K
Kaninchen
Guest
So, better look at your rule then.
An exception to your belief structure on the subject. Better examine it.
Right.
- Status
F
Feanaro
Guest
It’s a perfectly (purrfectly) good example in logic and phrases like ‘essential to a cat’s nature’ tell you nothing about the ‘nature’ of cats - that you discover by conjecturing ideas about cat physiology or behavior and testing them out. A failure in such a test will tell you that your conjecture has failed and you need to find a better one - a test success won’t tell you your conjecture is right, by the way, but that’s another issue.
Evolution in one branch of mammals.
I’m sorry but that is all wrong. What is essential to ones nature is what is common to all things in that Genus. In other words, what makes a triangle a triangle is the fact that it has three sides and three corners. Not that we have a blue triangle or a red triangle. The color is not essential, and the same goes for cats. My question still stands, what makes a cat a cat? As opposed to another type of mammal like a dog.
A lesson in logic: philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm
Look up definition and meaning, especially intension. That is what I’m basically asking you about the cat.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Damn, after all those years of epistemology and scientific method courses at college as well.
How do we ascertain, with what analytical tools do we ascertain, what is ‘common’?
‘Triangle’ is a ‘sign’ (word) we use to denote a three-sided figure on a plane surface. The ‘sign’ is not identical to the ‘signified’, it is merely a word. The concept of ‘triangle’ exists within a more general framework of conceptualization of figures. It is a logical framework and not part of the purview of ‘scientific method’.
For the purposes of the exercise, I could just have easily have chosen aspects of physiology or behavior like ‘has a tail’ or ‘catches mice’ - it would have, at least, prevented your ad-hockery in avoiding facing up to the problem of refutation!
My answer still stands, ‘evolution’.
There are numerous problems with the concept of ‘essence’ - something that dropped out of scientific thought centuries ago partly because it sent scientific endeavor to sleep for a couple of millennia - not least of which is the problem of refutation as we have seen in your ‘interesting’ attempts at defending your position - where the ‘exception’ somehow became the ‘rule’ (redolent of the 'phlogiston has negative weight solution)!
What we can know about the creatures that we have placed in a taxonomy and called ‘cats’ does not come from distilling from observation some ‘essence’ that, somehow, exists within them all but from thinking, guessing and testing about their physiology and behavior, learning from our mistakes (the ‘refutations’), thinking some more and doing more guessing and testing. That way, we learn more and more about the complexities of the creatures.
Enough of the colors, get on with the problem of ‘rules’ and their ‘exceptions’ and how to deal with them.
F
Feanaro
Guest
K
Kaninchen
Guest
The Greeks were good at academe. Socrates wasn’t the beginning or end of intellectual endeavor.
Common sense tells us that the sun moves every day in the heavens, scientific endeavor tells us that the earth revolves.
Beats rhetoric.
Metaphysical concepts are not amenable to scientific examination, just because you think they’re ‘bad’, doesn’t make them ‘bad’.
Hardly the point - cats evolved, dogs evolved, giraffe’s evolved we can investigate ‘stuff’.
Only on the surface and they usually got it wrong.
As I said, it could have been any of a number of things. I admit that it was a mistake because you used my figurative use in such a way as to avoid your failure to deal with ‘refutation’.
So, we look up Aquinas to tell us about the physiology of cats (or women) and just what on earth has it to do with the question of rules and dealing with exceptions in the case of cats or women?
G
goofyjim
Guest
Indeed. We know not the day nor the hour.Well if you read it on the internet, it must be true!
The author of that website has other, um, unusual ideas:
catholicplanet.com/future/overview1.htm
Granted, it makes for an exciting “what if” novel storyline, but in my experience, anyone who tries to put dates on future events via prophecy is not to be trusted.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
F
Feanaro
Guest
F
Feanaro
Guest
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m afraid you left logic behind some time ago.
There was nothing to respond to. “Look at this website ‘discuss’” isn’t responsive in the first place.
What on earth has all this to do with the matter in hand? Unless you’re prepared to deal with the question of ‘rules’ and the effect of exceptions upon them, this conversation becomes more and more pointless.
Is it that you want me to accept that there are ‘essences’ so that, for example, men and women are ‘essentially’ different in some completely untestable way? In some way that determines how we should live our lives on the basis of manufactured (significantly) ideas of the pre-scientific age? In a way that, no matter how many exceptions one finds, the exceptions will prove the ‘essences’ (according to you)?
Those things are just not going to happen.
Oh dear. The scientific method isn’t about proving ‘truth’ (whatever that may mean) it’s about providing better (more powerful – ie more explanatory, more predictive) explanations – and testing them.
