Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: Which position was better argued and supported?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Bluepinapple agreed to go ahead and start the poll discussion for our 1 vs 1 debate: Just Me vs Bluepinaple: Homosexuality, is it a choice or genetics?

    The debate was not fully completed due to bluepinapple deciding to leave the debate before the post limit was reached.

    When voting in the poll, please vote according to who's posts was well written/clear, who supported their claim the best, and who refuted the others claim/support the best.

    Please do not vote based on your personal opinion on the topic itself.
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    I don't want it to seem underhanded of me to vote against you, Just Me, as if I voted only because of my own personal views and didn't want to rationalize my vote according to the debate. When I have the time either today, or some other day this week, I will give a proper explanation of how I saw the debate.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  3. #3
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    I thought both people debated well. I think most people are born with their sexuality, and sometimes its a choice. Sometimes people over-ride their natural inclinations so from that point of view it is a choice, but then again it might not last. Eg I know someone who's dad was married for years before coming out, and I knew a bloke living with a woman and he had formerly lived a gay life. I also knew a gay bloke who said he didnt believe there was such a thing as bi people, only straights trying to be gay and vice versa. I'm dubious about that idea. Anyway, overall, most people dont really choose to be gay and even if some can over-ride it, why should they have to?

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    northern ill noise
    Posts
    250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    There is ample evidence to support that by the time you have reached maturity, where you can "make a choice", that genetics and environment have shaped your preferences to a large degree. They have done numerous studies with genetic and fraternal twins, and there is a significantly higher correlation of sexual preference between genetic twins, but genetics isn't the whole story.

    There's even gay animals, whats the problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Quote Originally Posted by daveId View Post
    There is ample evidence to support that by the time you have reached maturity, where you can "make a choice", that genetics and environment have shaped your preferences to a large degree. They have done numerous studies with genetic and fraternal twins, and there is a significantly higher correlation of sexual preference between genetic twins, but genetics isn't the whole story.

    There's even gay animals, whats the problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior
    Problem: The evidence is in no way conclusive, and the standpoint you are arguing from does not accept the bearing of the fact that people are frequently capable of changing their behavior/thinking in several different areas of their lives. Evidence has yet to be found that says that the issue of sexuality is different than any other of these issues that are just as intrinsic to the human psyche.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    northern ill noise
    Posts
    250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    Problem: The evidence is in no way conclusive, and the standpoint you are arguing from does not accept the bearing of the fact that people are frequently capable of changing their behavior/thinking in several different areas of their lives.
    I'm not saying choice isn't a component in some cases. The Poll is if it is All choice, which is pretty obviously false. I personally cannot choose to be gay, I'm not wired like that. Can you, Luke, choose to be gay? spoiler, if this is anything but NO, there will be a challenge issued

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Just managed to read through the thread. While I personally believe that homosexuality is not a choice, I still voted in favor of JM's debate.

    She was the only one who backed up her claims, answered all questions. She didn't back out of the debate when she realised she was losing. She won, fair and square - and provided better arguments, too.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Thank you everyone who has voted.. Esp the ones who voted based on the actual debate instead of their personal opinions lol...

    ---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    I don't want it to seem underhanded of me to vote against you, Just Me, as if I voted only because of my own personal views and didn't want to rationalize my vote according to the debate. When I have the time either today, or some other day this week, I will give a proper explanation of how I saw the debate.
    looking forward to the explanation
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    I'm not saying choice isn't a component in some cases. The Poll is if it is All choice, which is pretty obviously false. I personally cannot choose to be gay, I'm not wired like that. Can you, Luke, choose to be gay? spoiler, if this is anything but NO, there will be a challenge issued
    I was gay. And then I decided it contradicted my beliefs about relationships (which is a separate issue from this and I don't want to discuss it).

