bugzysegal

In the back and forth with the black woman on Treyvon Martin, Stefan quoted some statistics. They were provocative and alarming to be quite honest. One was something like "A white person is three times more likely to be assaulted by a black person than another white person." Much to my dismay there was no link in the description, only an in video reference to FBI statistics (with no name or year). When I inquired further via e-mail I was told to pull myself up by my statistical bootstraps.

What are you suggesting? Good luck man.

To be precise, the major claims he makes are that there will be a 3 degree rise in temperatures and that this will lead to increase in floods, storms, etc.

Actually many on this board doubt it's very existence. Read above. Also, he talks about a 3 degree change and an increase in storms and other natural disasters to happen in the future. I skipped around in that video. Does he call into question the same statistics (studies) Derek sites? So it's merely conspiracy? Because it would have to be. He doesn't set up a straw man, he argues a position the opposition actually holds. That's the point of the back and forth of the entire video. Are you also suggesting his source doesn't provide an adequate argument or interpret the evidence correctly? I wonder if the climate deaths figure factors in increased prevalence of storms, floods, etc? If so this statistic would be interesting indeed. Humans are made for the sub-tropical climates, so it's not all to surprising to be honest. I do wonder about the effects on other species and if through the food chain that might affect us at some point. Are you saying the sources he sites are addressed in this forum somewhere? It's not just the claims he made, but what evidence he based those claims on that is important to me. Many of the models Stefan criticize that had crazy claims and predictions didn't factor in satellite data as I recall. If by "in balance" he means a homeostasis that has kept out climate stable for the past 800,000 years, I would say that may be a good thing.

You have all butchered his arguments. He doesn't flatly argue against mind changing through argumentation, but that it is highly bound by other factors. He doesn't say psychology should be inconsistent, but that it's search for consistency in human cognition should not merely seek out the dominance of rationality(avoiding confirmation bias reinforcing dominance of rationality). When you argue against someone, not only is it fair to accurately represent someone's arguments for critique, but this effort is what lends your critique credibility. I would ask you to suspend your disbelief briefly: Arguing contradictions can't be true doesn't invalidate(make impossible) the possibility of contradiction. If that seems non-sensical (which I'm sure to most it does)in stead of trying to follow an argument, allow your mind to paint a picture: Reason is a tool so well crafted, that we have very few other ways for communicating sophisticated meaning. At the roots of language, where we acquire it, there is action with certainty, without empirical doubt or reason. The fact that we speak at all expresses the fundamental belief that their are other minds. Saying that "arguing against reason" is a bad argument is true, if reason is the tool you are trying to use. That does not mean it is the only tool. Art experiments with all manner of communication. Reason is but a tool, not one of divination of fundamental truth, but one assessing patterns emerging from molecular, to the celestial. We are nested comfortably in the goldy-locks zone of physics.Imagine that we only think reason explains all we examine, merely because we assume it does. What if we pervert it and change its functioning to serve our purposes becoming in effect the ultimate confirmation bias? So far the tools of practical reason (science) have given us good answers, but what would it mean if there were always more questions? If there is no bedrock to physics, must there be one of truth? Or is truth more like water than the cup? My introduction to philosophy class was taught a by a Dr. of Eastern philosophy. After rigorous back and forth about how I saw Buddhism as irrational, she replied that Buddhism was not rationalist. I didn't know how to reply because I never thought people would adhere to a system of beliefs which didn't strictly adhere to reason. This was many years ago. Determined to prove the world a reasonable one, I delved into philosophy as my major. These days, I see that alternative less as a surrender to not knowing. The existence of mystery doesn't necessarily depend on our ability to comprehend it (though it might which would be mysterious indeed!). In case this also sounds like sciencey-new-age-woo to you, I assure you I'm not meditating about "quantum consciousness" Certainty is good and perhaps it is too seductive. Without it their would be no language. That does not negate the fact that the world may be stranger than we can imagine.

