The duck principle

[edward_george]

Well, PC Master, in the first place, I am speaking in a purely theoretical manner with regards to all of this. That “alternate universe” that you so charitably speak of in your post is actually called Aristotelean philosophy. I am saying that this is possible, not that it is necessarily true. However, I guarantee you that your senses will be quite unable to detect a cow under the guise of a duck in my example. The senses are only infallible with regards to the things that it is proper for them to sense, and since substances are not sensible proper to the senses, you can’t detect them. I am not saying that this is true (outside of transubstantiation, of course) in any case, merely using the same philosophy that is used to illustrate transubstantiation.

As for your assertion that I am just explaining what the “RCC” has always taught me, you seem to imply a bit of indoctrination of me on their part; I am merely stating the conclusions that Aristotle and later Aquinas arrived at. These “ridiculous” ideas are called philosophy; I use a rather odd example, but it is how I illustrate my point. Your dig at the Church (and your abbreviation of its name) are disrespectful and offensive to me.

-ACEGC

 

[ateista]

If a fertilized egg (whatever the species) is not a member of said species, then it never can be, for nothing else is added to it. The med-school analogy therefore doesn’t work.

It is a matter of opinion. I am simply emphasizing the very substantial changes that occur between the zygote/medical student (potential entities) and the final “product” duck/doctor. These changes should not be neglected.

You could contemplate an acorn/oak-tree dichotomy. The acron will grow into an oak-tree, if certain conditions are met. Biologically the oak-tree is a direct continuation of the acorn. Nevertheless we should maintain that the acorn in not an oak-tree, rather it is a potential oak-tree.

As for the “fertilized omelette”, yeah, i’d say i’m eating scrambled eggs because the pragmatics of the situation don’t require me to go through the laborious process of ascertaining its chickenness.

I don’t think we should concern ourselves with the pragmatic side in such discussions. These are simply thought-experiments where such an examination does not take any time at all.

 

[ateista]

This is an age-old concept, but has a key flaw…

For example. Let’s take a square (a geometric square, not the abstract concept). It has four sides, four corners, is entirely enclosed, is a shape, and is two-dimensional. The proposition might look like this…

If it -]walks like a duck/-] has four sides like a square does, -]looks like a duck/-] has four corners like a square does, and -]smells like a duck/-] is a two-dimensional enclosed shape like a square is, it must be a -]duck/-] square.But, let us consider the parallelogram. It has four sides, four corners, and is an entirely enclosed two-dimensional shape. Does that make it a square? Of course not! Just because there are some similarities doesn’t mean that they are the same.

That said, however, if one were to ask me to explain the difference, it’s rather easy – in a square, the angle at each corner is 90 degrees, whereas with the parallelogram, it’s some other measurement (depending on the parallelogram in question). Additionally, all four sides of the parallelogram aren’t the same length, whereas they are in the case of a square.

Differences are discernible by visible example in most cases.

Your analysis is flawless, but I have to point out that the “essence” in these geometric forms has not been captured if one does not take into account the angles and the size of the sides. Your example simply points out - accurately, of course - that one ought to make sure that the capturing of the important factors should be done properly.

 

[ericteng04]

all of you, guys, have the individual comprehension of perceiving the “duck” (or its"duckness", if you want!). and i think, we cannot go into a single understanding of the duckness of the duck since all of us have that individuality in looking, understanding, and explaining that certain idea…

but…,

is there really a duck?
what kind of duck? (is that peking duck or australian duck or whatsoever??)
where it came from?

 

[Spirithound]

It is a matter of opinion. I am simply emphasizing the very substantial changes that occur between the zygote/medical student (potential entities) and the final “product” duck/doctor. These changes should not be neglected.

Sorry, but this issue is also a major part of the abortion debate, and so I must insist that a human zygote is still a human. It is definitely not a “potential entity” as a med student is a “potential doctor”. If a med student fails, he gets another job; if a zygote dies, it is a human life that was lost.

