 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2008Jefferson: Religion -- The Foundation Of The Good Society
"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts...in which all religions agree." -- Thomas Jefferson (Westmoreland County Petition, 2 November 1785) Reference: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Hutson, (84); original Westmoreland County, petition, November 2, 1785, to V > "Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests > of society require the observation of those moral precepts...in [sic] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hutson, (84); original Westmoreland County, petition, November 2, > 1785, to V The title is a misrepresentation of what Jefferson said, if he said it. The moral principles on which all religions agree are very few, probably no more than, "do not murder" and "be honest." Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition religious people violate them more often than uphold them. Moral principles evolved from early human societies, and were often part of ethical systems that had nothing to do with religion. Religions parrot preexisting morality and dishonestly claim to be their own. The bible offers little useful moral innovation, it steals and borrows from those who came before. All it has of its own is a few useless dietary prescriptions or worse. When it comes to morality, Christianity and similar religions have the problem of good, which is as thorny as the problem of evil. But why go back to Jefferson to quote a politician extolling religion? We are STILL in the Bush era. > Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition religious > people violate them more often than uphold them. > > Moral principles evolved from early human societies, and were often > part of ethical systems that had nothing to do with religion. We actually have no real proof of how ethics and religion and law actually came to exist. All are arguably "prehistoric" The code of Hammurabi clearly contains both ethical and religious roots. Vince >> Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition religious >> people violate them more often than uphold them. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Vince and the bible nuts think hamurabi's laws are biblical. rekligios folks scare me because they feel that the only reason to do right is the fear of eternal punishment{which is dante anyway} >> Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition religious >> people violate them more often than uphold them. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Vince But its reasonable to accept that human success is based on co-operation between humans, here and now - not fear, or hope, of an afterlife.  Signaturegbh gbh04 is a spamtrap - all post is deleted at server > > Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition religious > > people violate them more often than uphold them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > All are arguably "prehistoric" The code of Hammurabi clearly contains > both ethical and religious roots. "Proof" and "certainty" are big words in science, outside pure mathematics. Use sparingly. The evolution of human morality is one of the subjects where progress can be made just by thinking about it and observing the world. Many animals have codes of behavior. Altruism, incest taboos, compassion for the young. Nile crocodiles carry their eggs in their mouths for enormous distances to protect the young. They could make an omelette of it, but they choose not to do so. Why not? Because those crocodiles who enjoy eating the eggs leave no offspring, and after a while all you have is crocodiles who know how to take care of the young. It's easy to see. That's ethical behavior. It does not follow that if we are powerfully motivated to take care of our young, for instance, that God or religion made us do it. Natural selection can make us do it, and almost surely has. Once humans reach the point of awareness of their surroundings, we can figure things out, and we can see what's good for our own survival as a community or a nation or as a species and take steps to ensure our survival and beyond. That's how morality evolves now, and there is no reason to disbelieve that that's how it evolved from the start. Explaining the limited but definite degree of moral and ethical behavior that is apparent in human society doesn't require the existence of God or religion. >>> Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition >>> religious people violate them more often than uphold them. Moral [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The evolution of human morality is one of the subjects where progress > can be made just by thinking about it and observing the world. nonsense First of all "proofs" are specific to disciplines Anthropology is an observational science, Its proofs are different > Many animals have codes of behavior. Altruism, incest taboos, > compassion for the young. Nile crocodiles carry their eggs in their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > after a while all you have is crocodiles who know how to take care of > the young. It's easy to see. That's ethical behavior. nonsense You are engaged in anthropometric reification Ethics is a human science you can no more speak of (non human) animal ethics than you can of animal marriage or animal patriotism > It does not follow that if we are powerfully motivated to take care > of our young, for instance, that God or religion made us do it. > Natural selection can make us do it, and almost surely has. which is also not ethics > Once humans reach the point of awareness of their surroundings, we > can figure things out, and we can see what's good for our own > survival as a community or a nation or as a species and take steps to > ensure our survival and beyond. That's how morality evolves now, > and there is no reason to disbelieve that that's how it evolved from > the start. it is at the moment a non testable hypothesis > Explaining the limited but definite degree of moral and ethical > behavior that is apparent in human society doesn't require the > existence of God or religion. of course, but not the point We simply have no idea which came first. Vince >>>> Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition >>>> religious people violate them more often than uphold them. Moral [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Vince tiglat is right and you are wrong. we are animals, maybe we are smarter that the average bear but the same rules apply to us as them. >>>>> Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition >>>>> religious people violate them more often than uphold them. Moral [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > we are animals, maybe we are smarter that the average bear but the same > rules apply to us as them. you are wrong. We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens We read and write The class of animals that can read and write is very small and has its own rules Ethics is one of them Vince > you are wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Vince the class of animals that think is very large. musk ox form a group defensive circle with their young inside as a defense against wolves. lions are very careful around cape buffalo because attack one and others come and help it. "ethics"are nothing more than a survival strategy. its not some god like gift. On Jun 11, 5:10 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > you are wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "ethics"are nothing more than a survival strategy. its not some god like > gift. Indeed. And so Vince is dragged to the water and his head pushed under but he still doesn't drink. Not to be confused with being tight-lipped. For... to scratch his itch he has now resorted to etymology, anthropology, anthropometry, epistemology, ethololgy and the man is still neck-deep in nettles. And for the Fair Readers it's been a long session of garbology. > On Jun 11, 5:10 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > still neck-deep in nettles. And for the Fair Readers it's been a long > session of garbology. Your ignorance is screaming take a course sometime Vince > > On Jun 11, 5:10 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > take a course sometime It's too dangerous, I could get a teacher like you. >> > On Jun 11, 5:10 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >It's too dangerous, I could get a teacher like you. Silliness like this always gets started when people assume that they are