    I never felt that my body physiologically required of me to be attracted to men. I simply became accustomed to the idea of being gay because of my doubts as to whether or not I truly was heterosexual. After that long process, I decided that my sexuality was definitely a choice, that my body would react physiologically to either sex (which it will, just like how a straight man can get an involuntary erection if he's grinded up against by another man), and that I preferred to be heterosexual because it lined up with my beliefs.

    looking forward to the explanation
    I already gave you that explanation, Just Me, and here it is:

    Problem: The evidence is in no way conclusive, and the standpoint you are arguing from does not accept the bearing of the fact that people are frequently capable of changing their behavior/thinking in several different areas of their lives. Evidence has yet to be found that says that the issue of sexuality is different than any other of these issues that are just as intrinsic to the human psyche.
    Because you could not prove that it was necessarily a matter of genetics, by way of indisputable evidence (which if you're perplexed about what I would dispute you can debate me about it some time), you lost the debate by default.
    Last edited by Lukecash12; January 8th, 2011 at 12:00 AM.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  10. #10
    Edaps7
    Guest

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    I would love to revisit this issue as I feel as though counter position wasn't fully defended

  11. #11
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    So you would be taking the position that homosexuality is a personal choice and not a matter of biology?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Behavior is based on orientation but orientation is not based on behavior.

    If one has sex with someone because they are attracted to that person, the sexual orientation that makes them desire the person of that gender clearly lead to the behavior.

    But if one if forced to have sex with someone of the gender they are not attracted to, it does not effect their sexual orientation. If a straight man is raped by another man, he has engaged in homosexual sex but that has no effect on his sexual orientation.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Thank you for the music. It definitely helps this thread remain a discussion rather than a debate, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I love classical in general, but lately have been listening to a lot of Philip Glass - currently, the Aguas da Amazonia album:


    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    One could also casually list myriads of non-constraining factors as well, given a reasonable amount of exposure to neurology, psychology, and philosophy of mind. Which amount then is "overwhelming"? Is it not also possible to consider constraining factors as limiting the range of total choices, and non-constraining factors as influencing the range of preferred choices?
    It think we're talking about two different things here: 1. (non-)constraining factors which affect or determine the outcome of a choice; 2. the factors which cause/lead to the situation in which a choice is made. The point I'm making is regarding the latter, and how any given situation will have an overwhelmingly greater number of causal elements which are out of one's control than are in one's control. This principle applies causally (and temporally) before any considerations can even be made with regards to the factors affecting the decision itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    If you were a hard determinist, you wouldn't be granting the idea of a non-constraining factor in the first place, rather you would only be granting that there are constraining causes, not factors. For clarity's sake, are you one of the three categories of thinkers I referenced, or are you skeptical of all three as a reasonable conclusion?
    For me, skepticism is always preferable, but if pressed to choose, then I guess I'm more of a determinist. My reasoning is that, as above, I'm looking at the bigger picture - not just the choice being made and the (non-)constraining factors deciding it's outcome, but also the causal elements which lead to the situation - I believe we must even consider the causal elements that are out of our control which lead to the existence of (non-)constraining factors deciding the outcome.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Thank you for the music. It definitely helps this thread remain a discussion rather than a debate, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I love classical in general, but lately have been listening to a lot of Philip Glass - currently, the Aguas da Amazonia album:
    Phillip Glass, and Lepo Sumera (another chap you may want to look into if you aren't familiar with the name), are great composers in the Minimalist genre, especially in my mind because they are early music enthusiasts and have both implemented elements of Greek hymns and chants in their musical thinking. Sumera here has also written for a variety of ensembles:

    Lepo Sumera's Musica Profana

    As of late, I've primarily been into ars antiqua and ars nova, trying to get into the heads of composers who thought in modal, not tonal, musical idioms.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It think we're talking about two different things here: 1. (non-)constraining factors which affect or determine the outcome of a choice; 2. the factors which cause/lead to the situation in which a choice is made. The point I'm making is regarding the latter, and how any given situation will have an overwhelmingly greater number of causal elements which are out of one's control than are in one's control. This principle applies causally (and temporally) before any considerations can even be made with regards to the factors affecting the decision itself.
    There being cumulatively more uncontrolled causes does not make them invariably constraining causes. Are there 'causes' and 'factors', i.e. influences, or is there really a separate class behind the different phenomena that drive volition? I see little reasoning here, except arbitrary semantic delineation on your part, behind distinguishing between causes and factors in the first place. Are the two somehow metaphysically different?

