such a way that it could be interpreted that way. I'll take more care going forward, however I'm human and prone to mistakes. I can live with that. The problem is though, it appears (at least to me) that when someone questions another point of view unless the question, or rather an alternative answer is in agreement with yours, you get very defensive and call people out, with occasional misinterpreting, manipulating or taking out of context the reply or rebuttal. An example of this, as per your reply ^^^ where you state that I should be questioning the assertion of others before making comment, in an attempt to present evidence on why you assume/assert (or try to make out) that I'm transphobic. I think there is a difference between a chosen Identity and reality though. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with a person's right to their chosen personal identity. It seems we have 2 tangents and they are being confused with each other.

Indeed, and you are correct my example was one of science. I'm guilty on this occasion of lumping all things together.

Reminds me of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jedi Master “Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” “The truth is often what we make of it; you heard what you wanted to hear, believed what you wanted to believe.” Well said, and my understanding is that this view is shared by most creditable scientists who have similar beliefs that stem from a religion.

I can't speak for @koti , but I have never suggested at any point on this thread that someone is delusional for wanting to be Identified as a specific gender pronoun. In fact I have never used the word delusional, however have used the word ridiculous when a person wants to change the identity of an object, because the current name has a word used that maybe offensive, even though the name has and has never had any offensive intent or otherwise. Thus my point throughout the thread is, how far does this go? You are the one who made assumptions and lumped the trans gender identity in with my argument, when they are at different ends of the spectrum. I respect and would remain courteous of a person's preferred choice of identity, regardless of my opinion on it. As MigL says it will be interesting to see how persons react to some "crank". Maybe comes on a science forum claiming the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old. Would it be fair to call them delusional? or should we accept their opinion and kindly agree with them, so as not to offend them?

Though I agree with you on "truths" (to a certain degree), From the dictionary: the quality or state of being true that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality a fact or belief that is accepted as true I think though some truths can evolve over time but are generally accepted in their current state. So I would say its fair to say that it is "true" that Saturn is farther away from the sun than the Earth regardless of what might change in the future. Interestingly, in the last definition it mentions "belief", this implies that there are different kinds of truths and they should be applied and interpreted in context. For example - 1. I don't believe in god(s), This statement is true (at least for now) 2. There is no scientific evidence to prove/validate the existence of god, This statement is true (at least for now) No 1 is based on belief, number 2 is based on facts (current scientific data).

Yeah pretty much. I don't agree that that particular phrase masks a weak argument, unless used in the wrong context. But I agree that that phrase, and many similar can be subject to misuse dependent on context. For example, if I completed a test where I scored high and another person scored low and I was to remark that I won't consider that persons idea's or opinions such that I used the phrase "I don't suffer fools" then this would be an example of poor use of the phrase in this particular context. But if a person was persistently been idiotic with the intent on disruption and I stated the same phrase then I would find this acceptable use Ok, fair enough. I don't claim to be anymore or less aware than others, so am open to the fact that you and others may see my blind spots. It might be that its just a matter of interpretation, or difference of opinion also, which at the moment that's how it seems to me. Something we can agree on in this thread.

This is a good point, religion can serve many purposes, some that don't focus around a "creator". Personally I like to consider my self as an amateur scientist, I don't believe in god, but I do appreciate some of the principles in most religions.

Thanks, I appreciate your support! Well they say stress is a big factor in poor health, so taking a more relaxed approach is something I want to aim for. The difficulty for me is in the balancing - obsession, commitment, stress, disappointment...

Fair enough, we have difference of opinion. I think that many phrases have the potential for mis-use, in fact we see this all the time. This is the problem with interpretation, context and intent. What might start out as an innocent term or phrase can be easily mistaken as offensive or discriminative. It never crossed my mind to equate my example with sexual identity in the way that you assume, consciously or otherwise. You have made an assertion that I have "lumped" the two together in one simple category. On the contrary to this, my whole point is that you cannot lump these things together!! But this seems to have passed over your head. But people are asking for ridiculous things like changing the name of black berries, then comparing this to genuine offensive and discriminative words or phrases. This is my point!! I have a good friend who is trans (which I have mentioned previously in the transgender athletes thread) so I can assure you, your assumption that I'm transphobic is way off the mark. Ironic isn't it, If your opinion is not with the "status quo" then you are judged accordingly, and in the process accused of being the judger and intolerant. If my opinion of someone is that they are an idiot, but someone else's opinion is that they are a genius. I'm wrong to assert such an opinion but the other person is fine to assert theirs? Hmmm... doesn't seem much equality there now does there?

Who is anyone to judge either way? Generally someone who purposely disrupts at the cost of the majority with no positive intent, gets judged by the majority and dealt with accordingly. Some people have a higher tolerance than others, it would be very boring if we were all the same.