So by "a theory which has reached the stage of such implicit circumstantial empirical support as to be considered devoid any violating set", you really mean "theory". Laws are entirely differnt animals. Here's how it works:

"Priests are thoroughly decent, law-abiding pillars of the community. By which I mean child-predating rapists. I don't see where the confusion in the language lies."

(May 29, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Correct. It would take quite the paradigm shift to completely overturn a scientific theory, though many older ones are disassembled to the point where their components still function to a limited approximation. For higher accuracy, one turns to more recent, more accurate studies.

Hmm. While I would debate that more recent studies are always of greater accuracy (that would be argument ad novitatem). It would follow that a more accurate study seeks to add greater detail to the results of an existing older study. Thus, the older study is not necessarily invalid and a more accurate study would be predicated on the results of the first.

However, I think we can agree that neither arguments to newness (argumentum ad novitatem) or arguments to oldness (argumentum ad antiquitatem) are a valid rebuttal to an argument and move on.

(May 29, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's not what I said at all. I asked how you can be certain that older 'theories' carry more wisdom than later writings by virtue of them being older, as you appear to be suggesting?

My response was to chas statement about holding onto old theories. I am not saying they carry more wisdom by virtue of them being old. I am saying he is not justified in saying a theory carries more wisdom by virtue of it being newer any more than I would be justified in saying by virtue of it being old.

(May 29, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Every authority you have cited, from Aristotle to Aquinas.

Unfortunately there is not an encyclopedic page for everything I have stated (nor have I looked for one). One is always welcome to get the information directly from the horses mouth as opposed from a third party such as myself or webpage seeking to summarize such works of complexity and detail.

---

(May 29, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote: So by "a theory which has reached the stage of such implicit circumstantial empirical support as to be considered devoid any violating set", you really mean "theory". Laws are entirely differnt animals. Here's how it works:

"Priests are thoroughly decent, law-abiding pillars of the community. By which I mean child-predating rapists. I don't see where the confusion in the language lies."

Given that I was talking about Hypothesis, Theories, and Laws I took the context to be sufficient to lead to the scientific definition of a law rather than a humanities or legalistic definition. I shall endeavor to be more specific in the future.

Appreciated and not simply for being contrary for contrary's sake; there really is a distinction between descriptive laws (as in science) and proscriptive ones (as in the legal realm). It is vital that we agree on definitions at the outset, otherwise we just end up talking past one another.

(May 29, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Appreciated and not simply for being contrary for contrary's sake; there really is a distinction between descriptive laws (as in science) and proscriptive ones (as in the legal realm). It is vital that we agree on definitions at the outset, otherwise we just end up talking past one another.

Absolutely:

"The beginnig of wisdom is the definition of the terms." - Plato

Agreed. When you make statements about there being very few laws in science, any personal definitions we might have must concede to the correct scientific ones.

(May 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 10:13 am)Anima Wrote: Nestor huh?  Would that be the Nestor of Homeric fame?

Yessir. 

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (I fear Greeks, even those bearing gifts).

(May 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Nestor Wrote: Nah, not really. We may have to appeal to abstract notions of value that are attributable merely to our feelings about experience rather than some objective "good" that exists "out there" in which everyone who perceives the same data will form a similar consensus, though the commonality of our language and experiences can allow us to develop a framework for reaching agreement. The difference between myself and someone who appeals to divine powers is, as I see it, one in which I find definition and demonstration sufficient for establishing a moral standpoint, and deity at best to be redundant, at worst superfluous.

In a previous post the topic of subjective morality is pointed out as being self contradictory. Since, determination is based on "our feelings" it naturally follows that our feelings our biased in favor of ourselves and thereby leads to contradictory answer regarding a given moral question. The example given was it is okay for you to lie for your benefit while you would not consider it as okay for another to lie for their benefit. (The qualifier of necessity was left out intentionally to illustrate the contradictory answer in less definitive scenarios of morality).

