Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:16 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 5:48 pm The point is actually simple: there are no such things as "equal" theories. Rather, there are different theories that attempt to account for different aspects of a phenomenon.

General relativity, Brans-Dicke, loop quantum gravity, string theory, modified Newtonian dynamics and others, all attempt to account for the same aspects of the same phenomena. There are different research groups across the world looking for ways to generate data that would make them unequal in their explanatory power.

I'll take your word for it. But even by your own description, they aren't "equal" theories: they describe what you call "different aspects"...

I beg your pardon? Have you missed me making the point over and over that exactly the same data is interpreted in different ways?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:16 pm...and they draw on "data that would make them unequal."

Have another look:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:33 pmThere are different research groups across the world looking for ways to generate data that would make them unequal in their explanatory power.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:19 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:33 pmGeneral relativity, Brans-Dicke, loop quantum gravity, string theory, modified Newtonian dynamics and others, all attempt to account for the same aspects of the same phenomena. There are different research groups across the world looking for ways to generate data that would make them unequal in their explanatory power.

Do these groups each investigate all the theories or does group A do GR while group B does string theory, etc.?

They will be familiar with many different theories.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:19 pmIf each group is tackling a different theory, did they pick out of a hat or did each group choose to investigate the theory that seems most likely true to them?

So while individual scientists can have their own idea about what they think most likely, for the purpose of the research group they are working with, they will assume the axioms and principles peculiar to that group. So it is possible for someone sympathetic to one theory to be working on another they think less plausible.
Ya don't hafta take it from me. Listen to this Nobel prize winner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU ... =9&pp=iAQB

I think what is meant is that two or more theories may elicit the same results compatible with the same experiment, observation, or phenomena without necessarily being correct for the reasons supplied by either theory...which is quite common in science. It would be somewhat unusual if there were only one theory to account for what is observed.

In a way, it's not unlike a financial analyst's forecast that certain stocks or sectors will rise in the near future giving the reasons for this expectation. Another analyst predicts the same result for reasons of his own. Time confirms that both are right but for entirely different reasons than either of the one's given.

In the science domain, it takes just one anomaly to discount one of heretofore equally successful theories, thus moving the one which accounts for the anomaly up the probability scale until it too may be forced to move in the opposite direction due to refinements. This does not necessarily mean a negation of the dethroned theory. It's not unusual for the more maladjusted one to contain details that a more advanced theory can easily incorporate.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 9:03 pm I beg your pardon? Have you missed me making the point over and over that exactly the same data is interpreted in different ways?

But that's not true, even by your own account. It's not "exactly the same data" -- for different theories, it's drawn from "different aspects," you say. So it's "different data" -- all still pertaining to one particular phenomenon, and all variously "data," but not "the same" or "equal" at all. Which is similar to what I would say. But the word "equal" doesn't really apply there.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:16 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 5:48 pm The point is actually simple: there are no such things as "equal" theories. Rather, there are different theories that attempt to account for different aspects of a phenomenon.

General relativity, Brans-Dicke, loop quantum gravity, string theory, modified Newtonian dynamics and others, all attempt to account for the same aspects of the same phenomena. There are different research groups across the world looking for ways to generate data that would make them unequal in their explanatory power.

I'll take your word for it. But even by your own description, they aren't "equal" theories: they describe what you call "different aspects,"

It's you calling them "different aspects" not him.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 9:15 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:19 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:33 pmGeneral relativity, Brans-Dicke, loop quantum gravity, string theory, modified Newtonian dynamics and others, all attempt to account for the same aspects of the same phenomena. There are different research groups across the world looking for ways to generate data that would make them unequal in their explanatory power.

Do these groups each investigate all the theories or does group A do GR while group B does string theory, etc.?

They will be familiar with many different theories.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:19 pmIf each group is tackling a different theory, did they pick out of a hat or did each group choose to investigate the theory that seems most likely true to them?

So while individual scientists can have their own idea about what they think most likely, for the purpose of the research group they are working with, they will assume the axioms and principles peculiar to that group. So it is possible for someone sympathetic to one theory to be working on another they think less plausible.
Ya don't hafta take it from me. Listen to this Nobel prize winner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU ... =9&pp=iAQB

If you have data without any error bar then there is only one unique theory that explains the data!

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 9:15 pm

"I, Dr Franklin Furter, must assure you, Linus, theories A and B are equal, however -- becuz of reasons -- I personally will focus all my research on A."

"And I, Professor Linus Scthupenberg tell you, Franklin, plainly, I cannot say which is the true theory, but my gut tells me B is the one, so my research will focus on it."

I like Scthupenberg better.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 9:54 pm It's you calling them "different aspects" not him.

Then it should have been he. It's the truth. Different theories base their observations on different data points, at the very least...if not also on very different postulates and suppositions, as well, which is even more common. What's not common is for two theories to refer to exactly only the same set of particular data, using the same postulates and suppositions. I don't even know of one such case.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:11 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 6:15 pmThe same empirical evidence by which idealists and dualists arrive at their conclusions.

Wrong, Physicalism is opposed to idealism.