    We are driving towards a more pervasive metaphysical question here: is the mind purely naturalistic or is it transcendental in any sense? What is our ontology as human beings? If the mind is purely naturalistic, then the 'Self' is a mistaken perception and there are no factors in the first place. If it is transcendental then how is it that a Compatibilist can hold that the mind is ultimately constrained, even though they agree that there is at least a range of choices? I see little to no grounds for Compatibilism without a transcendental mind, and with a transcendental mind accepted I don't see any tenable grounds for choice occurring on a deterministic basis.

    This is where the rubber meets the road, then: if the mind is indeed transcendental, the number of causal elements out of one's control, however overwhelming, irrespective of their variety, quantity, and intensity they only contribute to the choice, as opposed to determining it. E.g. people still choose their convictions and allow themselves to suffer and/or die at the hands of an oppressor.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    For me, skepticism is always preferable, but if pressed to choose, then I guess I'm more of a determinist. My reasoning is that, as above, I'm looking at the bigger picture - not just the choice being made and the (non-)constraining factors deciding it's outcome, but also the causal elements which lead to the situation - I believe we must even consider the causal elements that are out of our control which lead to the existence of (non-)constraining factors deciding the outcome.
    Skepticism is only preferable inasmuch as it is appropriate to exercise reasonable doubt. In response to determinism: none of the context given in the situation and one's prior development can be said to infallibly predict a person's choice. Is it at all possible in the first place for a perfectly exhaustive scan of, and explanation of the import thereof, the contents of the brain, to predict choices, to ask one's self "from whence came the choice" and have a cut and dry answer? If predictability is not possible, then it looks like determinism is in trouble.

    Not to mention that there are of course other arguments for the transcendental nature of the mind, if you are interesting in trudging through those eminently entertaining grounds.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    ... constraining causes ... drive volition ...
    Based on the language used it seems like you're talking about factors affecting the outcome of a decision - the former of the two types I mentioned in the first paragraph of my last response. My intention was to differentiate between 1) the factors which determine how you will choose in a given situation, and 2) the factors which cause that situation to exist/happen.

    [Is] the mind purely naturalistic or is it transcendental in any sense? What is our ontology as human beings? If the mind is purely naturalistic, then the 'Self' is a mistaken perception and there are no factors in the first place. If it is transcendental then how is it that a Compatibilist can hold that the mind is ultimately constrained, even though they agree that there is at least a range of choices? I see little to no grounds for Compatibilism without a transcendental mind, and with a transcendental mind accepted I don't see any tenable grounds for choice occurring on a deterministic basis.
    ... and this is where skepticism comes in as the preferable approach ... I'll ask you to define or explain how you are using "transcendental" before we go any further with that doozie.

    This is where the rubber meets the road, then: if the mind is indeed transcendental, the number of causal elements out of one's control, however overwhelming, irrespective of their variety, quantity, and intensity they only contribute to the choice, as opposed to determining it. E.g. people still choose their convictions and allow themselves to suffer and/or die at the hands of an oppressor.
    While it may seem as though different people can choose differently as in your example, I'd argue that there are myriad factors affecting each individual such that, without choosing to or knowing it, one might be predetermined to have weaker/stronger integrity than another in the same situation.

    Skepticism is only preferable inasmuch as it is appropriate to exercise reasonable doubt. In response to determinism: none of the context given in the situation and one's prior development can be said to infallibly predict a person's choice. Is it at all possible in the first place for a perfectly exhaustive scan of, and explanation of the import thereof, the contents of the brain, to predict choices, to ask one's self "[whence] came the choice" and have a cut and dry answer? If predictability is not possible, then it looks like determinism is in trouble.
    As I said, skepticism is preferable for me. I would also add that, based on the trouble you said it may be in, skepticism is the preferred response to anyone claiming hard determinism. However, I do not accept the conclusion your question seems to imply - to wit that, since we are currently unable to take advantage of the predictive possibilities promised by it, determinism as an explanatory model is not true. That way lies the argument from ignorance. Skepticism FTW!

    P.S. I am currently listening to Lepo Sumera. I've always been a fan of Arvo Pärt (another Estonian composer), but had not heard of Sumera before, so thank you for that. Also, your inbox is full, and I am unable to send you a PM!
    Last edited by futureboy; February 19th, 2016 at 12:39 PM.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    I've been on more of an early music kick myself, lately.