(May 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Nestor Wrote: If by lowering your "threshold of proof" you simply mean that human beings employ concepts derived from both the intellect and the senses, affirming that validity is not located in the external world, then I would contend that "personhood" is a product of language that is useful in describing veritable phenomena, and not imaginary in the same sense that "Godhead" is.   

Interesting. As i would argue that a production of language that is useful in describing veritable phenomena is imaginary in exactly the same sense as godhead. The distinction being the "personhood" linguistic production is regards to phenomena of self where as the "Godhead" linguistic production is in regards to a more teleological subject.

(May 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Nestor Wrote: We don't have to stop at "homunculus." I'm more than happy to acknowledge that as a theoretical matter the distinct identity conceived as "I" in thought doesn't really exist in the sense that it appears in any given moment. It's more of a practical convention, and one that works at the level of consciousness which our brains evolved to process the environment and to operate as a most critical function within certain spatially separated organisms.

While I am glad you are willing to acknowledge as a theoretical matter it would appear that your acknowledgement lacks a certain...well level of acknowledgement. You are willing to forgo the distinctive identity of "I" as an imaginary construct, while still maintaining consciousness. But this consciousness, which you maintain is itself a metaphysical construct lacking sufficient "proof" in the same manner as the "I". "I" is the form following the function of consciousness. But I like your acquiescence of giving in without giving in

(May 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Nestor Wrote: Untenable? I would rather think the reality that we in fact find ourselves in is quite tenable, even necessary as a consequence of perceiving subjects who interact with one another in a world consisting of both objective and subjective components.

Again. You are presuming the presence of I, us, or ourselves. Since there is not sufficient "proof" of the personhood or consciousness that gives rise to said personhood one cannot state we find ourselves anywhere due to the lack of we and the lack of self to be found. (This is of course excluding the argument that perception is done by the "I" and not simply the ontological nerve endings of the meat).

(May 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Nestor Wrote: I wasn't making a statement as to whether or not we should stick to those biases. I was just recognizing that we understand them to exist and that much inquiry remains to be taken further.

You know this is just asking for it. "What proof do you have that they exist?" "What proof do you have that we recognize them?" "What proof do you have of 'we'?"

(May 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Nestor Wrote: By all means, please feel free to define my options as you see fit! Just don't expect to always find your opponent in the box you've constructed for your convenience!  

Ha ha. Very well. At the same time do not think you are not in a box I constructed because you do not "feel" you belong there. After all... I "feel" you do (and both our feelings have equivalent evidentiary support)

(May 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Nestor Wrote: Do you mean that if I had read past the first ten pages I would have found an argument of yours that was more compelling? 

The magnanimity of my opus is not limited to but one page!!

"Magnanimity"?

Which synonym did you think applies: generosity, charitableness, charity, benevolence, beneficence, open-handedness, big-heartedness, great-heartedness, liberality, humanity, nobility, chivalry, kindness, munificence, bountifulness, bounty, largesse, altruism or philanthropy?

(May 29, 2015 at 4:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote: "Magnanimity"?

Which synonym did you think applies: generosity, charitableness, charity, benevolence, beneficence, open-handedness, big-heartedness, great-heartedness, liberality, humanity, nobility, chivalry, kindness, munificence, bountifulness, bounty, largesse, altruism or philanthropy?

Why limit myself to just one? I do not want one position, I want all position!!

https://youtu.be/Fk-CE9WAJHU

A very understandable and laudable ambition. I'm just left wondering why you chose a word which didn't convey a meaning suhhested by the context.

(May 29, 2015 at 5:07 pm)Stimbo Wrote: A very understandable and laudable ambition. I'm just left wondering why you chose a word which didn't convey a meaning suhhested by the context.

No?

I did not think it would due to comment on my perceived magnificence, but that I would be able to discuss the good nature by which I embarked upon the thread in the first place (as exhibited throughout the thread in many locations).