tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post528404206132464470..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Josh Rosenau lends Hosni Mubarak a handMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-23324213459358583302011-02-18T03:38:37.581-05:002011-02-18T03:38:37.581-05:00'We can't change the concept of dog, thoug...'We can't change the concept of dog, though we can certainly use a different linguistic expression to communicate the concept. '<br /><br />These is pure semantics. You simply assert that concepts are immutable, with not a shred of arguemnt to back it up and then build your entire little house of cards on these arbitrarily defined notions as if they told us something about reality Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-40581757858613802622011-02-17T21:47:42.597-05:002011-02-17T21:47:42.597-05:00S writes:
"No, it wouldn't make Sylveste...S writes:<br /><br />"No, it wouldn't make Sylvester 'a dog' in the sense that it would change his physical properties - but it would change our idea of what a dog is."<br /><br />Just as I suspected, you're confusing biological categories with metaphysical ones. If I say, "Lassie is a dog," I say that because I grasp the concept of dog when my mental facultiesFrancis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-46649898915687337252011-02-16T06:49:35.363-05:002011-02-16T06:49:35.363-05:00'If that were the case, we could define dog in...'If that were the case, we could define dog in such a way as to include Sylvester the cat. But that wouldn't make Sylvester a dog, just as defining non-science as science would make it science.'<br /><br />No, it wouldn't make Sylvester 'a dog' in the sense that it would change his physical properties - but it would change our idea of what a dog is. We can freely change Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-59586862413542029852011-02-15T15:03:16.508-05:002011-02-15T15:03:16.508-05:00One more thing. When Catholics say that the bread ...One more thing. When Catholics say that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ, they do not take on the accidents of flesh and blood, but rather, just the substance of flesh and blood. In the same way, a blastocyst, though having the substance of flesh and blood (because it is a human substance) does not have the accidents of flesh and blood. <br /><br />It's really a pretty Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34354611886903304332011-02-15T15:00:08.057-05:002011-02-15T15:00:08.057-05:00Singring:
Again, you make my point. You claim tha...Singring:<br /><br />Again, you make my point. You claim that something does not belong in science class because it is not science. Fair enough. It is the nature of the enterprise and not our willfulness that determines its inclusion or exclusion in the set of practices we call "science." In the same way, Lassie is a dog because of what Lassie is, not because of how we define dog. If Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-38571511212476186212011-02-15T06:07:21.923-05:002011-02-15T06:07:21.923-05:00'So, if we all define a dog as a three-legged ...'So, if we all define a dog as a three-legged fish, you're suggesting that that is what makes it so. '<br /><br />No, I'm suggesting that if we define 'science class' as a class in which science is taught and 'science' as a method for accumulating knowledge by testing hypotheses against physical evidence and measurements, then we can throw anything out of teh Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-77881367042222813642011-02-14T18:35:49.327-05:002011-02-14T18:35:49.327-05:00Oops, I meant to say "adverb" rather tha...Oops, I meant to say "adverb" rather than "adjective" in the prior post.Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-37682000874318797132011-02-14T18:33:08.425-05:002011-02-14T18:33:08.425-05:00Singring writes:
"What utter nonsense. Laws ...Singring writes:<br /><br />"What utter nonsense. Laws about X ought to be consistent about our definition of X, that is all the case in Dover hinged upon."<br /><br />So, if we all define a dog as a three-legged fish, you're suggesting that that is what makes it so. But it doesn't make it so. Dogs are what they are regardless of how we "define" dog. <br /><br />Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-17100505644501743602011-02-13T08:36:46.945-05:002011-02-13T08:36:46.945-05:00'But in that case another principle is at work...'But in that case another principle is at work, namely, laws ought to be consistent with the way the world really is.'<br /><br />What utter nonsense. Laws about X ought to be consistent about our definition of X, that is all the case in Dover hinged upon. <br /><br />If we pass a law that says teaching X in schools is unconstitutional, then someone introduces Y into schools and we can Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-33726076935456356602011-02-12T15:56:20.876-05:002011-02-12T15:56:20.876-05:00Josh, of course, believes that the law in Dover, P...Josh, of course, believes that the law in Dover, Pennsylvania that emanated from the school board was mistaken. Why? Because it mistakenly conveyed the nature of science. Fair enough. But in that case another principle is at work, namely, laws ought to be consistent with the way the world really is. Indeed, a noble principle, but one, ironically, that is itself not derived from the law, since it Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-9453835255279486562011-02-10T15:43:16.714-05:002011-02-10T15:43:16.714-05:00'You would be using your own moral conscience ...'You would be using your own moral conscience but that conscience was formed somewhere. '<br /><br />Very accurate. But the thing is that a reltive, subjective moral system such as mine is malleable: it can change if I rationally consider arguments for or against a proposition or action. If you appeal to an outside, objective moral imperative, you are removing that flexibility, thsu Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4916141659425634872011-02-10T15:43:05.433-05:002011-02-10T15:43:05.433-05:00Steve:
'I am not claiming to remove all subje...Steve:<br /><br />'I am not claiming to remove all subjectivity.'<br /><br />Great. So we both agree that our ideas of what is right and good is coloured subjectively. The question remains as to how much.<br /><br />'What you are calling "bias" can also be called "judgment" and you are using the same thing when you claim to be using only your own moral judgment.&#Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-13296595798163114412011-02-10T03:37:25.249-05:002011-02-10T03:37:25.249-05:00Martin: I appreciate your correcting the title, th...Martin: I appreciate your correcting the title, though you still try to draw NCSE into this to a degree that isn't really sensible or justified. <br /><br />I recalled our having an extended back and forth about Pat Buchanan's Holocaust denial and antisemitism, in which you defended his antisemitic and Holocaust-denying behavior. I know you don't think he's antisemitic or a Josh Rosenauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07304209937998935215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-36179393230607371682011-02-10T01:24:19.377-05:002011-02-10T01:24:19.377-05:00Excellent blog.
