Jump to content

Edtharan

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edtharan

  1. I don't really get what you are trying to say here. To me it sounds like you are trying to say that before the scientific method was formalised, they didn't follow the scientific method (but something similar). If that is what you are saying, then you have no objection here. The method they followed was similar, but it didn't have the "falsifiability" requirement that the modern scientific method has. And, because of that the problems you point out with it would occur. No surprise or objection ehre. The modern Scientific Method is different from the ancient methodologies. Now, while th
  2. If you truly have free will, then even absolute proof will not take it away, as you would still be free to believe against reality anyway. You are confusing having enough information to make the correct choice, with the loss of free will. They are not the same. Physics is about as certain as we have come to how the universe works, but there are still people, even when presented with this almost absolute proof, will choose to believe otherwise. They will believe, against the evidence, in their own fantasy. So, if you believe that we have free will, and that proof would remove that free
  3. Actually I am not saying that, and thus this is another strawman. Actually it is the exact same form of argument that is if "one thing is allowed then all should be allowed" that you made in your last reply to me. I am sort of arguing the opposite, that something should be shown to be harmless (or less harmful) for it be be acceptable. Unlike Mill's principal, where everything is allowed unless proved harmful, I am saying that the default position should be illegal unless harm to others can be shown not to exist (or be less than not allowing the behaviour).
  4. DNA is a series of chemicals called Deoxyribonucleic Acids (hence DNA). This sequence of chemicals can be referred to as their name, or a letter that abbreviates their name. This way a sequence of DNA can be represented as a sequence of letters. Now, as the DNA determines what the organism will develop into, then changing that sequence of letters can change the development of an organism. This is because the differences between two types of species is just the sequence of their DNA. But, if you slowly replace one letter at a time in a sequence of letters (also either remove or add a le
  5. If there are a lot of creatures on the ground, then there is an advantage in getting a food source that is not being use by any other creature. Thus, if there are only creatures without wings and falling kills them, then they will live on the ground. But as that food source on the ground becomes completely use, then any creature that could climb (even with the risk of falling) has an advantage. As these climbers have the advantage they will evolve to be better climbers and fall less often. However, one can never eliminate the chance of falling, so once you have climbing creature
  6. Yes, although there might be individuals that resist change, the scientific community as a whole is very accepting of change, so long as it is show to match reality. Think of it like this: Imagine you ran a car company and are really good at it, then you design a car that doesn't work, yet you push on into production despite the evidence that it doesn't work. However, other companies see that the car you design doesn't work and design cars that do work. Which company will end up selling cars? Actually, think about it a bit more. If you got to be the head of that car company
  7. Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples of God interfering in the bible. Even just to reveal Himself to people would be a kind of marketing, and thus violate "Free Will". So, if God is truly against violating free will, then we can conclude that the God of the bible is not actually God. But then this means that violating free will might not be a problem, and the whole of the bible could be wrong (which opens a completely different set of problems for religions.
  8. The reason I called it worthless is because the effect of adrenaline and other stress hormones on aggression were well known (and were the exact effects reported), but they dismissed these already known results in favour of the result they were trying to prove. Essentially, the only "new" information that can be got from that is that stressful situations video games can be stressful. They tried to push the violence aspect, and pass that off as being the cause, when the actual cause was already well known. Imagine this scenario: I let people take a known pain killer (say aspirin, bu
  9. What this is, is a strawman argument. You are trying to show that I meant that if any freedom is allowed, then all freedoms are allowed, then using that you show there is a contradiction. Well, I never advocated total freedoms, but the freedoms self determination. Because what you are presenting is not my argument, but your own made up version of mine, this makes your argument a strawman. So, as I have said that I would allow people the freedom to risk their lives, say in extreme sports. This does not automatically give anyone the freedom to risk someone else's life in their own pu
  10. Dark matter is matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. Anti matter does interact with the electromagnetic force ( it is electrically opposite matter, and thus by necessity must interact with it), so Dark Matter can not be Antimatter.
  11. Have you seen the sci-fi TV series "Doll-house"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse_(TV_series) It is quite an interesting take on this whole concept.
  12. Unlike planes, birds have a very sophisticated feedback mechanism to control their stability. There have been some planes that use unstable flight characteristics and a feedback system for stability control to increase their manoeuvrability. I think this would work for birds too. So having an unstable flight characteristic with a feedback mechanism would allow birds to be more manoeuvrable. This would aid them in avoiding predators, or to target prey themselves. Also, flying in confined spaces would be easier too with such a system in place. So, as Cap'n Refsmmat said, there is no real
  13. Science can be summed up: Reality Wins That is, it wouldn't matter if it came form a 5 year old, or Einstein, if the evidence shows that something is wrong, science will accept the new results.
