(May 30, 2020 at 7:50 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(May 30, 2020 at 1:38 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And you have never described how to find the 'nature' of a thing.
The nature of a thing is what it is and does. We learn this through scientific study.
Quote:So, if a frog is singing, that is part of its nature: it is what it is and does.
Your entire argument, as far as I can see, is asserting this over and over.
I'm using *your* definition. If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?
So, we look at the frog. it is singing. That means it is a type of frog that can sing. And, by your definition, it is then part of its nature.
Your very definition shows that things cannot do what is not part of their nature. Why not? because if it is doing it, it is part of what it does, and that means it is part of its nature.
Where am I misapplying your definition?