The nipple issue is fairly well addressed. All human beings, regardless of sex at birth- begin development with female characteristics. The blueprint called for nipples in the first steps. The process that later calls for a penis does not specify that those nipples, previously constructed, fall off. Further, nipples are not deleterious nor is there any easily conceptualized disadvantage to having them. So there they remain, until one day, maybe, they don't.

Process, not purpose-the latter isn't even applicable in this case if there -were- a purpose, so it doesn't really help us to determine whether or not there -is-.
(there isn't....lol, of course)

Your biology is a little off but all you've done is explain why they don't have a purpose. So....they still don't have a purpose which is my point. They don't have a purpose.

A counter example in this case would be to show that they do have a purpose. You have not done this. My argument still stands.

Is my biology off? Catch me up to date? Your argument doesn't stand because it does not satisfy the conditions of the conclusion you wish to make. If nature does have a purpose, the presence of nipples on males won't elucidate that - if nature does not have a purpose, the presence of nipples on males wont elucidate that.

They are there as a step in the process of development, regardless. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm disagreeing with the manner in which you reached it, understand? I think that the issue of showing the nature does not have a purpose can be handled much more simply and by way of a much better argument. That nature is not -capable- of having purpose because it lacks the required equipment to do so.

None of my premises are wrong. My argument is sound meaning it is also valid. My argument demonstrates a situation where nature is acting outside of goal orientation by giving males nipples. The fact that we know that it is part and parcel of a process is irrelevant.

Nature doesn't give us nipples, it lacks the required equipment for that as well, we simply have them (which is why process is -not- irrelevant). I think that you may not understand the finer points of condition. Lay it out in a syllogism and I'll explain the mechanics - I can even work up a simulated mechanical model of your statement; flashing lights, levers and moving parts.... so you can watch logic "do work" in a more intuitive way, and see why this work can't be accomplished in this manner. If you like.

It's entirely possible to get the right answer in the wrong way. Declaring it to be sound won't make it so.

About your biology: Sex prediction is ambiguous before week 13 of a foetus. Therefore, I do not accept your claim of humans beginning with female characteristics.

At week 13 the system they use is 100% accurate to predict sex.

---

(January 11, 2015 at 12:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Nature doesn't give us nipples, it lacks the required equipment for that as well, we simply have them (which is why process is -not- irrelevant)...

You've fractured the discussion and I see no point in continuing.

I'm not prepared to play exhaustive definition games. Clearly I was refering to nature as the reason why things are. By this definition it is nature that gives us nipples.

Prediction and development are not the same thing. Development occurs even when we are incapable of prediction. If we're calling (or implying that) nipples are a feminine characteristic, useless or purposeless on a male....those are manufactured before manly bits, and there are no further instructions to get rid of them - the manly bits themselves are modified what, again?

You have decided to reject my claim based upon a misunderstanding. But you don't have to accept my claim to understand why your statement is in error...and I don't have to provide you with any counterclaim or explanation to point this out. I was just being polite. The existence of nipples (or the lack thereof) on a male human being is not sufficient if you want to reach some conclusion about whether or not nature has a purpose, or could have a purpose. You'll need something else to go on. This is why your claim is not valid...and therefore cannot be sound. Capish?

Taking it further, if you're hoping that by showing that nipples do not have a purpose...and assuming that you could, it would still not be enough to establish that nature does not have a purpose...you would be attempting to make some binding statement about the whole by reference to some part. 747 seats can't fly, does this mean that 747s can't fly? Again, not valid, therefore no possibility of being sound.

Add to this the ambiguity of the claim at a very basic level, on what metrics have you decided what an acceptable purpose might be, acceptable in that you would deign to describe it as a purpose.....and wtf about nipples on Billy would speak to that? I offered you a more direct (and at least mechanically valid - argue the soundness all you like) approach to reach the conclusion you desire, I fail to see how this fractures a discussion of whether or not it can be proven that nature does or does not have a purpose.

One of my pet peeves is the constant use of almost exclusively human or "intentional" language in a discussion of nature or biology. Nature gives us this, purpose that. Scrub your mind, or else you're unlikely to find yourself anywhere other than grasping for the ring, but never grabbing it.

(January 11, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Prediction and development are not the same thing. Development occurs even when we are incapable of prediction. If we're calling (or implying that) nipples are a feminine characteristic, useless or purposeless on a male....those are manufactured long before manly bits, and there are no further instructions to get rid of them - the manly bits themselves are modified what, again?

I never called nipples a female characteristic, neither did I imply they were. I merely stated in my argument they have no purpose on men. Besides nipples, are there any other patently female parts that are not male parts in the development of a foetus before sex prediction can be 100%? If so what?

It is flawed reasoning to classify a body part to one sex because it serves no purpose in another.

---

Do you think that nipples are insignificant? I think that's your issue. If so I see where you're coming from.

On it's own, my argument appears weak. But I could strengthen my position if I formulated more such arguments. This is the similar to reductio ad absurdum. This is argument by negation.

By the way your 747 analogy doesn't work because the seats still perform their function. The seats are an analogy for nipples on men which do not perform their function. This is a false analogy.

Oh and I can decide to define things the way I want. My definition for nature is perfectly fine. An important part during debates and discussions is defining key terms. If you don't like the definition you can always walk. Perheps you can fault me on not defining nature in my original argument. I thought my use of it was how most use it.

(January 11, 2015 at 12:53 pm)BlackMason Wrote: I never called nipples a female characteristic, neither did I imply they were.

The statement is implicit when using them as an example of something purposeless in the manner that you have. Are they purposeless on a female?

Quote: I merely stated in my argument they have no purpose on men.

There we have it.

Quote: Besides nipples, are there any other patently female parts that are not male parts in the development of a foetus before sex prediction can be 100%? If so what?

No clue, I was lucky to have remembered that much about nipples from all the boring ass maternity bullshit I had to wade through everytime my wives' monkey hotels had no vacancy. Now, you want to talk about shit without a purpose......

Quote:It is flawed reasoning to classify a body part to one sex because it serves no purpose in another. Do you think that nipples are insignificant? I think that's your issue. If so I see where you're coming from.

Again, it's implicit in the summary of their uselessness to males. This is not my position, it is your own. I think that nipples are part of a process that is very significant to human beings, in that it is the process which manufactures us. A more complete description of their significance -to us- than as part of the process which -generates us- is difficult to conceive of. If nature did have a purpose, and if nipples do have a purpose...does it need to be anything more than this? Nevertheless, I'm not so careless as to state that this somehow shows that nipples do have purpose, or that nature does have purpose...and I don't think that either statement is true in any case. The trick here is that it doesn't lead any more competently to the opposing statement either, ala "Nipples/nature do/does not have a purpose". Something else entirely is required. This is an invocation of necessary and sufficient condition...the basis of some forms of valid logical operators (and nearly all forms commonly used in discussion). If you're going to use it, you have to know it. I'm a hardliner, give me something I can blind, transpose to a floating variable, feed into a machine to eliminate bias and ambiguity in language, and reach a conclusion mechanically equivalent to the statement contained within our conclusion. -Or- don't claim to be able to prove something, or to be in possession of a sound argument. If I did that with your claim I would not get the yield we want - because the operations are actually being performed on unspoken and unaddressed assumptions which would not be recognized or picked up on by tumblers in a lock. Rationalizing, not reasoning.

Quote:On it's own, my argument appears weak. But I could strengthen my position if I formulated more such arguments. This is the similar to reductio ad absurdum. This is argument by negation.

-and that does nothing to change the fallacious nature of that argument, which I outlined in my last post.

Quote:By the way your 747 analogy doesn't work because the seats still perform their function. The seats are an analogy for nipples on men which do not perform their function. This is a false analogy.

I used it as an analogy to describe why such reasoning is fallacious, not to show that 747 seats and nipples are the same thing. I could have just said "fallacy of composition" but how explanatory would that have been? In case you missed it, those itemized comments were elaborations of common logical fallacies - see if you can reread my post set aside your thread and spot which ones, eh?

Quote:Oh and I can decide to define things the way I want. My definition for nature is perfectly fine. An important part during debates and discussions is defining key terms. If you don't like the definition you can always walk. Perheps you can fault me on not defining nature in my original argument. I thought my use of it was how most use it.

It's not your definition that I took issue with, it was the unspoken assumptions behind it and the use of sloppy language which would -invariably- lead to misapprehension...combined with fallacious reasoning, you've essentially scorched the ground around your entire appraisal. Again, I share your conclusion - that nature is purposeless....but it;s important to get it right for the right reasons, otherwise it becomes difficult to know when we've gotten it right at all.

Your argument doesn't "appear weak" it is invalid...from the floor to the ceiling. You failed to satisfy condition, you operated on unstated assumptions, you leveraged the fallacy of composition - and then.....even -if- you still got to the conclusion that both of us would consider "true". Do you understand my opposition now?

The embryo starts off as a female template. It is not until the production of testosterone that the embryo takes on the characteristics of a male, at which time the nipples have already formed.