the 'smartest' animals. Although I think you'd probably beat VB in a simple logic game, I doubt you'd beat a seal. Likewise, most people can't remember where they left their keys. Almost all of them would lose to an average squirrel in a game of 'Remember Where You Put It.' The filters in the human brain have both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, they make us rather stupid individuallly, some more than others. On the other, we can usually chatter ourselves to some sort of answer, even if we're too stupid to find one that everyone can live with. We can also work collectively to some extent, as well as, pass on a limited body of technological information to successive generations so that they don't have to reinvent everything from scratch. Even that has a downside--the relatively clever among us cause the technology to advance faster than the average human intellect can adjust. As for whether the other animals have ethics, to my eye they certainly seem to behave as if they do. The lilies of the field, birds of the air and so forth seem to know their places and do what they are supposed to do. As Confucius said, only man does not. That is, only HSS is stupid enough to need to write ethical principles down in order to remember them. > >> take a course sometime > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are the 'smartest' animals. Although I think you'd probably beat VB in > a simple logic game, No biggie. > I doubt you'd beat a seal. Likewise, most people > can't remember where they left their keys. Not only people lose things constantly, but most times think the item has been stolen because they can't imagine themselves being dumb enough to lose it. George Carlin says that when you go to heaven you get back all the stuff you lost on Earth. > The filters in the human brain have both advantages and disadvantages. > On the one hand, they make us rather stupid individuallly, some more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cause the technology to advance faster than the average human > intellect can adjust. We seem to be the most intelligent life on Earth... unless we destroy ourselves, which would mean that seals are smarter. > As for whether the other animals have ethics, to my eye they certainly > seem to behave as if they do. The lilies of the field, birds of the > air and so forth seem to know their places and do what they are > supposed to do. As Confucius said, only man does not. That is, only > HSS is stupid enough to need to write ethical principles down in order > to remember them. Good point. >>>> take a course sometime >>> It's too dangerous, I could get a teacher like you. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Good point. What is referred to as ethics are just survival instincts - that's why animals have them. They are usually automatic, designed to protect the future of the spices at, if need be, the expense of the individual. For humans, co-operation with other humans is usually the best way of protecting ourselves. Its just an instinct - but call it ethics if you like. Signaturegbh gbh04 is a spamtrap - all post is deleted at server >>>>> take a course sometime >>>> It's too dangerous, I could get a teacher like you. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > protecting ourselves. Its just an instinct - but call it ethics if you > like. What are your favourite spices on your species ? cheers....Jeff > >>> Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition > >>> religious people violate them more often than uphold them. Moral [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > First of all "proofs" are specific to disciplines Anthropology is an > observational science, Its proofs are different Go on using "proof" in scientific discussions, for all I care. > > Many animals have codes of behavior. Altruism, incest taboos, > > compassion for the young. Nile crocodiles carry their eggs in their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ethics is a human science you can no more speak of (non human) animal > ethics than you can of animal marriage or animal patriotism Ethics, the field of study, is a branch of philosophy, not a science. An ethic, on the other hand, is simply a set of principles of right behavior. Your human arrogance prevents you from understanding that right behavior, as in right for survival and thriving, is not an exclusive human province, and nothing prevents the behavior of any animal from being deemed right or wrong for those purposes. And though the word "ethical" is not usually applied to animals, right behavior is still ethical behavior, human or not. > > It does not follow that if we are powerfully motivated to take care > > of our young, for instance, that God or religion made us do it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > it is at the moment a non testable hypothesis Birthday present suggestion for your wife: Robin Wright's "The Moral Animal." We facing new moral dilemmas everyday and we try to figure out how to deal with them. Questions like abortion, contraception, distribution of limited supplies (from organ donors), pollution, deforestation, overpopulation, corporate raiding, euthanasia, the right to privacy, patents, copyrights, and many complex areas our current moral system (never mind the one Jesus gave us) proves inadequate for. There is no reason to believe that reasoning humans dealt with earlier similar problems in far disimilar manner. Can you suggest one? > > Explaining the limited but definite degree of moral and ethical > > behavior that is apparent in human society doesn't require the > > existence of God or religion. > > of course, but not the point It is, see the thread's title. > We simply have no idea which came first. Speak for yourself. Ethical behavior is a manifestation of the human mind, just another word for the human brain, which is a product of human evolution, therefore so is Ethical Behavior, and the ability to adapt it to new dilemmas. >>>>> Religion didn't create those principles, and in addition >>>>> religious people violate them more often than uphold them. Moral [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Go on using "proof" in scientific discussions, for all I care. Its an area I teach to both scientists and non scientists >>> Many animals have codes of behavior. Altruism, incest taboos, >>> compassion for the young. Nile crocodiles carry their eggs in their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Ethics, the field of study, is a branch of philosophy, not a > science. you are showing your ignorance. Science is the study of organized knowledge Different sciences have differnet forms of proof. The German "wissenshaft" perhaps covers the aremore strongly > An ethic, on the other hand, is simply a set of principles of right > behavior. even if correct, it is the principles, not the behavior. Your human arrogance prevents you from understanding that > right behavior, as in right for survival and thriving, is not an > exclusive human province, and nothing prevents the behavior of any > animal from being deemed right or wrong for those purposes. And > though the word "ethical" is not usually applied to animals, right > behavior is still ethical behavior, human or not. nonsense if I throw a baseball a scientist can describe the principles behind the biomechanics and the flight of the ball. the behavior of throwing the ball says nothing about knowledge of abstract principles. A chimp can throw a ball but can't write a tretise on it. >>> It does not follow that if we are powerfully motivated to take care >>> of our young, for instance, that God or religion made us do it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > We facing new moral dilemmas everyday who says they are moral dilemmas and we try to figure out how to > deal with them. Questions like abortion, contraception, distribution > of limited supplies [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > complex areas our current moral system (never mind the one Jesus gave > us) proves inadequate for. I teach all these issues in one form or another. I've taught Engineering ethics for years. you might check out Vincent Brannigan, Biotechnology: A First Order Technico-Legal Revolution, 16 Hofstra L. Rev. 545. (1988) It is routinely cited in such discussions > There is no reason to believe that reasoning humans dealt with earlier > similar problems in far disimilar manner. > > Can you suggest one? That is neither science or philosophy by any definition Vince >>> Explaining the limited but definite degree of