WasatchMan

So what if they can calculate probabilities of series of events with great precision? Individual events are still random regardless of how well they can anticipate the distribution of a series. The importance of the distinction between individual and a series is pretty important when contemplating randomness as a concept.

Please do PM Harris's take on radomness. I follow the guy and like most of what he has got to say. I do disagree with some of the conclusions he reaches but I always do take what he has to say seriously. As far as the claim "that not even quantum mechanics is random due to the fact we can determine probabilities of quantum events in aggregate, despite not being able to predict individual events" - I would just say that this statement is pro-randomness. Events happen on an individual basis and even if an aggregate probability can be determined - any individual result is random with higher and lesser probabilities assigned to each outcome.

Randomness does not exist, I will agree with A4E, but that is because all concepts don't exist. Randomness is a very useful concept which explains something that lacks a pattern of predicable events. Only a determinist would try to argue that no event is random.

Pretty good. Thanks for sharing.

Most scientific models don't even meet the universality that you want to apply to human behavior. Even models of gravity that can send a probe to Mars will break down in extreme situations. This doesn't stop scientists and engineers from applying gravitational models - and I don't see how some particular paradox would stop philosophers from applying logical models of ethics to human behavior.

It is a tool of logic. In this context it applies to a consistent application of human behavior that can be applied universally within its context. Its not gravity, in the way that it just "is" - however I can't really think of a better standard for an ethical system than a logical approach that can be applied universally. There is no other alternative.

I would say that the biggest thing that objectivity applies to ethics is non-contradiction. UPB applies the logical law of non-contradiction to human behavior.

I heard Saudi Arabia won't take in refugees, but is building a bunch (somewhere around 20) Wahhabi temples in Germany specifically for refugees. Seems like they get how to play into this culture war while the west just continues to kill itself through its weakness of character.

It would be nice to see the case made instead of just an assertion. As someone who doesn't know ye' Olde Testament, I have no way of knowing whether this claim is true, false, and what it means.

Things vary a lot in the STEM fields. Some you may need a PhD (because you want to be a professor or job competition), others you already wasted too much time just to get into the field that you really just need to look for on the job expierence. You have to learn how money is made by applying the concepts learned - which I have found is a whole different world then what you will find in a textbook. I am not in computer science but my guess is a phd is a waste.

But they (bonobos) are using sexuality to establish social standing so they get access to reproduction. Homosexuals are just using sexuality for a purpose our genes may not have intended. This doesn't make them wrong though. There seems to be the argument in here that sex can be used for other purposes than reproduction. Nobody disagrees with this argument . Homer Simpson can use a hand gun to open a can a beer, does that mean that the purpose of a hand gun is no longer self defense? Biological purpose is different than functionality. Things can have many legitimate uses, this doesn't change their biological purpose. I think one of the problems people are having with this this question is with premises. I think some take "purpose" to be a meaning of life question (why are we here/what should we do/what is right/what is wrong), and others interpret purpose as a biological question. If we think deeper about the biological purpose argument and what that really means you can understand why people are having such a hard time understanding why anyone would try to claim that the purpose of sex is not for reproduction. This is because biologically speaking, you are basically making a tautology and then claiming it not to be true. Biology holds the premise that nature has designed life for the purpose of creating life. Biology would even go as far as saying the meaning of your life, your purpose for existence in the first place, is to replicate your genes through reproducing. Does this make it immoral to have fun with sexual organs? I don't think so. But it is important to keep into perspective that we are in fact animals that exist through a evolutionary process of gene replication that has naturally selected out the best genes for survival to live in a given environment - and that this fact does impact our physiological and psychological make-up.

Wouldn't you say that sexuality being intertwined into hierarchical or social behavior traits as just evolution in action, where sexuality is able to drive behavior towards social conditions that drive towards an optimal condition for gene survival? I don't see how this is a case against the premise that sex is for reproduction, I see this argument as strengthening the case. Sex is so intertwined in reproduction that it drives natural selection towards behavior traits that are beneficial to the gene pool.

What does biological function have to do with morality?

The reason I have a nose is to smell and filter air I breath, if I decided that my nose was also a good hole to put cocaine would that change the reason I have a nose?

My great great grandma was there she told me it didn't happen.

Sounds like you would have to make the individual case that wealth was indeed stolen through the initiation of force against others. It definitely isn't wrong to steal your bike back from someone who stole it from you, and if you hired someones else to steal it back for you that would be fine too. You can't carte-blanche say that these people are haves and these others are have nots, therefore Robin Hood.

Given that the actual definition of miracle is: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency" I think that it is axiomatically impossible to explain miracles in a naturalistic way. In other words, if something is explained by naturalistic ways, it ceases to become a miracle. Also, given an Aristotelian basis for metaphysics, miracles are impossible, and is just like the God of the gaps - only exists in areas where knowledge is insufficient to understand a process. Maybe your question is more properly, what is the psychological explanations of peoples belief of, and even attraction to, miracles (i.e. things that are impossible for humans to explain)? I would say it is an envy of the competent and a fear of death, for if there are things that are impossible for people to explain in this universe it means that there is something greater than nature.

Is anyone else getting sick of these people denigrating members of this forum? I sure am. Its like this forum is a joke for them on our expense. I don't think that is what we should be about. This is about philosophy, not assholery.

I did, don't know if you saw the "that that" but the second that was referring to the OPs argument. You really going to start playing semantics? Does that really provide value to anyone?

I didn't admit it wasn't an argument... I said that "solidarity" is not an argument... A verb is also not a noun. Seriously learn some grammar before you go half cocked accusing people of stuff.

My only point was that supporting someone just because they are being attacked by a group you don't like is tribalism. A point I stick by. Nothing about "solidarity" has anything to do with this point... You one wound up dude. While you are so wound up on trying to play gotcha, did you notice your (and J.D.s) huge error in continuously calling my argument an argument from adjective, with an argument that didn't even contain an adjective? Before trying to jump down someone elses throat, you may want to have some humility of your own.

OK, so you are smuggling a lot of stuff into this that I didn't bring to the table. My statement was that supporting someone just because they are being attacked by feminism is tribalism. That that is not a valid argument. That is the statement - try not to read into it based on your own bias. I don't know where you get the rest of your argument, especially since you agree with me we shouldn't buy his books in a show of solidarity isn't necessarily a valid argument. Also, "tribalism" is not an adjective - it is a noun... so... yeah... If you are unsure of the definition I suggest the use of a Google search I will provide it to you this time: trib·al·ism ˈtrībəˌlizəm/ noun noun: tribalism the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.

I think I made it clear that I mean that just supporting someone because they are being attacked is not objective. Its like saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a philosophical statement. Why do you feel the need to be so forceful in the way you conduct yourself? Are you trying to intimidate me or make others think you are dominating me and therefore right?

Here is a great endorsement to following PUA...