    Terra tremuit et quievit, Dum resurgeret in judicio Deus, alleluia!
    Notus in Judea Deus in Israel magnum nomen eius, alleluia!
    Dum resurgeret in iudicio Deus, alleluia!
    Et factus est in pace locus eius et habitatio eius in Sion, alleluia!
    Dum resurgeret in iudicio Deus, alleluia!
    Ibi confregit cornua arcum, scutum, gladium et bellum, iluminans tu mirabiliter a montibus aeternis, alleluia!
    Terra tremuit et quievit, Dum resurgeret in judicio Deus, alleluia!


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Based on the language used it seems like you're talking about factors affecting the outcome of a decision - the former of the two types I mentioned in the first paragraph of my last response. My intention was to differentiate between 1) the factors which determine how you will choose in a given situation, and 2) the factors which cause that situation to exist/happen.
    I'm aware of the distinction you made. What I was keying into was the ambiguity between the former, which you called 'factors', and the latter, for which your preferred nomenclature appears to be 'causes'. Would you say that the difference in your mind between 'factors' and 'causes' is the internal components in human behavior vs the external components?

    ... and this is where skepticism comes in as the preferable approach ... I'll ask you to define or explain how you are using "transcendental" before we go any further with that doozie.
    Here's a basic introduction to how terms like 'synthesis', 'noumena/noumenal', 'a priori', 'a posteriori', and 'transcendental' are used in modern philosophy. When I use the expression transcendental, I am not at all using it in one of the myriad haphazard senses that are invoked in the popular vernacular, rather, I mean to invoke the concept of something that is categorically beyond naturalism.

    Just as theoretical physicists and experimental physicists have always complemented one another and mutually driven interest in promising areas of study, metaphysics as an area of philosophy has, since the begin of modern science in the Scientific Revolution, fed science some of it's most significant questions and used science in the great debates over issues such as determinism, or the limits of mathematical reasoning and it's application (see Karl Popper especially on this subject). In science, indirect evidence is often used in a methodologically acceptable manner to reason about phenomena, e.g. black holes, or positing difficult to detect forms of matter under the blanket expression 'dark matter' in order to explain why there doesn't seem to be enough mass in galaxies for them to stay together like they do.

    By extension, it's not methodologically unacceptable to posit phenomena categorically outside the metaphysical confines of naturalism. What we then have is still reasoning about ontology, but without the presupposition that "the only legitimate critical thinking about the issue will posit a natural cause". Science is an epistemological compromise between Rationalism and Empiricism, not necessarily a commitment hampered by confirmation bias towards methodological naturalism. Of course, it is still more reasonable to posit natural causes first. If those causes aren't sufficient, then the floor is open for other explanations.

    What doesn't have a sufficient natural cause, but can still be reasoned about scientifically? Near death experiences, and I don't mean "I saw a light", or other culturally typical lucid experiences, I mean people in various stages of death (most notably people without any recognizable pulse or the requisite level of electrical activity in the brain to do what these people did) reporting to their doctors in detail about the surgical procedures performed on them. As I established before when sharing the epistemological terms and reasoning used in the scientific method, when a reasonable body of facts is accumulated, it is time to try and posit a satisfactory theory.

    While it may seem as though different people can choose differently as in your example, I'd argue that there are myriad factors affecting each individual such that, without choosing to or knowing it, one might be predetermined to have weaker/stronger integrity than another in the same situation.
    Notice how even in your own language here you appear to shy away from the conclusion that the predetermined nature of the events is absolute.