moral and ethical >>> behavior that is apparent in human society doesn't require the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > therefore so is Ethical Behavior, and the ability to adapt it to new > dilemmas. > >> First of all "proofs" are specific to disciplines Anthropology is an > >> observational science, Its proofs are different > > > Go on using "proof" in scientific discussions, for all I care. > > Its an area I teach to both scientists and non scientists There he goes again arguing from self-proclaimed authority. If you teach ethics as a science and not as a branch of philosophy and you claim there are proofs in it, then it is a clear case of those who can't do it teach it. Outside pure mathematics, a scientist talks about evidence not proofs, more or less compelling evidence, and that's all there is. Especially so in anthropology and evolutionary psychology, where beyond-reasonable-doubt certainty is like gold dust. >>>> First of all "proofs" are specific to disciplines Anthropology is an >>>> observational science, Its proofs are different [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Especially so in anthropology and evolutionary psychology, where > beyond-reasonable-doubt certainty is like gold dust. you simply do not understand the concept of "proof" It comes from Probare Vince Hilarious! Joseph beards the mediocre academic, Vincent Brannigan, of the University of Maryland, College Park on a BASIC issue of Philosophy -- specifically concerning Ethics and Epistemology -- rather than Science. Bravo Zulu! Brannigan was poaching FAR out of his assigned Field Of Competence [FOC] (pronounced... well, you know), FIRE SAFETY (...no laughing now) -- and has been amusingly and delightfully: HOIST WITH HIS OWN PETAR... KAWHOMP!!! KERSPLAT!!! How Sweet It Is! Vide infra pro risibus. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult ------------------------------------------------------- >> You are engaged in anthropometric reification >> Ethics is a human science you can no more speak of (non human) animal >> ethics than you can of animal marriage or animal patriotism > > Ethics, the field of study, is a branch of philosophy, not a > science. CORRECT. -- DSH > An ethic, on the other hand, is simply a set of principles of right > behavior. Your human arrogance prevents you from understanding that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > though the word "ethical" is not usually applied to animals, right > behavior is still ethical behavior, human or not. CORRECT AGAIN. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult Vires et Honor > Hilarious! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > HOIST WITH HIS OWN PETAR... you are simply wrong as to credentials, while it is out of date University of Maryland--College Park (Committee on the History and Philosophy of Science), Department of Philosophy, College Park, MD 20742. Voice 301-405-5691; fax 301-405-5690. Associated faculty and professional staff: Vincent Brannigan, Mancur Olson, Mark Sagoff, Steven Selden, David Sicilia, Charles Striffler, William Stuart, Lars Svenonius, and James Wallace, Ching-Hung Woo [1996]. http://depts.washington.edu/hssexec/hss_gradproglist.html Vince Hilarious! "Associated Faculty" on an academic COMMITTEE... [Vide infra pro risibus] Brannigan is NOT QUALIFIED to teach PHILOSOPHY. He has no credible advanced degree in PHILOSOPHY. He doesn't have a Ph.D. in PHILOSOPHY, nor is he an Independent Scholar or Novelist [vide Albert Camus and Walker Percy] with credible publications in PHILOSOPHY. He only has a three-year LAW degree -- a J.D. from Georgetown. Hilarious! He has ALSO been put out to pasture an an EMERITUS professor, not a full-time regular-hours professor -- which explains why he has so much time to post Errant Gibberish here on USENET about PHILOSOPHY -- which Joseph has rightly called him on. Brannigan works, episodically, in the Department of FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING -- NOT the Department of PHILOSOPHY. That's: ENGINEERING... No, Virginia, just having attended a Jesuitical High School in Washington, D.C. does NOT qualify Brannigan to teach PHILOSOPHY to college students... He is also an ADJUNCT professor at the Fire Academy. <http://www.enfp.umd.edu/faculty-profiles/brannigan.html> Dr. Vincent M. Brannigan University of Maryland, College Park Prof Emeritus EXST-ST-Engineering University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-5015 'Nuff Said. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Hilarious! >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Vince > Hilarious! > > "Associated Faculty" on an academic COMMITTEE... [Vide infra pro risibus] More ignorance The committee on the history and philosophy of science was the supervising body for the program. I was elected by the faculties of History and Philosophy Mancur Olsen and I both served on it Stick to something you know about Vince Brannigan I say again... Pogue Brannigan is certainly NOT qualified to teach PHILOSOPHY to college students -- undergraduates or graduates.... Now, teaching the "philosophy" of Fire Safety Engineering is an entirely different matter. People get elected to academic committees for all sorts of off-the-wall reasons -- including a strong desire by many smarter-than-the-average-bear academics who do not DESIRE to serve on such committees -- and who therefore offer up the names of faculty who are committee hounds as fodder. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas > I say again... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas you are not qualified to make any such claim I first lectured in the department of Wissenshafttheorie and Wissenshaft organization at Humboldt Berlin in 1982 A senior Philosophy professor from that department wrote oneof the evaluations for my promotion to a Tenured position in 1983 I have lectured regularly for the Leibniz society in Berlin since that time Most recently on the congress on Kybernitik and Dialectik http://www.gpi-online.de/upload/BilderTemp/Berliner_November/Flyer_FT_Nov2007-fi nal.pdf any one who wants to check I suggest you contact Leibniz-Sozietät e.V. Prof. Dr. Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski, Wiebelskircher Weg 12, 12589 Berlin, Fon: + 49 (0) 30 / 6489305 Vince Stick Hilarious! Brannigan can LECTURE on all sorts of topics as a guest lecturer at German universities and other organizations -- societies et al. I'm sure he's quite an entertaining curiosity. He's really wiggling on this one -- but he's a worm well impaled on my hook. DSH >> I say again... >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Stick go back to something you know about Don't know what that would be but there must be something Vince > Hilarious! > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >> >> Stick >go back to something you know about >Don't know what that would be but there must be something Wasn't it looking at pictures of interracial sex on usenet? Even Hines can do that with a modicum of success. Eugene L Griessel The Last Law of Product Design: If you can't fix it, feature it. - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval - >> I say again... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I have lectured regularly for the Leibniz society in Berlin since that >time At least you can spell Leibniz, unlike Fuzznutz Hines who always puts a t in the name. James > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:05:25 GMT, Vincent Brannigan > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > James Classic education and the old "tz" gothic character. ß > Classic education and the old "tz" gothic character. ß No - the German "z" is *pronounced* "tz". The character "ß" (Eszett) is a combination of "s" (long s) and "z" - it actually represents "ss". Nothing to do with a Classical (or even Classic...) education. SignatureJohn Briggs >> Classic education and the old "tz" gothic character. ß > >No - the German "z" is *pronounced* "tz". The character "ß" (Eszett) is a >combination of "s" (long s) and "z" - it actually represents "ss". Nothing >to do with a Classical (or even Classic...) education. As a young man he changed the spelling of his name from Leibnütz to Leibniz. He himself never used the spelling Leibnitz (that's a town in Austria), but the spelling Leibnitz used to be frequent in English. The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors warns against this: "not -itz". Another German philosopher whose name suffers from misspelling is Kant, which you often see with a Cu-. James >> Classic education and the old "tz" gothic character. ß > > No - the German "z" is *pronounced* "tz". The character "ß" (Eszett) is a > combination of "s" (long s) and "z" - it actually represents "ss". Nothing > to do with a Classical (or even Classic...) education. Pretty good article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F Interestingly the lunar crater and French Street are both named Leibnitz Vince Hilarious! Jose is called out as an: ANTHROPOMETRIC REIFIER. Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this. Enjoy! DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult --------------------------------------------- >> Many animals have codes of behavior. Altruism, incest taboos, compassion >> for the young. Nile crocodiles carry their eggs in their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ethics is a human science you can no more speak of (non human) animal > ethics than you can of animal marriage or animal patriotism. > Hilarious! > > Jose is called out as an: > > ANTHROPOMETRIC REIFIER. Hmmmm. Let's see... Anthropometry... "[R]efers to the measurement of living human individuals for the purposes of understanding human physical variation. Today, anthropometry plays an important role in industrial design, clothing design, ergonomics, and architecture where statistical data about the distribution of body dimensions in the population are used to optimize products." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropometry It is not clear how Vince is using "reification" here, but I guess he refers to the fallacy of treating something abstract as something material. His problem though is that anthropometry is not abstract (it's about concrete metrics) and so hardly amenable to reification. And how does the nonsense of "anthropometric reification" relate to my main point is another good question. The point being that we have no reason to disbelieve that the way our morals slowly evolve today is probably how they has been evolving since we became "human", and that rudimentary ethics are observable in animals. What happened here, folks, is that Vince gave us a quick reminder of his multitudinous deficiencies as scholarly timber. > Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Ethics is a human science you can no more speak of (non human) animal > > ethics than you can of animal marriage or animal patriotism. >> Hilarious! >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > What happened here, folks, is that Vince gave us a quick reminder of > his multitudinous deficiencies as scholarly timber. He probably meant "anthropomorphic". SignatureJohn Briggs >>> Hilarious! >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > He probably meant "anthropomorphic". actually no Anthropometry is the study of the measurements of humans. It originated in height and then expanded to physical measurements of all kinds. more recently it has been used in measurable human behavior. In Fire protection engineering we study a variety of anthropometric measurements, from walking speed to ability to hear alarms. The interface point is what we can infer from the data. Engineers often make the reification error for example that the "average" anthropometric data is the most meaningful. It is not. Anthropometric reification is an error in the inference from the data Vince >>>> Hilarious! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >Anthropometric reification is an error in the inference from the data Google hits as follows: No results found for "anthropometric reification" about 26 for "anthropomorphic reification" about 305 for "bluffing your way out" James > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:00:41 GMT, Vincent Brannigan > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > about 305 for "bluffing your way out" Laughing Out Loud. If Vince pulled "anthropometric reification" to say, "you are reading the data wrong," can you imagine the stunts he must pull in front of his unwary students, or the poor people in Germany gathered to hear him speak? I actually didn't mention any data. In fact, all the contrary, I clearly said that the problem at hand was one in which progress can be made just by thinking about it and looking around the world. I mentioned no metrics or any kind, anthropo or otherwise. When you discuss an issue with someone knowledgeable on a subject, few minutes pass before you get the sense that you better listen because your interlocutor knows what he is talking about; by his precise terminology, clarity, and ease with the subject it soon strikes you that the person is well versed on the issue. That impression is all the more stronger and quick when your interlocutor is a professor who teaches it -- a man not only knowledgeable but a scholar on the subject. Let's elaborate here... many people know stuff but can't teach it. "Professor" implies both skills, deep knowledge in the subject matter, and the ability to teach it. Such a person should be able to devastate any person not an expert in the field in seconds flat. Not Vince. >> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:00:41 GMT, Vincent Brannigan >> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > Not Vince. sorry your rant is incorrect but says a great deal about your analysis. you do not need to mention data to be invoking an incorrect measurement system. Your "looking around the world" is data collection of the classic observational kind you model is wrong, not your data. Data collected in a wrong model is worthless It's the difference between epistemic and aleatory uncertainty You can't devastate a person whose ignorance is profound. A chess master cannot devastate a person who cannot play chess Vince On Jun 11, 2:18 pm, Vincent Brannigan <fire...@firelaw.us> > sorry your rant is incorrect but says a great deal about your analysis. > you do not need to mention data to be invoking an incorrect measurement > system. You failed to show that I used any measurement system at all. Never mind the wrong one. First, I told you what an ethic is, so that you would not keep confusing it with the branch of philosophy -- you still do. Secondly, I showed by example, not measure, how certain animal behaviors amount to ethical behavior as per the criteria for ethical behavior I gave, not the branch of philosopy (again). Finally, I explained how natural selection could have played a part in that animal behavior. Neither your anthropometry nor your reification can do harm to that argument. Try again. Your "looking around the world" is data collection of the > classic observational kind > you model is wrong, not your data. Why is it wrong? Animals can behave rightly or wrongly as far as ensuring their survival. If they display a set of behaviors that favor survival they fit the definition of an ethic. This is quite simple to understand, what's your problem? > You can't devastate a person whose ignorance is profound. A chess > master cannot devastate a person who cannot play chess I play chess well. > On Jun 11, 2:18 pm, Vincent Brannigan <fire...@firelaw.us> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You failed to show that I used any measurement system at all. Never > mind the wrong one. You have far too narrow an idea of what a "measurement" is all observations that compare a target to a "standard" are measurements color matching is a measurement > First, I told you what an ethic is, so that you would not keep > confusing it with the branch of philosophy -- you still do. I am well aware that words mean different things in different environments you told me what you think an "ethic" is Ill simply substutuea "Tiglath" for your definition "The evolution of human morality is one of the subjects where progress can be made just by thinking about it and observing the world. Many animals have codes of behavior. Altruism, incest taboos, compassion for the young. Nile crocodiles carry their eggs in their mouths for enormous distances to protect the young. They could make an omelette of it, but they choose not to do so. Why not? Because those crocodiles who enjoy eating the eggs leave no offspring, and after a while all you have is crocodiles who know how to take care of the young. It's easy to see. That's ethical behavior." you made the direct connection to "morality" and said animals have "codes" All we can observe and measure is the behavior. A "code' of behavior is an abstract principle that belongs only to the human definition of ethics. natural selection is not a "code of behavior" > Secondly, I showed by example, not measure, how certain animal > behaviors amount to ethical > behavior I gave, not the branch of philosopy (again). no its not you example is simply natural selection at work and as I point out you cant use the word "code" a code is a human concept > Finally, I explained how natural selection could have played a part > in that animal behavior. > > Neither your anthropometry nor your reification can do harm to that > argument. Try again. you simply have given no support for your Tiglathian definition Vince > Your "looking around the world" is data collection of the >> classic observational kind you model is wrong, not your data. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This is quite simple to understand, what's your problem? I don't have a Problem, as you put it I am simply point out an error in your analysis > > On Jun 11, 2:18 pm, Vincent Brannigan <fire...@firelaw.us> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > all observations that compare a target to a "standard" are measurements Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, or capacity; it's about quantity not quality. You can make comparison to a reference qualitatively instead of quantitatively and that is not a measurement. That's why measurement, comparison, and evaluation are not synonyms. I pointed out that a behavior fits the definition of 'ethic.' That's not measurement. Quantity is not involved. Reasonable people never need argue about the meaning of words like 'measurement.' It only happens when one of the parties is in deep rhetorical trouble and he tries to weasel out. > > First, I told you what an ethic is, so that you would not keep > > confusing it with the branch of philosophy -- you still do. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you told me what you think an "ethic" is Ill simply substutuea > "Tiglath" for your definition It's not my definition, it's THE accepted definition. Do I need to quote a few dictionaries and embarrass you further? > "The evolution of human morality is one of the subjects where progress > can be made just by thinking about it and observing the world. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > you made the direct connection to "morality" and said animals have "codes" I don't see "morality" anywhere. Vince is again misrepresenting what I wrote in the most incompetent manner, right below the paragraph where I do NOT say what he claims I say. Although 'ethic' and 'moral' can sometimes be uses interchangeably, I tried to convey that the ethical behavior in animals is rudimentary, and that because it may be caused by natural selection, it is instinctive. As opposed to the less instinctive kind of morality in people when our instinct fails and we have to make a conscious moral choice. Just because animal behavior is instinctive it doesn't mean it can't be ethical or unethical. Chimps have been observed breaking the group behavioral code by behaving in a selfish manner, and be punished by the group. > All we can observe and measure is the behavior. A "code' of behavior is > an abstract principle that belongs only to the human definition of ethics. > natural selection is not a "code of behavior" Strawman -- no one said it was. But clearly codes of behavior can be brought about by natural selection. Around the time of Christ there was a Jewish sect in Judea who thought it was natural to hurry to heaven. They ambushed travelers and told them to kill or be killed. They were a temporary problem. That code of behavior came and went. Others have remained for both animals and people for opposite reasons. > > Secondly, I showed by example, not measure, how certain animal > > behaviors amount to ethical > > behavior I gave, not the branch of philosopy (again). > > no its not you example is simply natural selection at work Why can't natural selection lead to ethical behavior? > and as I point out you cant use the word "code" a code is a human concept Of course I can. A bird's song is a code used by certain animals to communicate. Animal behavior that follows a set of principles amounts to a code, why not? Who has mandated that codes are only for human consumption? Vince is looking for refuge in semantic strictures that do not exist. Your life during these discussions would be so much easier and honorable if you could muster the courage to declare "I stand corrected" and moved on... Instead you regale us with an entertaining series of failed bluffs and semantic Kabuki dances. No complain. > > Your "looking around the world" is data collection of the > >> classic observational kind you model is wrong, not your data. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't have a Problem, as you put it I am simply point out an error > in your analysis. Then why don't you answer the question: why is it wrong? Pointing out the error is gratuitous; to establish your claim you must quote the parts in error and explain CLEARLY where the error is, and why it's an error. Changing the definition of "measurement" doesn't do it. >>> On Jun 11, 2:18 pm, Vincent Brannigan <fire...@firelaw.us> >>>> sorry your rant is incorrect but says a great deal about your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, or > capacity; it's about quantity not quality. nonsense, we "measure" IQ and many other abstract qualities your comment on "quality" is just a straw man > You can make comparison to a reference qualitatively instead of > quantitatively and that is not a measurement. we measure color. an ordinal measurement is numerical but of limited quantitative value , yet such measurements are routine. if the comparison is to a "standard" its a measurement even if its "go no go" > That's why measurement, comparison, and evaluation are not synonyms. of course they are not another strawman > I pointed out that a behavior fits the definition of 'ethic.' > That's not measurement. Quantity is not involved. Quantity is not required that something "floats" in a given liquid is a measurement. Ask Archimedes it compares the target to a standard > Reasonable people never need argue about the meaning of words like > 'measurement.' It only happens when one of the parties is in deep > rhetorical trouble and he tries to weasel out. Educated people know what the word means in each context so they don't need to argue >>> First, I told you what an ethic is, so that you would not keep >>> confusing it with the branch of philosophy -- you still do. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's not my definition, it's THE accepted definition. Do I need to > quote a few dictionaries and embarrass you further? you are only embarrassing yourself of course being anonymous lets you avoid any consequences >> "The evolution of human morality is one of the subjects where progress >> can be made just by thinking about it and observing the world. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I don't see "morality" anywhere. you don't see this language? "The evolution of human morality" it is there Vince is again misrepresenting what > I wrote in the most incompetent manner, right below the paragraph > where I do NOT say what he claims I say. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people when our instinct fails and we have to make a conscious moral > choice. this is simply meaningless you are now claiming that that "ethic" is simply "behavior" Ethology is the study of animal behavior You said animals have "codes" not genes > Just because animal behavior is instinctive it doesn't mean it can't > be ethical or unethical. its like calling it blue or yellow, the term simply means nothing > Chimps have been observed breaking the group behavioral code by > behaving in a selfish manner, and be punished by the group. provide proof of a code. a code is an abstraction that was observed was behavior did you interview the chimps? >> All we can observe and measure is the behavior. A "code' of behavior is >> an abstract principle that belongs only to the human definition of ethics. >> natural selection is not a "code of behavior" > > Strawman -- no one said it was. But clearly codes of behavior can be > brought about by natural selection. nonsense, its not a code a code is a human construct > Around the time of Christ there was a Jewish sect in Judea who thought > it was natural to hurry to heaven. They ambushed travelers and told > them to kill or be killed. They were a temporary problem. That code > of behavior came and went. Others have remained for both animals and > people for opposite reasons. theya re humans we have the code of moses and the code of hammurabi that far predate but they are all humans capable of abstract thought heaven is an abstract thought Give an example of an animal describing heaven >>> Secondly, I showed by example, not measure, how certain animal >>> behaviors amount to ethical >>> behavior I gave, not the branch of philosopy (again). >> no its not you example is simply natural selection at work > > Why can't natural selection lead to ethical behavior? because its not "ethics" it may be useful and help survival even of a group but its not Ethics helper T cells do not act "ethically" its meaningless >> and as I point out you cant use the word "code" a code is a human concept > > Of course I can. A bird's song is a code used by certain animals to > communicate. crap the word code has many differnt meanigns, this is a differnt meaning. this is a pattern, not a code in the sense of a code of laws > Animal behavior that follows a set of principles amounts to a code, > why not? a pattern of behavior sure but not an abstract code not without proof > Who has mandated that codes are only for human consumption? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > honorable if you could muster the courage to declare "I stand > corrected" and moved on... kepp making a fool of yourself Ill keep pointing it out till I have to go back and teach I am fully aware that there are students whose resistance to learngin is beyond my ability to correct > Instead you regale us with an entertaining series of failed bluffs and > semantic Kabuki dances. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Changing the definition of "measurement" doesn't do it. its still not "ethics" under any modern definition its animal behavior see "ethology" Vince > > Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, or > > capacity; it's about quantity not quality. > > nonsense, we "measure" IQ and many other abstract qualities > your comment on "quality" is just a straw man An abstract quality is not measurable by definition. Speak with propriety, Vince. You are a teacher for God's sake. We do not measure IQ, IQ is THE measure; the measure of intelligence they would have you believe, but it is simply the measure given by an objective test supposed to correlate with a subjective quality: intelligence. Intelligence, just like beauty, justice, ugliness, and stupidity are not amenable to exact quantification. Much as some cases leave no doubt about magnitude. IQ tests typically measure the amount of correct answers in a questionnaire, and the time it took to complete the test, and testers HOPE that the resulting score bears some correlation with intelligence. It is not a direct measure of intelligence. Intelligence can't be measured, as the reliability of I.Q. scores well shows.. The time before being drafted to the army in Spain, was considered just time to kill, you could not undertake anything seriously because in a few years you would have to drop it to serve in the military. In those years I went from job to job just to make enough pocket money. In those days every job interview included an I.Q test. So I did several a month. It was always the same test or similar, and I could zip through it. When I got to boot camp they gave us an I.Q. test, panning for officer material. There were thousands of us. I did the 45 minutes test in about seven minutes, all correct, and finished first. The camp officers looked at me in awe; I was probably up to the flag off their charts. I was immediately selected to become a corporal at the end of basic training. That thing propelled me to the top rank possible in my class, sergeant, in record time, which is a powerful rank in the legion, and a lot of deference. By the time they discharged me two years later they had not figured out yet that I am just an average guy. That's how well you can measure intelligence. > > You can make comparison to a reference qualitatively instead of > > quantitatively and that is not a measurement. > > we measure color. Color is not abstract. Color is light of a certain frequency impacting our eye. The frequency of electromagnetic radiation is not in our mind (abstract); it's a physical phenomenon amenable to measure. Shame on you, professor. Until you LEARN what is abstract and what is not you'll keep floundering in this discussion. While you are at it look up 'ethic.' > > I pointed out that a behavior fits the definition of 'ethic.' > > That's not measurement. Quantity is not involved. > > Quantity is not required that something "floats" in a given liquid is a > measurement. Ask Archimedes it compares the target to a standard Bad example and mangled as well, care to clean up and explain what is that you mean? I'd say in the strange way you put it, that "quantity" is very much required for something to float. The weight of what must float had better be a smaller quantity than the weight of the water it displaces. > >> you told me what you think an "ethic" is Ill simply substutuea > >> "Tiglath" for your definition [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you are only embarrassing yourself of course being anonymous lets you > avoid any consequences Desperate and hilarious. Few people are less anonymous than me around here. > >> "The evolution of human morality is one of the subjects where progress > >> can be made just by thinking about it and observing the world. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "The evolution of human morality" You are right. I missed that one. I meant to say I didn't refer to animal morality, but since there is an unbroken chain of evolution from microorganisms to people, is not unthinkable that our human morality was preceded in our evolutionary ancestor by the sort of ethical behavior we see in some of today's animals. In fact there are few appealing alternatives. > it is there > this is simply meaningless > you are now claiming that that "ethic" is simply "behavior" Can't you read? Again, ethic is RIGHT behavior. > Ethology is the study of animal behavior > > You said animals have "codes" not genes Where? Inventing stuff again? > > Just because animal behavior is instinctive it doesn't mean it can't > > be ethical or unethical. > > its like calling it blue or yellow, the term simply means nothing On the contrary, it means they show RIGHT behavior and goes a long way to explain why they are with us today. > > Chimps have been observed breaking the group behavioral code by > > behaving in a selfish manner, and be punished by the group. > > provide proof of a code. a code is an abstraction > that was observed was behavior > did you interview the chimps? I don't do proofs. I leave that to you. A code doesn't need to be spoken or written, it can just be practiced and observed. There are tribal codes in uncivilized tribes, observable patterns of behavior generally adhered to. It's no different with chimps, other than in the degree of sophistication. Codes and ethics are not exclusively human, you are mistaken to believe they are. > >> All we can observe and measure is the behavior. A "code' of behavior is > >> an abstract principle that belongs only to the human definition of ethics. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > a code is a human construct A gratuitous assertion you remain unable to support. On the other hand. "An international research consortium has unraveled the chimpanzee genetic code, finding that humans and chimps share 96 percent of their genetic blueprint" http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.15/11-chimp.html "Code" is a human construct only to the extent that it is a word in a human language. One of the meanings of the word is simply a collection of rules of behavior, another is a communication system. Both can be found in animals as well as people. In a pride of lions the young don't touch the kill until the alpha male and higher members in the order have had their fill. It's an unwritten code that is taught and learned through pain. An observer of our vehicular traffic, for example, could glean out our traffic code after some watching. Red stop, green go. You can do more than observe behavior when you observe behavior, you can see patterns and figure out any codes, rules, and standards being followed. That's the end result of many of animal studies. The fact that you don't know it, doesn't make it false. > but they are all humans capable of abstract thought > heaven is an abstract thought > > Give an example of an animal describing heaven I don't have to. Heaven was incidental to the story. You obviously missed the point of the story. The point was not heaven but that wrong behavior for survival