If there are not structural defects in the building known to the public, the risk taken and responsibility acquired are negligible. Bad stuff happens frequently, and sometimes its no particular person's fault, just a matter of statistics.No one can choose to live their lives free of any risks. We must sort through which ones are significant and makes decisions about them, weighing benefits no? I think the risks associated with "safe sex" are similarly negligible.

Would two drivers, who take all reasonable measures to prevent collision, be comparable to sexual partners who use multiple forms of contraception? If yes, what about one form of hormonal birth control, known to be 99% effective? Not trying to slippery slope, just trying to see what you meant by "will likely end in a particular outcome" because that could mean anything from 51%-100%. I suppose I should have just asked for a clarification.

I never made implied it was 100%. dsayers talked about "engage(ing) in behavior you know will likely end in a particular outcome." We call car accidents, accidents despite the fact that we know there is a possibility they occur during the course of normal, safe driving. We expose ourselves to any number of risks even sitting in a building, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for freak accidents.

Hey folks, here's a video that addresses a lot of the points made by Stefan and others who doubt the very existence of global warming. It's beautifully sourced in the description. I'd love to know if anyone has evidence to contradict the claims made here. I also think it's interesting that Derek does no catastrophize the phenomenon.

Here is a very good debate on the topic: I side with Magid Nawaz. He doesn't deny that the doctrines contain dangerous ideas, or that certain people follow them to the worlds detriment. His argument is rather that within that set of ideas there are ways of achieving pluralism. He is an ex-Jihadist who now runs an organization whose sole purpose is the de-radicalization of Muslim youth. He has a book coming out with Sam Harris called "moving forward." His great point is that we aren't going to convince 1.5 billion Muslims to become atheists, but we might foster the argument that their is room for a Muslim Renaissance. Again, whether or not the texts urge peace or not is irrelevant, just look at Christianity. The fact is, there is a problem of Islamo-fascism right now and a cultural change must ensue.

In this case the "4 year old test" or whether or not a 4 year old might understand the theory, might be a poor tool. It's possible that the correct theory of truth is actually quite complex and when simplified, loses significant explanatory power. Just a thought.

Jokes!

If their argument relies on the premise that human produced CO2 will break through the natural variance at some point, due to industrialization of poorer countries, and that current consumption is therefore unsustainable, I think your argument fails. If they instead argue that emissions should be brought to 0, then your argument stands. No one can deny we affect our environment, it's what marks us as the dominant species. To what extent we are negatively affecting the climate seems a radically complex answer to a deviously simple sounding question.

Your ability to ad-hoc analyze fact patterns is not persuasive. Nor does it seem you have a firm grasp of evolution. Evolution doesn't have concerns such as "utility." It is completely unmotivated in any anthropomorphic way. Deleterious traits are often selected against in environments which make them inhibit reproduction. However, evolution does not operate in strict rule like patterns, nor would any mutations which would ultimately be selected against be "bad" mutations, they simply reduce fitness. It is simply a matter of probability. Even if that were the case that homosexuality was a mutation that was somehow deleterious, the fact that these traits would be from non-chosen origins strictly bans them from moral categorization. Lions are not evil for eating gazelles.

If you ever take anything I've ever said seriously, it should be the following. There is no law without language, no language without ambiguity... There is no ethics without language, no language without ambiguity. Nothing is black and white, no matter how comforting it is to pretend such is true. You can pass judgments under the impression that the world is black and white, on and off, yin and yang, but you would be foolish to think those judgments necessarily reflect reality. The problem is of course, we have to make judgment calls. And we do, but to get caught up in a false sense of certainty is truly egregious.

Is it perfectly equivalent if you're on birth control? Something statistically shown to reduce your odds to 1 in a 100?

That sure is a convenient way to get around holding yourself to any kind of scientific rigor. What kind of comedy do you enjoy? Please answer my question before divulging any more ad-hoc hypotheses.

Are you an anthropologist!? Hey everybody, this guys an anthropologist!