    As I said, skepticism is preferable for me. I would also add that, based on the trouble you said it may be in, skepticism is the preferred response to anyone claiming hard determinism. However, I do not accept the conclusion your question seems to imply - to wit that, since we are currently unable to take advantage of the predictive possibilities promised by it, determinism as an explanatory model is not true. That way lies the argument from ignorance. Skepticism FTW!
    There is a great gulf of difference between presupposing the ultimate truth of a matter, and pointing out that a position lacks sufficient explanatory power. I was engaged in the latter as opposed to the former.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terra tremuit - Copy.gif 
Views:	104 
Size:	21.2 KB 
ID:	3776  
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    I'm aware of the distinction you made. What I was keying into was the ambiguity between the former, which you called 'factors', and the latter, for which your preferred nomenclature appears to be 'causes'. Would you say that the difference in your mind between 'factors' and 'causes' is the internal components in human behavior vs the external components?
    My apologies for the confusion - I realise I have been using "factors" & "causes" somewhat freely - for instance, using both the noun & verb forms of "cause" in the same post. I guess I was focusing more on clearly expressing the context in which the terms were used. I would agree with your expression of the difference, but add that we must consider the external components which cause/lead to/affect the existence of the internal components - RE: the big picture mentioned earlier.

    After reading up on some Karl Popper following your mention of him, I have to say that I like his wording when he stated, "freedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control". My only addition to that would be a careful & skeptical acknowledgement of the fact that the "something almost random or haphazard" only seems so to us currently, and that, as above, the "something like a restrictive or selective control" itself has roots in factors and causes which are out of our control, seemingly random, etc.

    When I use the expression transcendental [...] I mean to invoke the concept of something that is categorically beyond naturalism.
    In science, indirect evidence is often used in a methodologically acceptable manner to reason about phenomena, e.g. black holes, or positing difficult to detect forms of matter under the blanket expression 'dark matter' in order to explain why there doesn't seem to be enough mass in galaxies for them to stay together like they do.
    By extension, it's not methodologically unacceptable to posit phenomena categorically outside the metaphysical confines of naturalism. What we then have is still reasoning about ontology, but without the presupposition that "the only legitimate critical thinking about the issue will posit a natural cause". Science is an epistemological compromise between Rationalism and Empiricism, not necessarily a commitment hampered by confirmation bias towards methodological naturalism. Of course, it is still more reasonable to posit natural causes first. If those causes aren't sufficient, then the floor is open for other explanations.
    To me the problem here lies with your extension from "science uses indirect evidence for things like black holes & dark matter", to "it's rational to posit explanations that go beyond methodological naturalism". I just don't see how we are justified in making that leap. The scientific evidence & reasoning (indirect or not) which led to the various models explaining black holes & dark matter have their foundations solidly based in methodological naturalism. Furthermore, there is no "confirmation bias" towards methodological naturalism - what it is instead, is a realisation that we currently have no way of actually investigating anything supernatural and until there is, we're forced to rely on naturalism as our source of knowledge.

    I recall a quote but I can't remember the exact wording or who said it. It went something along the lines of saying that, if we ever had the ability to actually investigate something considered supernatural, the results would invariably & ultimately have naturalistic explanations, or something like that. I remember some responding to this idea as though it was a bias towards philosophical naturalism. However, the real point being made was that, if anything previously considered supernatural was finally made investigable, it would simply be added to our natural realm by the very fact that it was investigable by methodologically naturalistic means. Or in other words, our models would be expanded to include the newly- and naturalistically- discovered things. It's a somewhat similar idea to the old Arthur C. Clarke adage of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

    What doesn't have a sufficient natural cause, but can still be reasoned about scientifically? Near death experiences, and I don't mean "I saw a light", or other culturally typical lucid experiences, I mean people in various stages of death (most notably people without any recognizable pulse or the requisite level of electrical activity in the brain to do what these people did) reporting to their doctors in detail about the surgical procedures performed on them.
    I disagree that NDEs don't have sufficient natural explanations - those have been provided for most if not all the observed phenomena associated with NDEs, the key word here being "observed", not "reported".

    As I established before when sharing the epistemological terms and reasoning used in the scientific method, when a reasonable body of facts is accumulated, it is time to try and posit a satisfactory theory.
    Unfortunately for the proponents of supernatural explanations, there is still a difference of opinion as to what would be considered a reasonable body of facts to support such an explanation.

    Notice how even in your own language here you appear to shy away from the conclusion that the predetermined nature of the events is absolute.
    Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

    There is a great gulf of difference between presupposing the ultimate truth of a matter, and pointing out that a position lacks sufficient explanatory power. I was engaged in the latter as opposed to the former.
    I agree there is a difference, and I apologise for taking your question's expression of the latter as implying the former! Regardless, my point was about the issue with making any judgement at all based on our current possibilities. Even if humans never achieved the ability to do the full scan & predict & whatnot, that would not justify any sort of judgement on the truth or explanatory power of hard determinism.