Yes, but they are both hypotheses that are equally supported by exactly the same evidence. Until you can understand that, you have no more chance of being a competent philosopher than Immanuel Can.

Not sure of your point.

As a see it, every "ism" from theism to scientific realism is related ultimately to the "same" empirical experiences and evidence within the universe.
Theism linked the empirical evidence of creations to an ultimate creator.
Science infer laws of nature from empirical evidences.
Idealism link empirical evidences with activities in the mind.

My point is not with reference to the 'same empirical evidence' but rather to the different framework and system that interpret the said empirical evidences based on the assumptions and principles therein.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:49 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 5:09 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 4:34 am

In the text that I quoted from your post, you seemed to be saying that "the moral maxim and standard Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is derived from "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans". If that is the case, then it is dependent on " at what point does life become a human life". If it has yet to have become a human life, then the "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans" is not applicable. Your post does not address this.

In the context, what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization.
"When a sperm cell joins with an egg, it's called fertilization."

So, if unplanned birth is ZERO, then there is no need for the question of intentional abortion and the question of when human life emerged upon fertilization.

As for other reasons for abortion, humanity need to strive to prevent it at source to the best of abilities.

In practice, there will still be a need for abortions but they should be limited to the optimal minimum.

Evidently you now concede that "the pertinent question here is, 'At what point does life become a human life?'". Your post fails to address the rest of my earlier post which posits that "the question is debatable" and fails to address the argument put forth by Paulson (see link below). You make no counterargument. Instead you simply declare that you believe that "what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization". At least attempt to make a well-reasoned counterargument.

This issue is not as simplistic as you and others seem to believe. For example, consider that Christianity is divided on the question of abortion. In part, it is because the Bible is ambiguous on this issue. Many Evangelical Christians vehemently contend that the Bible unquestionably says that human life begins at conception, but the fact is that a reasonable case can be made that according to the Bible, human life begins at birth.

Religion in general is divided. Read the article at the link following:
Where major religious groups stand on abortion
From https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -abortion/>

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 11:10 pm The pertinent question here is, "At what point does life become a human life?". The question is debatable. Consider the following. According to Paulson, "the oughtnot-ness to kill humans" does not begin at conception.

My point is the question of 'when human life begins' is moot and redundant if we can prevent unplanned birth from arising at source.

If there is ZERO unplanned birth, then there is no need to ask the question 'when human life begins' at all in relation to 'abortion' whether it is at fertilization, before fertilization [conception], reincarnated from somewhere [past lives], or God's breath.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:22 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:49 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 5:09 am
In the context, what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization.
"When a sperm cell joins with an egg, it's called fertilization."

So, if unplanned birth is ZERO, then there is no need for the question of intentional abortion and the question of when human life emerged upon fertilization.

As for other reasons for abortion, humanity need to strive to prevent it at source to the best of abilities.

In practice, there will still be a need for abortions but they should be limited to the optimal minimum.

Evidently you now concede that "the pertinent question here is, 'At what point does life become a human life?'". Your post fails to address the rest of my earlier post which posits that "the question is debatable" and fails to address the argument put forth by Paulson (see link below). You make no counterargument. Instead you simply declare that you believe that "what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization". At least attempt to make a well-reasoned counterargument.

This issue is not as simplistic as you and others seem to believe. For example, consider that Christianity is divided on the question of abortion. In part, it is because the Bible is ambiguous on this issue. Many Evangelical Christians vehemently contend that the Bible unquestionably says that human life begins at conception, but the fact is that a reasonable case can be made that according to the Bible, human life begins at birth.

Religion in general is divided. Read the article at the link following:
Where major religious groups stand on abortion
From https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -abortion/>

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 11:10 pm The pertinent question here is, "At what point does life become a human life?". The question is debatable. Consider the following. According to Paulson, "the oughtnot-ness to kill humans" does not begin at conception.

My point is the question of 'when human life begins' is moot and redundant if we can prevent unplanned birth from arising at source.

If there is ZERO unplanned birth, then there is no need to ask the question 'when human life begins' at all in relation to 'abortion' whether it is at fertilization, before fertilization [conception], reincarnated from somewhere [past lives], or God's breath.

Earlier you wrote the following:
"The 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' & therefrom "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model."

Now it seems rather than admit that you were wrong about the pertinent question being "At what point does life become a human life", you've decided to pretend that what you really meant was:
"IF there ever comes a time that there is ZERO unplanned birth", then "Abortion will not be Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model."

That's really something.

Any chance that you're related to Emily Litella?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZLeaSWY37I

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:22 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:49 pm

Evidently you now concede that "the pertinent question here is, 'At what point does life become a human life?'". Your post fails to address the rest of my earlier post which posits that "the question is debatable" and fails to address the argument put forth by Paulson (see link below). You make no counterargument. Instead you simply declare that you believe that "what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization". At least attempt to make a well-reasoned counterargument.

This issue is not as simplistic as you and others seem to believe. For example, consider that Christianity is divided on the question of abortion. In part, it is because the Bible is ambiguous on this issue. Many Evangelical Christians vehemently contend that the Bible unquestionably says that human life begins at conception, but the fact is that a reasonable case can be made that according to the Bible, human life begins at birth.