You could contemplate an acorn/oak-tree dichotomy. The acron will grow into an oak-tree, if certain conditions are met. Biologically the oak-tree is a direct continuation of the acorn. Nevertheless we should maintain that the acorn in not an oak-tree, rather it is a potential oak-tree.

Certainly, an acorn is a potential oak-tree, but it is still a member of the genus Quercus.

I don’t think we should concern ourselves with the pragmatic side in such discussions. These are simply thought-experiments where such an examination does not take any time at all.

If we’re not going to concern ourselves with the pragmatic side, then we must carefully define and guide our discourse to exclude it. Pragmatically, we would say that a chicken egg that was fertilized a day or two before it was scrambled is “just an egg”, but in reality, it is a chicken.

 

[ateista]

Sorry, but this issue is also a major part of the abortion debate, and so I must insist that a human zygote is still a human. It is definitely not a “potential entity” as a med student is a “potential doctor”. If a med student fails, he gets another job; if a zygote dies, it is a human life that was lost.

The abortion debate is premature at this point - though it will come. I am merely pointing out that a process (any process) has a starting point and an ending point. During that process some quantitative and qualitative changes occur. To assert that those changes are not relevant - muddies the waters, to say the least.

In this abstract sense I still contend that the medical student vs. doctor dichotomy is valid. The process has started, but not finished yet. Moreover, just 5 minutes before graduation the student already has almost all the attributes of a doctor - but we still cannot rightfully attach the title to him, since the final step of receiving the diploma is missing. Now you may argue that this is an artificial distinction, and I might agree with you, but the fact is that a student will only be a doctor when he receives his diploma - this is the time when he has all the necessary attributes of a doctor.

Certainly, an acorn is a potential oak-tree, but it is still a member of the genus Quercus.

But when you split an acorn, you do not assert that you just chopped down an oak-tree, do you? You make this differentiation because you realize that the acron is most definitely not an oak-tree, it does not have the attributes of an oak-tree. It does share the same genetic material, of course, but that is all.

If we’re not going to concern ourselves with the pragmatic side, then we must carefully define and guide our discourse to exclude it. Pragmatically, we would say that a chicken egg that was fertilized a day or two before it was scrambled is “just an egg”, but in reality, it is a chicken.

And that brings up the question: “what is a chicken”? How do we define the characteristics of a chicken? Is it some DNA? Some genetic material? Or is it more than that?

We use words with well-defined meanings to convey our thoughts and concepts. We use the differentiation of “egg” and “chicken” because there is a qualitative difference between them.

 

[john_doran]

The abortion debate is premature at this point - though it will come. I am merely pointing out that a process (any process) has a starting point and an ending point. During that process some quantitative and qualitative changes occur. To assert that those changes are not relevant - muddies the waters, to say the least.

the qualitative changes that occur throughout the life of a human are not relevant to the identity of the individual as a human; they are certainly relevant to the question of age (infant, child, adolescent, adult) or profession or whatever.

ateista:

In this abstract sense I still contend that the medical student vs. doctor dichotomy is valid. The process has started, but not finished yet. Moreover, just 5 minutes before graduation the student already has almost all the attributes of a doctor - but we still cannot rightfully attach the title to him, since the final step of receiving the diploma is missing. Now you may argue that this is an artificial distinction, and I might agree with you, but the fact is that a student will only be a doctor when he receives his diploma - this is the time when he has all the necessary attributes of a doctor.

and according to this analogy, human beings get their “human” diplomas at the point of fertilization of the ovum.

ateista:

And that brings up the question: “what is a chicken”? How do we define the characteristics of a chicken? Is it some DNA? Some genetic material? Or is it more than that?

the question “what is a chicken?” is a much different one from “how do we know if something is a chicken?”; while there is presumbaly something that it is to be a chicken (and for each other thing to be the sort of thing that it is), we may never achieve an exhaustive understanding of what that is, at least when it comes to complicated biological entities, as opposed to, say, simple geometrical plane figures.

what point are you trying to make?

ateista:

We use words with well-defined meanings to convey our thoughts and concepts. We use the differentiation of “egg” and “chicken” because there is a qualitative difference between them.

sure. and we call one person short and another tall; one fat, another thin; one young, another old. but despite those qualitative differences, they’re all human.