Fancy the content I have seen so ...Excellent blog.<br /><br />Fancy the content I have seen so far and I am your regular reader of your blog.<br /><br />I am very much interested in adding <a href="http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/</a> in my blog <a href="http://the-american-history.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://the-american-history.blogspot.com/</a>.<br /><br />I am pleased to Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04473758192184431799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-54443622818069616952011-02-09T20:58:45.466-05:002011-02-09T20:58:45.466-05:00Josh,
So let me get this straight: You make state...Josh,<br /><br />So let me get this straight: You make statements like the following: "Martin Cothran, the bigoted, anti-semite defending, Holocaust-denial whitewashing, misogynistic, homophobic, creationist, authoritarian, logic-impaired mouthpiece for the Kentucky theocracy movement ..." and you are concerned about <i>my</i> factual accuracy?<br /><br />I am changing the title of my Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-78835021225001445662011-02-09T15:43:33.412-05:002011-02-09T15:43:33.412-05:00You raise some very good points, Steve, though I d...You raise some very good points, Steve, though I disgree with most of them. I must give you massive props though for admitting that your way contains at least some uncertainty (this is more than I see from most Christians) - I would maintain it contains just as much as mine...but I will answer in more detail tomorrow, the post I had just put together was lost and I'm just not up to writing itSingringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-72635786378967858042011-02-09T15:41:49.710-05:002011-02-09T15:41:49.710-05:00I know it'd be out of place at this blog to ge...I know it'd be out of place at this blog to get hung up on small details like factual accuracy, but the title of this post is false. If Cothran^H^H^H^H^H^H^H The Family Foundation of Kentucky had even basic literacy skills, the Foundation would notice this statement in the sidebar of my blog: "The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE.&Josh Rosenauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07304209937998935215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-11170882754185390122011-02-09T14:57:26.327-05:002011-02-09T14:57:26.327-05:00"This is very true and I applaud your commitm..."This is very true and I applaud your commitment to this principle. However, appealing to 'natural law' is not at all an appeal outside oneself...because what premises one uses to arrive at moral conclusions derived from natural law are completely and utterly subjective. So in fact this is a prime example of going by one's own biases."<br /><br />I am not claiming to remove Steve Billingsleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-43856542777385801842011-02-09T14:18:27.292-05:002011-02-09T14:18:27.292-05:00'One of the reasons that it is preferable to a...'One of the reasons that it is preferable to appeal outside of oneself is to hopefully minimize one's own biases and blind spots.'<br /><br />This is very true and I applaud your commitment to this principle. However, appealing to 'natural law' is not at all an appeal outside oneself...because what premises one uses to arrive at moral conclusions derived from natural law are Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-6153689770369280172011-02-09T13:17:50.241-05:002011-02-09T13:17:50.241-05:00A bit longer answer (still not exhaustive by any m...A bit longer answer (still not exhaustive by any means)<br /><br />When I say natural law, I am speaking of a long mediated tradition that goes from Aristotle, Cicero, Stoicism, the New Testament, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, English common law, Richard Cumberland (specifically his rebuttal of Hobbes)Hugo Grotius, John Locke and much more.<br /><br />Islamic scholars,in defending Shariah law might Steve Billingsleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4965608564546714452011-02-09T11:39:16.409-05:002011-02-09T11:39:16.409-05:00'The basis is natural law, which although it i...'The basis is natural law, which although it is amenable to religious thought has a long tradition in philosophy dating at least to Aristotle.'<br /><br />That's nice. But that's exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood would be claiming for itself as well. If treating women with dignity and respect is a 'natural law' for you, then that's just fine.<br /><br />But the Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-78864350423044834272011-02-09T11:23:38.169-05:002011-02-09T11:23:38.169-05:00Short answer (not a lot of time right now, but wil...Short answer (not a lot of time right now, but will follow up)<br /><br />I would judge it to be bad.<br /><br />The basis is natural law, which although it is amenable to religious thought has a long tradition in philosophy dating at least to Aristotle. <br /><br />What would your basis be?Steve Billingsleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-11476932096111502472011-02-09T10:48:00.365-05:002011-02-09T10:48:00.365-05:00'Yeah, that's a hanging curveball if I'...'Yeah, that's a hanging curveball if I've ever seen one.'<br /><br />Then go ahead...hit it out of the park.Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-1106189099882801502011-02-09T10:37:51.743-05:002011-02-09T10:37:51.743-05:00Yeah, that's a hanging curveball if I've e...Yeah, that's a hanging curveball if I've ever seen one.Steve Billingsleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-90063655551264260012011-02-09T09:02:51.686-05:002011-02-09T09:02:51.686-05:00Martin,
Why are you so mean? I hope you have fun ...Martin,<br /><br />Why are you so mean? I hope you have fun with Singring's question because it's exactly the right one.Andrewhttp://www.circeinstitute.orgnoreply@blogger.com