  14. First of all, this is what I was talking about. It is easy to find a study that agrees with your point of view (either for or against video games increase violence). But, look again at that study. It doesn't show any long term increase in violence. It only shows a short term increase. Which can be attributed to increased adrenaline, testosterone and such. There have been studies that show increased adrenaline and testosterone increases aggresion. And, violent video games will cause an increase in adrenaline and testosterone, so I am not at all surprised that immediately after they play
  15. I actually struggled over the wording. I agree that torture does not give reliable results. What I meant by "completely ineffective" is that it would not result in the breaking down of the prisoner (whether they told the truth or not is not what I was talking about). Actually mental harm can be more permanent and disabling than physical harm. And when/if the prisoner is released, the psychological harm can spread to the people in the prisoners community too so psychological torture has even more wide reaching effects than physical torture too. So this would put mental torture as much
  16. Actually I don't feel strange about it. I believe that people are intelligent enough to make their own judgements about their own actions. It is part of what being an adult is all about. I don't seek to control anyone, so I don't have a problem if people want to risk their lives for some reason (fun, profit, etc). Actually fun is a good example: Take extreme sports like bungee jumping, or even BASE jumping. Do you fell "strange" that although you might not want to do these things, other people do? Would you seek to stop them? I don't because Thorpe people are adults and they accept the
  17. With fast internet communications, more and more people are able to work remotely. So, this might be the solution that could be applied to swansont's scenario to allow people to work while travelling.
  18. What I find interesting in these kinds of discussions is that people automatically place plants at a low level of consciousness, because they don't move, and not due to any other reason. Sure, they don't move, but slime moulds move and they have no brain (or even neurons) to be concious with, but because they move, people tend to think of then as being more conscious. Plants have been demonstrated to have specific electro-chemical signalling cells that enable sensory stimuli to be detected, processed and relayed to remote locations in the plant. These cells act just as neurons in anima
  19. Actually this is the point. Different people value things differently. Think back to my spiderman/superman comic example. I valued the spiderman comic differently to how you would have, just as I valued your superman comic differently from what you would have. The point is that people value things differently. If they didn't there would be no advantage to trade and no economy could ever work. it's not clear what you're referring to here. What I am referring to is that although someone who just manages logistic (getting people what they want), instead of producing anything
  20. For everyone to go bankrupt at the same time, all value would have to be eliminated and all ways of generating value would also have to cease operating (it is essentially an impossible situation). The only way for this to occur, the entire world would have to stop all trading, lending, charity and any interaction. Basically we would have to become totally isolated from every other person permanently (because if, after the "event", you have anything, you are not bankrupt). As rioting requires multiple people, and to get universal bankruptcy requires isolation, we can not have riots. Loo
  21. Be careful of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation The term "Force" is one highly subject to the fallacy of equivocation. People with supernatural beliefs tend to use the word to mean either an external purpose imposed on the material world, or some form of conciousness causing something to occur. However, in science (and as this is a science forum site), force has a very specific, but different meaning. Essentially the difference is that in science "Force" is a blind purposeless impulse, where as the supernatural "Force" is one with a purpose. So, in terms of science: Y
  22. I had to respond to this. When someone uses physical torture, what they are using is the psychological factor, that the prisoner will continue to suffer unless the prisoner does what their captors tell them. Waterboarding uses the same mechanisms, just that it doesn't leave physical scars. Physical injuries will (mostly) heal over time. So it is not the physical injury that is the main problem. I suffer from a chronic pain condition. One of the things you quickly learn is that pain, injury and suffering are not the same thing. You can have any of them in isolation (without the othe
  23. I remember a conversation I had with a parent on this topic. They refused to let their children watch cartoons as they were too violent, but insisted they watch the news every night. I found this rather strange as they were refusing to let their children watch fantasy violence, but insisting they watch real violence. I have heard of many studies that have tried to link violent music/cartoons/movies/stories/computer games/the current fad to violence in children. There are enough studies done that it is easy to cherry pick the results that agree with what you want to believe to pro
  24. Isn't this the same question as in you other thread? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57021-responding-to-income-deficiency/ My answer there was that you are focused on money as the fundamental unit of an economy. However, money is not the fundamental unit, but "Value" is. Think of it this way: Goods, Services and Money have value (thus value is a property of goods services and money). But Value doesn't have Goods, Services or Money. In other words, Value is a property that they all share. When you perform a trade, it doesn't matter if you are exchanging goods for good, or g
  25. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion What you have proposed is an appeal to emotion as an argument. Sex work has risks involved with it (pregnancy disease, etc), however, there are jobs that have greater risks, but we think it is OK to prompt people to enter those jobs (eg: bomb disposal, military service). Sex work is also a very intimate profession, and there are people who could not handle, or desire that kind of interaction with other people. So, would there be jobs (not just sex work) I would not prompt people to enter. Yes. Take military for instan
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.