 

[ateista]

the qualitative changes that occur throughout the life of a human are not relevant to the identity of the individual as a human; they are certainly relevant to the question of age (infant, child, adolescent, adult) or profession or whatever.

Mostly they will not - I very much agree with you. I could bring up some examples to some special cases to the contrary, but those would just derail this thread.

and according to this analogy, human beings get their “human” diplomas at the point of fertilization of the ovum.

I understand that this your opinion. Mine happens do differ, but that question is to be discussed later, in another thread.

the question “what is a chicken?” is a much different one from “how do we know if something is a chicken?”; while there is presumbaly something that it is to be a chicken (and for each other thing to be the sort of thing that it is), we may never achieve an exhaustive understanding of what that is, at least when it comes to complicated biological entities, as opposed to, say, simple geometrical plane figures.

The question is: “what is enough information”? One answer would be: enough information to create/reproduce something.

what point are you trying to make?

No special point, just trying to lay down a framework for much more important discussions.

sure. and we call one person short and another tall; one fat, another thin; one young, another old. but despite those qualitative differences, they’re all human.

What is a “human” has not been established yet. A functioning definition is the corollary of the duck-principle: “if it looks like a human, acts like a human, talks like a human - it is a human”.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Some really stupid questions for anyone who’d like to humor me…

1. If said duck is unable to quack like other ducks and/or walk like other ducks is it still a duck?
2. If through some birth horrible birth defect said duck dosen’t resemble or walk like other ducks, but still quacks like one is it a duck?
3. Does a duck cease being a duck if it’s dead and laying deliciously on a platter?
4. If said duck is pelted by radiation and developes x-ray vision is it still a duck?

 

[ateista]

Some really stupid questions for anyone who’d like to humor me…

1. If said duck is unable to quack like other ducks and/or walk like other ducks is it still a duck?
2. If through some birth horrible birth defect said duck dosen’t resemble or walk like other ducks, but still quacks like one is it a duck?
3. Does a duck cease being a duck if it’s dead and laying deliciously on a platter?
4. If said duck is pelted by radiation and developes x-ray vision is it still a duck?

I don’t think these questions are stupid at all.

The attributes I listed are not all-inclusive and should not be taken in a literal fashion. There is a variance and its limits are loosely defined. The point was that any entity is defined by enumerating / listing its important attributes.

1. Yes. If that “creature” would start to bark or meow, however, it might be considered a new animal.
2. Yes. It would be a malformed duck.
3. No. It would a dead duck, however - just as you said.
4. Yes. It might be called a super-duck.

I would like to paraphrase Forrest Gump: “A duck is as duck does”. That sums it up pretty nicely.

 

[john_doran]

What is a “human” has not been established yet. A functioning definition is the corollary of the duck-principle: “if it looks like a human, acts like a human, talks like a human - it is a human”.

but if we don’t know what a “human” is, then how do we know if the thing we’re looking at is acting or talking like one?

…what’s the next step of this project you seem to be starting here? this introit seems to have run its course…

 

[ateista]

but if we don’t know what a “human” is, then how do we know if the thing we’re looking at is acting or talking like one?

By looking into a mirror.

…what’s the next step of this project you seem to be starting here? this introit seems to have run its course…

You are right. I will put together my thoughts sometime today.

 

[john_doran]

By looking into a mirror.

…which would allow me to derive the principle, “whatever looks like that thing there, talks like that thing there, and walks like that thing there, is probably me”.

ateista:

You are right. I will put together my thoughts sometime today.

cool.

 

[ateista]

…which would allow me to derive the principle, “whatever looks like that thing there, talks like that thing there, and walks like that thing there, is probably me”.

Yes, you are right. But looking into the mirror is just the first step, and we shall continue from there.

 

[Mijoy2]

This all reminds me of the television show “My Mother the Car” with Jerry Van ****