On the question, evolution wouldn't breed out homosexuals if homosexuals chose to reproduce with women to carry on their genetics (as has often been the case). Greeks considered women for the baby making and men for the real sex. Odd, yes, but not unworkable. I think you're not accounting for behavior despite sexual preference. Indeed, lesbian couples can have a "donor" impregnate both partners so that their children will be related. This has always been an option, despite their not be IVF options in the distant past. That all being said, the hormonal exposure model is likely a much stronger case for why homosexuality persists. RoseCodex is entirely right to point this out. I suspect that the Milo Yiannopolous is deeply confused. It seems that his religious convictions determine his outlook on the source of homosexuality, not vice versa. As a side note he had sex with a priest at the age of 14 and thinks that if anything, he preyed on the priest. That may be an indicator as to the general coherence of that mans thinking.

All reasonable. Also, would anyone else be interested in having a natural language discussion with a chimp? I would and I think other people would to (scientists like Jane Goodall).

Couldn't agree more. The non-market of organs is hurting the poor now.

For some people, the machine may be the rational choice since they have made a mess of running their own lives. When when you say any rational person innately values choice, what does that mean? If i am about to sit down for breakfast and a man bursts into my room and points a gun in my face and utters the phrase "The lead or the bacon," am i better off because now i have one more choice i did not have before? You cannot just assert these things, you need to defend them. Presenting an ultimatum actually limits choice and is therefore immoral. "neither" is a possibility. But I see your point. They are limiting your choice to not give them bacon without being shot. As stated earlier, who's choice is maximized? Is it our collective choice or my individual choice? Do not just state things that are true, provide references or arguments for why they are in fact true. What is economic value? Right, the class of people who's choices can be limited or maximized are those who are interacting with other conscious agents. Each instance where there is a transfer of property, gift, or charity (these are the only kinds of exchanges that really come to mind) is a situation where there is mutual assent, or there isn't. So long as each instance has mutual assent, aggregate choice is maximized, but that is strictly dependent on local maximization of choice. Choice cannot be considered outside of the local however, because choices are merely between those whose lots are in consideration. The fact that if each local choice is mutual and is therefore maximized, makes aggregate maximization true only incidentally, though unequivocally. Why should i be forced to make a choice because a baby is drowning in a shallow pool? Does that not minimize my choice? I thought I spelled this out, but I did not do so (it was very late at night when I wrote a lot of this). intrinsic values are two-fold (at least), choice and preservation of conscious entities. Because the preservation of conscious creatures presents with all the problems of classical utilitarianism, it is almost never useful in making a judgement call about value. Quantifying and comparing is a particular point of contention. The thought experiment is supposed to demonstrate two things. 1. we value conscious creatures intrinsically. 2. that value subverts or outweighs the value of the choice to do nothing, necessarily making action compulsory. I think the third intrinsic value I'll tack on is self-preservation. Not only is it an obvious biological imperative, but it is exactly what Mill is getting at when he argues that we have the moral right to protect our bodily integrity. There is a huge caveat however: Each evaluation of choice is only in regards to the options before moral agents at that moment, with no calculation of future choice. Each moment assent is given is distinct. So raping a woman and saying that because a baby is created and there is more choice, due to another moral agent coming into existence, is not viable. It is backwards looking only factoring events (how property is divided and what is now a moral agent) up until the moment of decision, despite decisions be made based on projections about the future. Once you begin looking at choice as non-instantaneous, which I think is just prima facie definitively incorrect, all the classic Utilitarian problems arise.

"value does not exist outside of individual consciousness, the definition of subjective" My point was math is objective and doesn't exist outside the minds of conscious entities. It was drawing on analogy,I thought it was obvious.

I'd ask that you not put words in my mouth. I didn't address it in the private message, because you had just got done telling me how my post wasn't worth your time because of our rapport. That left me a bit miffed. Math is only in the conscious mind. Unless you are a mathematical realist(platonist), which is absurd.

You can straightforwardly reject my definition of value. That doesn't make your assessment accurate right? While value is the extent an individual assesses usefulness or desirability, where there is no room for assessment, value is objective. Again we are left at an argument from definition.