Why are you desperately trying to avoid the question of ‘rules’ and the effect of ‘exceptions’ on them?
F
Feanaro
Guest
Kaninchen:
I believe we are talking past each other. I have gone back and read your previous posts to truly try to understand what you are saying. I believe we both may have articulated our position poorly and therefore are misunderstanding each other.
Here is where I think the misunderstanding lies. I am talking about general rules whereas I think you are talking about universal rules. In that case, you would be right in saying that an exception refutes a universal rule. However, that would not properly be called an exception per se, but a clear refutation. I think exceptions only apply to general rules.
A key difference from what I can ascertain from looking through the dictionary is that a general rule applies to all or most, and a universal rule only applies to all.
When you used the example of “All cats are white” then finding a cat of another color does indeed refute that statement. If you say however that “Most cats are white” finding a cat of another color does not refute that statement. Exceptions only apply to general rules, not universal ones.
The reason I got hung up on the color issue not being essential, is because universal rules have more weight than general ones. A better example would be “All cats are mammals” because being a mammal is essential to a cat. You cannot find a cat that is not a mammal. To distinguish a cat from another mammal obviously requires even more division, but the fact remains that a cat will always be a mammal.
I believe we are talking past each other. I have gone back and read your previous posts to truly try to understand what you are saying. I believe we both may have articulated our position poorly and therefore are misunderstanding each other.
Here is where I think the misunderstanding lies. I am talking about general rules whereas I think you are talking about universal rules. In that case, you would be right in saying that an exception refutes a universal rule. However, that would not properly be called an exception per se, but a clear refutation. I think exceptions only apply to general rules.
A key difference from what I can ascertain from looking through the dictionary is that a general rule applies to all or most, and a universal rule only applies to all.
When you used the example of “All cats are white” then finding a cat of another color does indeed refute that statement. If you say however that “Most cats are white” finding a cat of another color does not refute that statement. Exceptions only apply to general rules, not universal ones.
The reason I got hung up on the color issue not being essential, is because universal rules have more weight than general ones. A better example would be “All cats are mammals” because being a mammal is essential to a cat. You cannot find a cat that is not a mammal. To distinguish a cat from another mammal obviously requires even more division, but the fact remains that a cat will always be a mammal.
F
Feanaro
Guest
What do you mean by this statement? Do you believe objective truth exists or not? The latter is a yes or no question by the way. I don’t want any explanation or reason why you believe what you believe. Just curious.
E
elt1956
Guest
E
elt1956
Guest
Hello. I am curious that with all the flap about the novel the Da Vinci Code, just what Mary Magdalene’s role is perceived to be now? Have seen via the History Channel the Church has redefined her role from sinner. Thanks.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m just curious as to your need for a yes/no answer where libraries could be filled - and have been filled- answering it.
J
jman507
Guest
I guess we have one question on the floor about the role of women in society. How about sending the other question to the philosophy forum? It seems rather pedantic here.
As far as women’s role in society. First it needs to be noted that men and women are not the same, and to not take that into consderation would be foolish. At the same time there are lots of differenty ways one can set up how the roles are placed. Some are better than others, but many will fit into a proper frame work. One important consideration here in the US and probably most of the West is to realize that career isn’t everything, figure out a proper balance. That would equally go for men as well as women.
As far as women’s role in society. First it needs to be noted that men and women are not the same, and to not take that into consderation would be foolish. At the same time there are lots of differenty ways one can set up how the roles are placed. Some are better than others, but many will fit into a proper frame work. One important consideration here in the US and probably most of the West is to realize that career isn’t everything, figure out a proper balance. That would equally go for men as well as women.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
This is kind of off-topic, so you may want to start a new thread, but the DaVinci code is as controversial as the green-cheese theory of the moon. See you in Non-Catholic Religions over this topic? If you haven’t already started a thread there.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Being from the USA, you SHOULD be able to spell at least
E
elt1956
Guest
Hello. Thanks for the post. With all respect, I don’t think this topic would meet with much favor in the Non-Catholic portion of the forum either. I had just heard on the History Channel that Mary Magdalene’s role in Chruch History had been re-defined. Somehow, through the translation of the Bible from Greek? Coptic? the role Mary Magdelene played in Church History was skewed. This is what I have heard. “The fact that mention of her in the New Testament was placed next to the tale of the Prostitute and the Woman with the oil led people to believe the three were all the one and the same person.”
Apparently the Church has redefined this. I just mentioned the Da Vinci Code as this was where I heard her role being questioned. So that is why I am asking. Thanks.- Status