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    My apologies for the confusion - I realise I have been using "factors" & "causes" somewhat freely - for instance, using both the noun & verb forms of "cause" in the same post. I guess I was focusing more on clearly expressing the context in which the terms were used. I would agree with your expression of the difference, but add that we must consider the external components which cause/lead to/affect the existence of the internal components - RE: the big picture mentioned earlier.
    Would you say then that the internal is no more than a reflection of the external?

    After reading up on some Karl Popper following your mention of him, I have to say that I like his wording when he stated, "freedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control". My only addition to that would be a careful & skeptical acknowledgement of the fact that the "something almost random or haphazard" only seems so to us currently, and that, as above, the "something like a restrictive or selective control" itself has roots in factors and causes which are out of our control, seemingly random, etc.
    Popper and yourself are the same in that you look at the same things, but come into it with presuppositions that are at variance. Your idea that randomness is only an apparent observation, as opposed to a truly representative observation, is as much a presupposition as Popper's stance.

    To me the problem here lies with your extension from "science uses indirect evidence for things like black holes & dark matter", to "it's rational to posit explanations that go beyond methodological naturalism". I just don't see how we are justified in making that leap. The scientific evidence & reasoning (indirect or not) which led to the various models explaining black holes & dark matter have their foundations solidly based in methodological naturalism. Furthermore, there is no "confirmation bias" towards methodological naturalism - what it is instead, is a realisation that we currently have no way of actually investigating anything supernatural and until there is, we're forced to rely on naturalism as our source of knowledge.
    A realization on what grounds? I've just posited a way in which such phenomena could be investigated, and it should be dismissed out of hand because of unwarranted methodological bias? This "we currently have no way", so "we're forced to" is circular reasoning.

    I recall a quote but I can't remember the exact wording or who said it. It went something along the lines of saying that, if we ever had the ability to actually investigate something considered supernatural, the results would invariably & ultimately have naturalistic explanations, or something like that. I remember some responding to this idea as though it was a bias towards philosophical naturalism. However, the real point being made was that, if anything previously considered supernatural was finally made investigable, it would simply be added to our natural realm by the very fact that it was investigable by methodologically naturalistic means. Or in other words, our models would be expanded to include the newly- and naturalistically- discovered things. It's a somewhat similar idea to the old Arthur C. Clarke adage of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
    The presupposition there is that only natural causes have natural effects, ruling out supernatural causes. I don't see any sufficient reasons being given for that.

    I disagree that NDEs don't have sufficient natural explanations - those have been provided for most if not all the observed phenomena associated with NDEs, the key word here being "observed", not "reported".
    What then do you make of the work of Schoonmaker, Kubler-Ross, Weiss, Winter, Rawlings, or Zaleski?

    Unfortunately for the proponents of supernatural explanations, there is still a difference of opinion as to what would be considered a reasonable body of facts to support such an explanation.
    What do you consider a reasonable body of facts? Let's not venture into special pleading territory, my friend. If we do posit what we think is a reasonable body of facts for other kinds of explanations it wouldn't be consistent to plead for another standard with explanations that don't comport with your presuppositions. We all necessarily come into each topic with some presuppositions of our own, and it is our consciousness of that fact that engenders progress.

