Jump to content

Obsessions


EAO
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited by thinker_jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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".

 

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?

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.