can be seen in people as well as in animals. Neither the Suicidal Jews or the egg-eating Nile crocodiles are any longer with us. The converse is true for right, ethical behavior. > > Why can't natural selection lead to ethical behavior? > > because its not "ethics" it may be useful and help survival even of a > group but its not Ethics If it is right behavior its ethical, by definition. Not mine, by the way. It's high time for you to accept this important truth. > helper T cells do not act "ethically" > its meaningless It's not. It means they behave rightly. > this is a pattern, not a code in the sense of a code of laws > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but not an abstract code > not without proof All the necessary evidence is in front of your eyes. Chimps have group rules that are not mindless patterns of behavior, since they are enforced by the group. Enforcement implies they can distinguish compliance from non-compliance. All the necessary elements of a code of conduct are there, including retribution. What's lacking are only irrelevant details. They don't have court houses or and legal databases, but I did say "rudimentary." > its still not "ethics" under any modern definition > its animal behavior > > see "ethology" > Vince See a dictionary. eth-ic (ethik)n. 1. A set of principles of right conduct. [...] 2. ethics n (used with a sing. verb. The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy). 3. ethics n (used with a sing. or pl. verb. The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession:). medical ethics. --------------------------------------------------------- Excerpted from American Heritage Dictionary Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. It's ONLY the FIRST definition of 'ethic,' which I have been referring to, Vince. Go ahead, show us your invincible ignorance one more time and call it wrong. How many more dictionaries do you think I can quote? See this too: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics Still nothing saying all definitions refer to humans only. Want to see the OED definition? >>> Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, or >>> capacity; it's about quantity not quality. >> nonsense, we "measure" IQ and many other abstract qualities >> your comment on "quality" is just a straw man > > An abstract quality is not measurable by definition. your ignorance is astounding try Goulds Mismeasure of Man Come back when you know something Bye Vince > >>> Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, or > >>> capacity; it's about quantity not quality. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Vince Again Vince drops a name and explains nothing that supports his claims. In his typical unscholarly way he expects that I do the donkey work "proving" his claims. Deplorable. If you believe that abstract concepts can be measured why don't you tell us how do you measure injustice, shyness, or obtuseness? What are the units? Vince leaves the field without answering inconvenient questions and ignoring inconvenient evidence, as he has done many times. Behind a semantic smoke screen and with a suppressing fire of invective sans argument. He leaves without giving us examples of anthropometry that does not involve physical measurements (his claim that it exists) which I requested several times. It took several days for Vince to realize that the crux of the matter for him was the definition of "ethic" but finding that inconvenient, went and looked up the definition of a DIFFERENT word in its place, which fitted his bill much better. He has ignored my calling him on it and the definitions of "ethic" I posted, as he usual does when confronted with contrary evidence. In all, another pitiful performance, on a par with his Alexander of Macedon thread. In the end there nothing I can write that indicts him for his incompetence that does a better job than his own words on record. Hilarious. > Again Vince drops a name and explains nothing that supports his > claims. In his typical unscholarly way he expects that I do the > donkey work "proving" his claims. > > Deplorable. I reckon so... It's called: ACADEMIC INDOLENCE -- (AI). DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas >> >>> Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, or >> >>> capacity; it's about quantity not quality. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Hilarious. >>>>> Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, >>>>> or capacity; it's about quantity not quality. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > What are the units? Specific Impulse is measured in seconds... SignatureJohn Briggs > >>> Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, or > >>> capacity; it's about quantity not quality. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Come back when you know something No need to come back, I have not left yet. Thanks for the opportunity to teach a professor how to give a proper reference. Tendencies and capacities found in other species: /Quote Sympathy-Related Traits - Attachment, succorance, and emotional contagion - Learned adjustment to and special treatment of the disable and injured. - Ability to trade places mentally with others: cognitive empathy. Norm-Related Characteristics - Prescriptive social rules. - Internalization of rules and anticipation of punishment. Reciprocity - A concept of giving, trading, and revenge. - Moralistic aggression against violators of reciprocity rules. Getting Along - Peacemaking and avoidance of conflict. - Community concern and maintenance of good relationships - Accomodation of conflicting interests through negotiation. It is hard to imagine human morality without those tendencies and capacities found in other species. /Unquote -- De Waal, Frans, 1996, p. 211, "Good Natured, The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" 1996, Rutgers University The title of the book alone is a full rebuttal to Vince's notions of animal ethical behavior. While there is no identity between human morality and the ethical behavior of animals, we share more than what Vince even suspects. The quote amounts to quite an ethic or "code of conduct." in non-human primates. Other titles from the same author include: Chimpanzee Politics, and Peacemaking Among Primates. On page 92: "These are sort of moments when we human observers feel most profoundly that there is some moral order upheld by the community [of chimpanzees]. We cannot help but identify with a group that we watch day in and day out, and our own values of order and harmony are so similar that we would have barked along with the chimpanzees if we thought it would mattered." On page 210: "A chimpanzee stroking and patting a victim of attack or sharing food with a hungry companion shows attitudes that are hard to distinguish from those of a person picking up a crying child or doing volunteer work in a soup kitchen. To classify the chimpanzee's behavior as based on instinct and the person's behavior as evidence of moral decency is misleading and probably incorrect. "The question of whether animals have morality is a bit like the question of whether they have culture, politics, or language. If we take the full-blown human phenomenon as a yardstick, they most definitely do not. On the other hand, if we break the relevant human abilities into their component parts, some are recognizable in other animals." That more than adequately supports my notion of "rudimentary ethical behavior in animals." So much for "all you can do is observe animal behavior." Corvid dinner for Vince, tonight, with leftovers. > That more than adequately supports my notion of "rudimentary ethical > behavior in animals." > > So much for "all you can do is observe animal behavior." > > Corvid dinner for Vince, tonight, with leftovers. And a freshly-baked s_it pie for dessert.... His favorite. I'm sending him a box of mynahs too -- for tomorrow's dinner. DSH >> >>> Not so. 