    I agree there is a difference, and I apologise for taking your question's expression of the latter as implying the former! Regardless, my point was about the issue with making any judgement at all based on our current possibilities. Even if humans never achieved the ability to do the full scan & predict & whatnot, that would not justify any sort of judgement on the truth or explanatory power of hard determinism.
    You must realize that this paragraph here is dismissing the entire venture of inductive reasoning. Do you really think that inductive reasoning has no propensity at all to arrive at what is most likely true?
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    Would you say then that the internal is no more than a reflection of the external?
    Could elaborate on what you mean by a reflection?
    Your idea that randomness is only an apparent observation, as opposed to a truly representative observation, is as much a presupposition as Popper's stance.
    I'm not sure where these "apparent" vs. "truly representative" observations came from - aren't all observations apparent to the observer? The observed randomness as explained by quantum physics indicates that our current descriptions of physical systems are at their core necessarily incomplete due to quantum indeterminacy. Again, these are current models based on our current abilities to observe. Our inability to design experiments which can get around the quantum indeterminacy measurement problem only affects our current models.
    I've just posited a way in which such phenomena could be investigated, and it should be dismissed out of hand because of unwarranted methodological bias?
    Nobody's dismissing anything, and again, there is no bias. The problem is that the proposed supernatural causes of the observed phenomena have yet to be demonstrably shown to be investigable. I've already shown why your extension from the indirect evidence used to posit dark matter & black holes to positing supernatural causes for observed phenomena is flawed. It's the same reason that, when the scientific community attempts to refine the current models explaining dark matter, nobody attempts to rationally posit that there are invisible pixies comprising the mass which would supernaturally (magically) explain the observed phenomena.
    This "we currently have no way", so "we're forced to" is circular reasoning.
    Could you explain in more detail how this is circular? Because what you're saying is essentially that, by analogy, "I currently don't own a car, so I'm forced to take the bus to work", is circular reasoning.
    The presupposition there is that only natural causes have natural effects, ruling out supernatural causes. I don't see any sufficient reasons being given for that.
    Again, this is a common misunderstanding of how science works. As Eugenie Scott puts it: "Science is a way of knowing that attempts to explain the natural world using natural causes. It is agnostic toward the supernatural – it neither confirms nor rejects it." Nobody is attempting to negate the existence of the supernatural. The burden of proof rests firmly with those claiming supernatural causation, and no presuppositions must be made for one to hold to methodological naturalism as expressed above by Ms. Scott.
    What then do you make of the work of Schoonmaker, Kubler-Ross, Weiss, Winter, Rawlings, or Zaleski?
    I am only somewhat familiar with a couple of those names you listed & their work. And since our conversation appears to be approaching more and more the territory of discussion/debate, I'll ask that, if these external sources are going to be seriously considered during our discussion, you clearly state any claims you wish to imply by listing those names and provide references.
    What do you consider a reasonable body of facts? Let's not venture into special pleading territory, my friend. If we do posit what we think is a reasonable body of facts for other kinds of explanations it wouldn't be consistent to plead for another standard with explanations that don't comport with your presuppositions.
    I whole-heartedly agree that we should be applying the same standards to various claims. If, for instance, we were to grant credibility to one specific claim of supernatural causation based on a reasonable body of facts, we must also grant the same credibility to other supernatural claims which may contradict the first. Do you see the problem here? It's certainly not special pleading for one to expect extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, even if the claim is their own - indeed, especially if the claim is their own. Anyone who truly believes their claim is truth and wishes to see it victorious under scrutiny should welcome even the strictest standards of investigation & falsifiability.
    We all necessarily come into each topic with some presuppositions of our own, and it is our consciousness of that fact that engenders progress.
    Again, no presuppositions are required save the basic assumptions we all have to live with, hard solipsism notwithstanding, of course.
    You must realize that this paragraph here is dismissing the entire venture of inductive reasoning. Do you really think that inductive reasoning has no propensity at all to arrive at what is most likely true?
    There are many problems with induction. Karl Popper expressed criticism of it and said we should instead be focusing on falsification. That said, one can definitely make an inductive argument and say that, since predictability (the type you mentioned in your Feb. 18th post) does not appear to be possible (as yet), determinism is in trouble. However, one could also make an inductive argument regarding the noticeable increase over time in our ability to accurately make predictions in general and posit that our deterministic abilities will continue to increase to ultimately prove determinism to be true. This is just one of the problems with induction - it is too easily affected by the presuppositions of those using it.

    p.s. As I mentioned, our discussion is approaching a level of discourse that may be more suitable in an actual debate thread. Would that justify one of us proposing an OP and starting a new thread in one of the debate forums?

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

    In my opinion the Homosexuality/sexuality is more innate thing than a conscious choice. That's why it is a real crime to consider such people poor or foolish. We can't choose parents, genes, appearance, eye color which should be inbred. So why do some persons begin to judge people by their sexuality? It is the same thing when we consider somebody a bad sort because he or she has blue eye color or too old parents. Sounds terrible indeed.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •