Aquinas's Natural Law

[Betterave]

You have got to be kidding me! You don’t agree with The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( Water -Science & Technology -Surface Water Standards & Guidance- Water Quality -Standards Criteria Human Health -Human Health Criteria)? You don’t think that the Clean Water Act is important? Your physical health depends on clean drinking water. Otherwise you are susceptible to diseases. Did you read the article in its entirety? Here is some more from the link (url) I presented.

“This document presents our recommended methodology for developing human health ambient water quality criteria as required under the Clean Water Act. The methodology is guidance for scientific human health assessments used by us to develop, publish, and from time to time revise, recommended criteria for water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. The recommended criteria serve states and tribes’ needs in their development of water quality standards. . . .” (The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( Water -Science & Technology -Surface Water Standards & Guidance- Water Quality -Standards Criteria Human Health -Human Health Criteria).
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/health/methodology/index.cfm

No, I was quite serious. I think you’ve misunderstood the issue. The criteria you mention are criteria for healthy water (water which is healthy for humans to drink), which entirely *presuppose *criteria for human health. They do nothing in the way of establishing what human health or well-being as such is, surely?

 

[Rocinante]

No, I was quite serious. I think you’ve misunderstood the issue. The criteria you mention are criteria for healthy water (water which is healthy for humans to drink), which entirely *presuppose *criteria for human health. They do nothing in the way of establishing what human health or well-being as such is, surely?

how are criteria for human health established if not through science?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

No, I was quite serious. I think you’ve misunderstood the issue. The criteria you mention are criteria for healthy water (water which is healthy for humans to drink), which entirely *presuppose *criteria for human health. They do nothing in the way of establishing what human health or well-being as such is, surely?

Betterave, no, I did not misunderstand anything. Human health is dependent upon ‘clean water’. Without ‘clean water’ you will be a dead person. You lacked the knowledge to make a sensible comment as noted below. All I was attempting to do was to help you by directing you in the right direction. It appears from your comment above and below you have little knowledge when it comes to scientific issues or maybe you detest SCIENCE. I hope you don’t detest science.

consider one aspect of well-being–human physical health. we haven’t settled on any scientific definition of what human health is, but as we study it to try to achieve it we learn about what it is.

…but there is no reason to think that science is responsible for defining what human *health *

is, as such, or that science is even interested in what human health is, as such.

human beings (not science itself) are responsible for such things. science, in this case, just refers to our best practices for inquiring into what human health is and how to achieve it.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( Water Science & Technology Surface Water Standards & Guidance Water Quality Standards Criteria Human Health Human Health Criteria)
Human Health Criteria
Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/health/methodology/index.cfm
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/health/methodology/index.cfm

 

[Betterave]

Betterave, no, I did not misunderstand anything. Human health is dependent upon ‘clean water’. Without ‘clean water’ you will be a dead person. You lacked the knowledge to make a sensible comment as noted below. All I was attempting to do was to help you by directing you in the right direction. It appears from your comment above and below you have little knowledge when it comes to scientific issues or maybe you detest SCIENCE. I hope you don’t detest science.

I’m tempted to treat this as an exercise for rocinante: what’s wrong with this argument?

 

[Betterave]

Time’s up! Here’s the answer:

Betterave, no, I did not misunderstand anything. [Yes, I think you did!] Human health is dependent upon ‘clean water’. [Oh? I didn’t know that. ] Without ‘clean water’ you will be a dead person. You lacked the knowledge to make a sensible comment as noted below. [No idea what you’re talking about.] All I was attempting to do was to help you by directing you in the right direction. [Er… thanks.] It appears from your comment above and below you have little knowledge when it comes to scientific issues or maybe you detest SCIENCE. [Really! Can you explain?] I hope you don’t detest science.

Human health is dependent upon clean water; therefore human health is clean water? (That’s a non sequitur.) No idea what your argument is here. Care to explain?

 

[Betterave]

how are criteria for human health established if not through science?

First of all, how *are *they established through science, in your view?? Do you think, like LB, apparently, that if we investigate what kind of drinking water we require in order to be healthy/avoid particular diseases, then we are establishing the criteria for human health? We’re not; we’re establishing the criteria for healthy drinking water. Do you see the difference? The notion of human health is prior to and not dependent on the notion of water that is beneficial/not nocive to human health.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Time’s up! Here’s the answer:

Human health is dependent upon clean water; therefore human health is clean water? (That’s a non sequitur.) No idea what your argument is here. Care to explain?

I have already explained in prior posts. Basically as noted, I’ve falsified your claim, “but there is no reason to think that science is responsible for defining what human health is, as such, or that science is even interested in what human health is, as such.”

Anything you say Betterave seems to become purely rhetoric as is your statement above due to your lack of acknowledging scientific knowledge. Thanks. I’m far too busy to deal with rhetoric.

 

[Rocinante]

First of all, how *are *they established through science, in your view?? Do you think, like LB, apparently, that if we investigate what kind of drinking water we require in order to be healthy/avoid particular diseases, then we are establishing the criteria for human health? We’re not; we’re establishing the criteria for healthy drinking water. Do you see the difference? The notion of human health is prior to and not dependent on the notion of water that is beneficial/not nocive to human health.

i understand the difference.

some criteria for good health (just some ideas, i’m no doctor):

freedom from disease

a body temperature of around 99 degrees

a blood pressure of around 120 over 80

a resting heart rate around 75 beats per minute or less.

ability to walk up a flight of stairs without becoming out of breath

ability to do 10 push ups

not bleeding from any orifices

blah, blah, blah…

how do you think such criteria are established if not through scientific inquiry into human health?

 

[Betterave]

I have already explained in prior posts. Basically as noted, I’ve falsified your claim, “but there is no reason to think that science is responsible for defining what human health is, as such, or that science is even interested in what human health is, as such.”

You’ve pointed out that science is interested in studying how the composition of drinking water contributes to human health, not that science is interested in defining what human health is as such.

Anything you say Betterave seems to become purely rhetoric as is your statement above due to your lack of acknowledging scientific knowledge. Thanks. I’m far too busy to deal with rhetoric.

LOL! Here it appears that ‘rhetoric’ = ‘logic’: you’re far too busy to deal with logic.

 

[Betterave]

I would distinguish between criteria for health, and general conditions for health or typical indicators/symptoms of health.

i understand the difference.

some criteria for good health (just some ideas, i’m no doctor):

freedom from disease [a criterion, but not established by science - this is just true by definition of disease, isn’t it?]

a body temperature of around 99 degrees [symptom]

a blood pressure of around 120 over 80 [typical condition for good health]

a resting heart rate around 75 beats per minute or less. [typical condition]

ability to walk up a flight of stairs without becoming out of breath [symptom]

ability to do 10 push ups [symptom]

not bleeding from any orifices [typical condition for]

blah, blah, blah…

how do you think such criteria are established if not through scientific inquiry into human health?

So I think you listed only one true criterion, and it was established by the meaning of the term it used.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

LOL! Here it appears that ‘rhetoric’ = ‘logic’: you’re far too busy to deal with logic.

This is what I think of your rhetoric=“An insincere eloquence intended to win points and manipulate others.” It doesn’t work on me.

Rocinante, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think it important to remember that contaminated water can cause cancer, birth defects, febrile respiratory illnesses, etc.

 

[Betterave]

This is what I think of your rhetoric=“An insincere eloquence intended to win points and manipulate others.” It doesn’t work on me.

Rocinante, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think it important to remember that contaminated water can cause cancer, birth defects, febrile respiratory illnesses, etc.

That’s what you think of my rhetoric (your opinion is groundless and not very interesting), but what about my logic (my argument)? Funny you don’t find that worth commenting on. But hey, I guess you don’t want to waste your time on substance, right?

 

[Betterave]

Anything you say Betterave seems to become purely rhetoric as is your statement above due to your lack of acknowledging scientific knowledge.

I’ll just point out that the premiss of your argument here is false and that it seems to be a non sequitur anyway.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Betterave, I have presented “Human Health” which is science. It isn’t philosophy. I don’t think you understand what science is. Here goes, “Science: The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” (National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine 2008)

 

[Rocinante]

I would distinguish between criteria for health, and general conditions for health or typical indicators/symptoms of health.

So I think you listed only one true criterion, and it was established by the meaning of the term it used.

ok, but i asked you first, then you threw the question back at me. now you say my answer is no good, but you still haven’t provided your presumably awesome answer.

 

[Betterave]

ok, but i asked you first, then you threw the question back at me. now you say my answer is no good, but you still haven’t provided your presumably awesome answer.

that’s only half true - I pointed out that being free of disease is a genuine criteria of health and that this is established by the meaning of the term ‘disease.’ But I guess you want a more general answer, so here it is (I offer this tentatively): the criteria for human health are naturally known. In any case, they are certainly presupposed by what are known as the ‘health sciences,’ not discovered or established by these sciences. We know when someone is sick or ailing because we can see it or feel it. We don’t need to do an experiment to know that someone who has the flu is not healthy. We don’t need to investigate viruses or modes of disease transmission - these are necessary for preserving or promoting health, not for knowing what health is.

is that awesome enough for you?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

that’s only half true - I pointed out that being free of disease is a genuine criteria of health and that this is established by the meaning of the term ‘disease.’ But I guess you want a more general answer, so here it is (I offer this tentatively): the criteria for human health are naturally known. In any case, they are certainly presupposed by what are known as the ‘health sciences,’ not discovered or established by these sciences. We know when someone is sick or ailing because we can see it or feel it. We don’t need to do an experiment to know that someone who has the flu is not healthy. We don’t need to investigate viruses or modes of disease transmission - these are necessary for preserving or promoting health, not for knowing what health is.

is that awesome enough for you?

