dimreepr

It's not about the validity of the information, or it's testability, it's about the trust we put in the "truth" of the culture we grew up in. It doesn't, I'm just trying to emphasise that everyone has different capabilities; science, for instance, isn't very good at tackling emotional issue's, or finding a metric that measures contentment. But you seem to be suggesting that everyone can be a scientist, if they follow the "truth"... Would it matter? It's not a short-cut to understanding...

gee, if you say so...

Indeed a different draft of reality via our co-pilot...

Science is wrong now, but that doesn't mean that your right then...

Thanks for trying, thinking about it, I'm not sure what we could do if studies showed a validity to my argument; which one don't we vaccinate against?

I fully accept I'm wrong certainly genetically in terms of evolution and the points above. I may get myself confused sometimes, but I'm not trying to dodge a question or trying to win an argument. But I did wonder if there is any traction on the idea that our immune system is weakend bc of vaccines, sort of bc it's a weakened virus, when compared to a survivor of the full strength virus; I fully accept that not vaccinating is a stupid idea.

My point is, not everyone is capable of thinking beyond their teachers and if they're relatively content with their place in society, then they're quite happy to believe the truth of what they've been taught. Even in science, we're almost forced to believe in the teachers simply bc we aren't capable of judging a PhD paper, well 99% of us aren't and we're quite happy to so for similar reasons. Not every PhD is capable of teaching their ideas to those below their level of understanding.

The other side of that coin is, not everyone is capable of understanding why or who we should or shouldn't trust? I don't have a PhD, do you? The great thing about putting your trust in someone is, you have faith in them without question; I just question that authority bc I want to see the ugly, before I decide...

The truth can be ugly, whatever you have faith in; sometimes it's easier to believe what you're told by everyone you trust.

I'm not suggesting that we stop treating people against disease or that we stop cleaning the food prep area. I'm just pondering the possible cost bc the fundamental reality of life is, it's always a compromise; or to put it another way, there is no utopia.

But we should, at least, take them into consideration since we don't know everything...

What better way to start a war, than to point the finger at those that have no authority or political expression???

I'm not the best at explaing myself, as this thread attests. What got me pondering on this question is the thought that, does vaccination give us the illusion of herd immunity, when in fact it gives us herd susceptability, as in a monoculture? It's been suggested that our (weathy nation's) insistance on cleaning to the point of sterility, whilst being essential in an operating theater, may have created an epidemic of allergies. It was never about a dystopic future, it's more about the rich nation's hobbling themselves, whilst the poor nation's naturally evolve past us into a brief facsimile of a utopic flyby.

Why not?

Every ying has it's yang...

No it doesn't, if I attack you, then we're at war; or at least in a fight...

My apologies, it was an attempt to show how AI couldn't be an intellect.

it's not, it's a moral imperative that could lead to our deaths as in "the war of the worlds". The ethical question is, how do we avoid the problems a moral imperative presents?

It's so easy to become a prophet, all you've got to do is read history and learn from it... 😇

I have tried to expand and clarify my point, but you seem determined to pick fault with my initial post, rather than address or answer my attempts to qualify the difference between individual and societal moral output.

Is it: The YouTube video you linked (VPJTE640ogg) is likely a specific instance of a discussion or analysis related to arguments, potentially focusing on critical thinking or the presentation of claims. Based on search results, it may refer to the work of Philip Turetzky, author of "The Elements of Arguments". While a direct summary of the specific video's arguments isn't available, here's a likely overview of themes based on related information: Focus on Logic and Critical Thinking: The video probably explores core principles of logic and critical thinking, including how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments. Structure of Arguments: It likely covers the components of an argument, such as premises and conclusions, and how they relate to support a specific claim. Informal Fallacies: A significant part of the discussion could involve identifying and avoiding common errors in reasoning, known as informal fallacies. Distinctions in Argumentation: The video may clarify important distinctions within argumentation, such as the difference between: Propositions and propositional attitudes Propositions and states of affairs Logic, rhetoric, and psychology In short, the video probably provides a foundation for understanding the mechanics of arguments and for assessing their strength and validity. To get a precise summary, watching the video is necessary.

We are all products of our cultures and stoneage people are just as smart as we are now; imagine if heaven is available to all of us, now, and we don't even have to die to get there; all we have to do is be content with what we have now.

I'm not suggesting you're being intellectually dishonest, just that the approach is, but it's ironic that you choose reply to my post in such a way. Assuming we're both atheistic, then Yhwh did nothing and Amos was disagreeing with the wisdom of the age that spawned it's imagery, by hating everything about it without trying to understand why they may have conjured such a being.

It could just mean only listen to our teacher, bc they actually makes sense in this time and culture. I think this approach is intellectually dishonest, if we go back far enough of course we can chery pick the part where we didn't understand the difference between coralation and causation. They were still as smart as we are now and equally susceptible to confirmation bias, the only difference is, now we have cars and traffic light's, and a lot of people flashing their headlight's thinking that will turn the red lights to green bc whenever they're in a hurry it seemed to work.

I'm sorry I'm clearly not making my point, This post is basically my point, the more we interfere (healthcare) the closer we get to the "outside". It's my understanding that ethics is societies version of individually agreed average morals that are mostly tollerable. In this context, what's the difference?