Religion in general is divided. Read the article at the link following:
Where major religious groups stand on abortion
From https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -abortion/>

My point is the question of 'when human life begins' is moot and redundant if we can prevent unplanned birth from arising at source.

If there is ZERO unplanned birth, then there is no need to ask the question 'when human life begins' at all in relation to 'abortion' whether it is at fertilization, before fertilization [conception], reincarnated from somewhere [past lives], or God's breath.

Earlier you wrote the following:
"The 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' & therefrom "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model."

Now it seems rather than admit that you were wrong about the pertinent question being "At what point does life become a human life", you've decided to pretend that what you really meant was:
"IF there ever comes a time that there is ZERO unplanned birth", then "Abortion will not be Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model."

That's really something.

Any chance that you're related to Emily Litella?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZLeaSWY37I

I am not admitting I am wrong, since we have not debated seriously on the issue,
"At what point does life become a human life"

In the first place, if serious, you have to define 'human' and 'life' before starting a serious debate on the issue.

Generally, "life" begins at the point when the sperm has successfully entered the egg and the cell [zygote] begin to divide. There are more processes which before the zygote where one can debate when human life begins.
There are so many perspectives to 'when human-life' begins and one can debate "till the cows come home."
If you are coming from a religious perspective you are likely to ground your argument on an illusion.

Your paraphrasing of my point is wrong.
"IF there ever comes a time that there is ZERO unplanned birth",
I never intended the above.
ZERO unplanned birth is merely an ideal [impossible in practice] and standard to guide continuous improvements in a reducing trend of abortions.

If we are to focus on the target of ZERO unplanned birth, then there is no need for the redundant question of "At what point does life become a human life"

If you want to have a serious discussion on,
"At what point does life become a human life"
see this: viewtopic.php?p=726543#p726543

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:22 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:49 pm

Evidently you now concede that "the pertinent question here is, 'At what point does life become a human life?'". Your post fails to address the rest of my earlier post which posits that "the question is debatable" and fails to address the argument put forth by Paulson (see link below). You make no counterargument. Instead you simply declare that you believe that "what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization". At least attempt to make a well-reasoned counterargument.

This issue is not as simplistic as you and others seem to believe. For example, consider that Christianity is divided on the question of abortion. In part, it is because the Bible is ambiguous on this issue. Many Evangelical Christians vehemently contend that the Bible unquestionably says that human life begins at conception, but the fact is that a reasonable case can be made that according to the Bible, human life begins at birth.

Religion in general is divided. Read the article at the link following:
Where major religious groups stand on abortion
From https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -abortion/>

My point is the question of 'when human life begins' is moot and redundant if we can prevent unplanned birth from arising at source.

If there is ZERO unplanned birth, then there is no need to ask the question 'when human life begins' at all in relation to 'abortion' whether it is at fertilization, before fertilization [conception], reincarnated from somewhere [past lives], or God's breath.

Earlier you wrote the following:
"The 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' & therefrom "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model."

Now it seems rather than admit that you were wrong about the pertinent question being "At what point does life become a human life", you've decided to pretend that what you really meant was:
"IF there ever comes a time that there is ZERO unplanned birth", then "Abortion will not be Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model."

That's really something.

Any chance that you're related to Emily Litella?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZLeaSWY37I

Well, even if there were zero unplanned pregnancies there would be a need for terminations for fetal anomalies.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 6:04 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:22 am
My point is the question of 'when human life begins' is moot and redundant if we can prevent unplanned birth from arising at source.

If there is ZERO unplanned birth, then there is no need to ask the question 'when human life begins' at all in relation to 'abortion' whether it is at fertilization, before fertilization [conception], reincarnated from somewhere [past lives], or God's breath.

Earlier you wrote the following:
"The 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' & therefrom "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model."

Now it seems rather than admit that you were wrong about the pertinent question being "At what point does life become a human life", you've decided to pretend that what you really meant was:
"IF there ever comes a time that there is ZERO unplanned birth", then "Abortion will not be Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model."

That's really something.

Any chance that you're related to Emily Litella?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZLeaSWY37I

Well, even if there were zero unplanned pregnancies there would be a need for terminations for fetal anomalies.

The "zero unplanned pregnancies" is MERELY an ideal target [supposedly objective] that humanity must strive for at all times.
As such, we are planning to achieve "ZERO unplanned pregnancies" but we know in real life, what is actual rarely go according to what is plan.

So, yes, there will be fetal anomalies and other reasons that warrant the need for abortion.

Because, we have a target to achieve, we will try to find out why and prevent future fetal anomalies and the other reasons from happening in the future AS BEST AS WE CAN.

What is critical here is the moral model must have an objective target to guide continual moral progress.

In contrast, moral relativism is to each their own and moral skepticism is flagrant indifference, thus both will not motivate moral progress at all.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 4:27 am
Because, we have a target to achieve, we will try to find out why and prevent future fetal anomalies and the other reasons from happening in the future AS BEST AS WE CAN.

As best we can ? Eugenics might work to prevent deformities. Better yet, we could sterilize everyone. That would do the trick!

Or perhaps you didn't mean what you clearly wrote.