I’m picking up from my previous comments about Human Health that were on the previous page. Here is the last one:

Betterave, I have presented “Human Health” which is science. It isn’t philosophy. I don’t think you understand what science is. Here goes, “Science: The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” (National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine 2008)

You keep mentioning “we”, Betterave. Who are the “we” you are talking about. Furthermore, yes if someone is sick (ex. flu) they go to the doctor to be examined and sometimes tested in the office to determine if the patient has a virus(es), disease, ailment, etc. Or, a doctor sends a patient to a laboratory or hospital. Or, if the patient is in the hospital the blood is drawn at his/her bedside along with other tests. The tests done determine the overall health of the individual. Remember, it could be an infant! Never, ever play around with the health of an infant. They too can catch what an adult might have. An infant’s immune system is much more fragil compared to an adult.

 

[Rocinante]

that’s only half true - I pointed out that being free of disease is a genuine criteria of health and that this is established by the meaning of the term ‘disease.’ But I guess you want a more general answer, so here it is (I offer this tentatively): the criteria for human health are naturally known. In any case, they are certainly presupposed by what are known as the ‘health sciences,’ not discovered or established by these sciences. We know when someone is sick or ailing because we can see it or feel it. We don’t need to do an experiment to know that someone who has the flu is not healthy. We don’t need to investigate viruses or modes of disease transmission - these are necessary for preserving or promoting health, not for knowing what health is.

is that awesome enough for you?

it sounds like you answer for criteria for human health is that we just know what health is. it is “naturally known.”

i don’t think that is true. consider how we used to talk about a “nice healthy tan,” but science has since taught us that even though people may look healthier to us after tanning, tanning is actually not good for us. so it seems clear that what we may “naturally know” about human health can turn out to be wrong, and it is only science that can point out such errors of “natural knowledge.”

likewise, our “natural knowledge,” our consciences, can be wrong about what is moral. for example, a study demonstrated that the twinge of guilt or desire to help at the sight of an impoverished child such as in one of those sally struthers commercials is apparently diminished when multiple starving children are shown. people will give less, the more victims are shown. similarly, we are more moved by one mistreated dog than 1000 humans killed in a tsunami.

rational study is what reveals such errors in “natural knowledge” when it comes to morals as well as health.

 

[Betterave]

You keep mentioning “we”, Betterave. Who are the “we” you are talking about.

We humans.

Furthermore, yes if someone is sick (ex. flu) they go to the doctor to be examined and sometimes tested in the office to determine if the patient has a virus(es), disease, ailment, etc. Or, a doctor sends a patient to a laboratory or hospital. Or, if the patient is in the hospital the blood is drawn at his/her bedside along with other tests. The tests done determine the overall health of the individual. Remember, it could be an infant! Never, ever play around with the health of an infant. They too can catch what an adult might have. An infant’s immune system is much more fragil compared to an adult.

I don’t know what your point is here.

 

[Betterave]

it sounds like you answer for criteria for human health is that we just know what health is. it is “naturally known.”

i don’t think that is true. consider how we used to talk about a “nice healthy tan,” but science has since taught us that even though people may look healthier to us after tanning, tanning is actually not good for us. so it seems clear that what we may “naturally know” about human health can turn out to be wrong, and it is only science that can point out such errors of “natural knowledge.”

Actually a nice healthy tan is perfectly healthy. Tanning has a potential for negatively impacting our health in the long-term, but that is beside the point. You are continuing to conflate factors that impact, or might impact, our health - which obviously we can be wrong or ignorant about and can investigate scientifically - with health itself. Can you see that?

likewise, our “natural knowledge,” our consciences, can be wrong about what is moral. for example, a study demonstrated that the twinge of guilt or desire to help at the sight of an impoverished child such as in one of those sally struthers commercials is apparently diminished when multiple starving children are shown. people will give less, the more victims are shown. similarly, we are more moved by one mistreated dog than 1000 humans killed in a tsunami.

rational study is what reveals such errors in “natural knowledge” when it comes to morals as well as health.

I don’t know what your argument here is. Can you try to clarify? (Clear premisses, with a clear conclusion that actually follows from those premisses, please.)