|
Post by brandt on Jan 30, 2012 13:57:16 GMT 10
Okay
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 30, 2012 17:46:49 GMT 10
Why is there such a negative reaction to any suggestion that our bodies have something to do with our behavior? I am willing to consider any specific proposal but I'm not signing a blank cheque.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 31, 2012 15:47:40 GMT 10
Would you be willing to accept how science works or do you want the be all end all in one nicely typed wiki article? It moves in increments and nothing is "proved," there is only evidence in support of or against. Old ideas that have been disproven by the "cognitive revolution," are not on the table any longer without some new evidence to support them. I would never ask for a blank check and I would be suspicious of any person that offered one.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 31, 2012 16:39:18 GMT 10
Would you be willing to accept how science works or do you want the be all end all in one nicely typed wiki article? It moves in increments and nothing is "proved," there is only evidence in support of or against. Old ideas that have been disproven by the "cognitive revolution," are not on the table any longer without some new evidence to support them. I would never ask for a blank check and I would be suspicious of any person that offered one. Show us what you've got.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jan 31, 2012 20:27:33 GMT 10
Would you be willing to accept how science works or do you want the be all end all in one nicely typed wiki article? It moves in increments and nothing is "proved," there is only evidence in support of or against. Old ideas that have been disproven by the "cognitive revolution," are not on the table any longer without some new evidence to support them. I would never ask for a blank check and I would be suspicious of any person that offered one. An increment would be something.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jan 31, 2012 20:30:48 GMT 10
'When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.'
- Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 1, 2012 15:56:33 GMT 10
Wasn't Dawkins one of those wonky atheists that has accepted the evidence for Evolution?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 1, 2012 17:11:43 GMT 10
I'm a big fan of Dawkins. He coined the word "meme" to compliment "gene." Dawkins recognised two strands of evolution: One slow acting on genes by raw natural selection, the other fast acting on memes by interactive social learning.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 1, 2012 17:21:48 GMT 10
Would you be willing to accept how science works or do you want the be all end all in one nicely typed wiki article? I accept how science works and that's what I'm looking for here. As for wiki articles: Let’s coin a new fallacy and call it “argumentum ad wiki” or, generically, “argumentum ad medium.” Despite Marshall McLuhan’s famous dictum, in logic the medium is NOT the message. As you have said a couple of times, we are just having a discussion here. Do you have a particular objection to Wikipedia? I note you had previously objected to the posting of a Youtube clip, despite it being a National Geographic production and a link to a written article provided in the same post. Thus far I have known what I’m looking for and Wikipedia has usually had an article on the subject (with references listed and often linked). The argument would stand with or without a link being provided: After all, thus far, it has been the points being raised which have been significant. While most of what I have Wiki-linked have pretty much been no brainers and linked solely to show others what I have been talking about, if you wish to dispute a particular matter presented as fact, please say so and I’ll see what else is available — Ask and ye shall receive.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Feb 1, 2012 18:56:45 GMT 10
Wasn't Dawkins one of those wonky atheists that has accepted the evidence for Evolution? Evolution is solid. No one has said otherwise.
|
|