Adam wrote...
> Someone else threw this at me and I have never heard of such a maxim in
all
> my studies of science.
Oh, well, if you've never heard of it, then surely it doesn't exist... And
since that maxim doesn't exist, surely you should be able to prove that...
> But more to the point, throwing this "rule of thumb" at me is a petty
> semantic ploy.
You've had one "interaction" with me, and you've already deemed me petty. It
wasn't a semantic ploy at all. I wans't aware, when I originally replied to
your post, that someone else had mentioned the same maxim. I only saw that
after my reply. I cannot speak for the intention of the other person, but I
can tell you that I stated the maxim simply because it makes sense to me.
I am talking about "proving" that sharks do not show know
> right from wrong. You can refer to that effort (which I do not believe
there
> is need to engage in) as aiming to prove (or disproving) "existence" of
> something, or you can use different terminology and such a maxim just
> doesn't make any sense.
What other terminology do you suggest?
> You say animals do NOT know right from wrong.
> I say yes they do. Prove that they don't.
> You say it's logically impossible to do so.
In a sequential response to your four sentences: Right; Understood; Why
should I?; Exactly.
> I say that's putting your foot in your collective mouth.
Why do you say this?
You, according to
> you, cannot prove that animals do not know right from wrong. So, what, do
> you all walk around believing deeply that such is the case even though you
> have no way of proving it? How very unscientific.
Well, I've been called worse (by you, earlier) than unscientific. And yes, I
belive many things without proof. Don't you?
> I think of all the very scientific evidence as to sentience and
intelligence
> in non-human animals; I think of all my varied experiences with animals
over
> the years, most good, some bad, and consider that "anecdotal" evidence.
Such
> things have led me to see animals' self-awareness and moral lives as
> self-evident.
If you'd care to name any of this evidence, it may serve to further the
discussion.
>If I wanted to prove it, I'd be "proving a positive."
I'm not sure what "proving a positive" is, but if you have proof, let's hear
it!
So (even
> though I still know of no such maxim), you are the ones who are in an
> impossible situation, unable ever to prove something you blindly assume.
I'm not sure you are aware of exactly what it is I assume. Neither do I
think you are in a good position to call my assumptions "blind," unless by
the very nature of assumptions you call them blind. I assume that we all
assume things, but of course that's only an assumption.
> This is my point. You tell me I'm anthropomorphizing because you believe,
> for reasons you assert you cannot prove, that animals are not able to
> cherish.
Again, of course I cannot prove that animals cannot cherish. We can both
observe their behavior, but any intentions or feelings that we assign to
that behavior is a matter of interpretation. You call it cherishing, I call
it pre-personal affection.
I insist that they do. The trait is not peculiar to humans. How can
> you say that?
How can you say that?
> Again, I think you're confused.
Sometimes I am confused. That is true. But most of the time I feel pretty
clear and reasonable. I'll let you decide on which basis you want to
interact with me.
Bryan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|