'Measurement' entails ascertaining dimensions, quantity, or >> >>> capacity; it's about quantity not quality. [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Corvid dinner for Vince, tonight, with leftovers. On Jun 12, 9:23 am, Vincent Brannigan > you simply have given no support for your Tiglathian definition Your problem is that you remain unable to show that 'ethic' refers exclusively to human behavior. If you could show that you would be 100% right. My supporting the "Tiglathian" definition is a few cut-and-pastes away; be afraid. I dare you, on the other hand, to show references that support that "ethic" can only refer to human behavior. If your claim is true that you actually know that words have several meanings, you will now that ethics is a branch of philosophy and it does indeed refer to human behavior in the sense of 'professional ethics,' for instance, but those are not the only senses of the word, and that is when your argument collapses. Admit it, before we see you flatly denying conclusive evidence facing you -- not a new spectacle. > On Jun 12, 9:23 am, Vincent Brannigan >> you simply have given no support for your Tiglathian definition > > Your problem is that you remain unable to show that 'ethic' refers > exclusively to human behavior. If you could show that you would be > 100% right. Eth·ics n. (ĕth"ĭks) [Cf. F. éthique. See Ethic.] The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerning duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics. http://www.answers.com/topic/ethics-legal-term?cat=health Ethics The branch of philosophy known as ethics is concerned with human behavior, morality, and responsibilities of people to each other and to society. Because ethics plays such a large part in the way people live, it has always been a subject of great interest. http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-206435/philosophy From the dictionary of philosophy ethics Branch of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human conduct. Philosophers commonly distinguish: * descriptive ethics, the factual study of the ethical standards or principles of a group or tradition; * normative ethics, the development of theories that systematically denominate right and wrong actions; * applied ethics, the use of these theories to form judgments regarding practical cases; and * meta-ethics, careful analysis of the meaning and justification of ethical claims. http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#eth All human , you lose big time Vince who has had NSF funding in Ethics, NIH teaches ethics and Publsihes on Ethics have a nice day > My supporting the "Tiglathian" definition is a few cut-and-pastes > away; be afraid. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Admit it, before we see you flatly denying conclusive evidence facing > you -- not a new spectacle. > > On Jun 12, 9:23 am, Vincent Brannigan > >> you simply have given no support for your Tiglathian definition [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > All human , you lose > big time Can't you read? Right above I wrote: "Your problem is that you remain unable to show that 'ethic' refers exclusively to human behavior." I said nothing about "Ethics." You looked up the wrong word, doofus. The word is "ethic" not "ethics.' I have only told you about five times, as well. And I clearly made the distinction between the definitions you give and that of 'ethic.' What's funnier than a loser? A loser who thinks he won. > You can't devastate a person whose ignorance is profound. A chess > master cannot devastate a person who cannot play chess Before you can devastate anyone with your knowledge of ethics you must know what ethics are to start with. You are in the tragic position of having had to learn from a non- expert that ethics is not a science, professor. You are trailing. Bingo! Hilarious. Yes... It's called the Fallacy of Terminological Obfuscation.... A standard tactic used by flimflammers on the unwary. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult -------------------------------------------- > Laughing Out Loud. > > If Vince pulled "anthropometric reification" to say, "you are reading > the data wrong," can you imagine the stunts he must pull in front of > his unwary students, or the poor people in Germany gathered to hear > him speak? Pogue Brannigan OFTEN tries to bluff his way out. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas > Google hits as follows: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > about 305 for "bluffing your way out" [sop] [top-posting corrected, newgroups trimmed, honest attributions restored] >> Google hits as follows: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> about 305 for "bluffing your way out" [sop] >Pogue Brannigan OFTEN tries to bluff his way out. He could be running the gauntlet again... James >>> Google hits as follows: >>> >>> No results found for "anthropometric reification" Strange - I found 813. Must be that google has heard of the defrocked commander and is discriminating against him. >>> about 26 for "anthropomorphic reification" >>> >>> about 305 for "bluffing your way out" [sop] > >>Pogue Brannigan OFTEN tries to bluff his way out. Ah yes - the operative word is "OFTEN". With you it is ALWAYS - you ALWAYS try to bluff your way out. >He could be running the gauntlet again... Doesn't he always .... Eugene L Griessel Only a mediocre person is always at his best. - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval - >>>> Google hits as follows: >>>> >>>> No results found for "anthropometric reification" > >Strange - I found 813. Must be that google has heard of the defrocked >commander and is discriminating against him. That's because you didn't search for the exact phrase "anthropometric reification" (in quotes). Google found all the sites that have the two words used separately, as in the first hit I get: "Paradoxically, fingerprinting actually reified the very crude racial categories that had ... Although the fingerprint system, unlike anthropometric systems, ..." The words can be miles apart in the actual documents, and Google even finds related words, like "reified" in the example.. >>>> about 26 for "anthropomorphic reification" >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Ah yes - the operative word is "OFTEN". With you it is ALWAYS - you >ALWAYS try to bluff your way out. Who can forget his humiliating debacle over the phrase "up to he"? And his bluff about his reasons for visiting interracial porn sites? James > [top-posting corrected, newgroups trimmed, honest attributions > restored] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > James I actually used it in my class last week to describe the error that lead to the deaths of passengers on commuter aircraft i.e. the reification of the "average passenger" http://www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/TSB-SS/Air/2004/A04H0001/A04H0001_p2.htm Anytime a model assumes a specific human action based on measurements of other human actions it is engaged in anthropomorphic measurement. If the analysis assumes that those measurements represent an underlying constant reality the analyst is engaged in reification. I insist on these terms because engineers do not realize what they are doing. No they do not use these terms because they don't understand the error they are propagating They make the same mistake in physical measurements too. They confuse the consistency of a measurement with the existence of some underlying relevant reality. You can't make that assumption. Grade point averages can be calculated to 5 decimal places, but it does not mean they are meaningful Vince > Anytime a model assumes a specific human action based on measurements of > other human actions it is engaged in anthropomorphic measurement. You have not yet explained the relevance of anthropometric measurements to the points of ethical behavior I made, and you are taking the antrhopomorphic tangent already. Lateral thinking in search for a side exit? >>>>> Hilarious! >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > about 305 for "bluffing your way out" Few people make the mistake the poster made Vince > >>>>> Hilarious! > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Few people make the mistake the poster made How many readers have a shade of a clue as to what mistake that is? > >>> Hilarious! > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Anthropometric reification is an error in the inference from the data Congratulations, you seem o be the first person to have ever put together "Anthropometric" with "Reification" So, at long last you are the author of a totally original phrase, up there with, "I don't want a blow job, Angelina." >> Hilarious! >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > What happened here, folks, is that Vince gave us a quick reminder of > his multitudinous deficiencies as scholarly timber. No but Im happy to explain its a phrase, not two separate words you are making the mistake that anthropometry must be limited to physical measurements. There is no reason to limit the term to physical measurements. What is dist |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message