LoL. Looks like I was right about you.about the Holocaust, I find extremely annoying that it's illegal to doubt it
LoL. Looks like I was right about you.about the Holocaust, I find extremely annoying that it's illegal to doubt it
Proof is quite possible, in the absolute mathematical sense; imo anything less certain than that doesn't deserve the same word. However, I realize that it's quite common to use "prove X" to mean "present a convincing argument for X" and I'm kinda resigned to that. Still, I enjoy it when people get annoyed about "proof" meaning anything other than perfect, flawless, no-loopholes-at-all logical proof, since I think that's really the way things should be if only the rest of the world would listen.
The Holocaust probably happened. Can we present totally inarguable proof of it? No. Can we present good enough evidence that it would be silly to think it didn't happen? Yes. Odds are at 99.9% that it did happen. Odds are at 100% that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting problem is undecidable... a historical claim will never achieve that.
Many scientific claims can't even be said to be as good of proof as we'll ever have; they're more like "Current evidence suggests that such-and-such is the case, after more study we'll know for sure."
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
"Murder is wrong" isn't a factual claim; it's a value claim. However, what's being imposed on people is not even that belief, but the law against murder. We are quite free to view murder as harmless, so long as we don't go do it. In this case, the law is doing basically what it's for, to protect us from one another's actions.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
We are only nominally free to call murder harmless, if we are that at all. Anyone who propones the view with serious conviction (as in, not just speech but also action) sooner or later faces a retribution of some kind. In any case you're arguing the pointless details of a point that was general in nature. Whether you are imposing ideas themselves or the laws resulting from them is a trivialty in light of the issue.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
yes people must be inspired that it is wrong and internalize it, simply forcing the viewpoint down their throat is going to make them resent you, just by the nature of human interaction. Forcing people to do stuff is only a temporary solution to anything but doesn't cure the problem, its not wrong to shoot a person that is going to kill your friend, but it is wrong to shoot a person because they killed your friend. Thats my moral outlook, of which your free to disagree with.
The Noble Morality that Neitzsche refers to would be for example useful in temporary altercations, but the Slave Morality that Neitzsche refers to would be an example for overall healing and empathy.
Ftr, I figured that what you were doing. To me the "suggests" thing seems pedantic and is there to prevent altercation like this from happening in the scientific community.
This is a difference between mathematics and science... mathematics is very rooted in this kind of world of logic, while science first and foremost is a study of nature and reality. As investigation into science goes deeper and deeper its been typical for old models to become overturned in light of contradicting evidence, for this reason its really hard to unequivocably proof that something is true in science. In everyday usage people consider it proven, but it kind of stands there as a warning for people to realize that the investigation is still open for discussion.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I don't think anyone was trying to villainize you here, but it unfortunately happens in real life, its sad to note that at one point in german history there was a movement called "Deutscher Physik" or something that was an attempt at germans to purify there culture of what they considered "Non-German Science". This of course led to many people trying to disprove einstein, one guy spent 10-years trying to prove einstein's photoelectric effect wrong, he literally ran the experiment thousands of times, trying to find something wrong with einstein's conclusions. This to me seems like the downfall from placing too much influence on acceptable cultural currents rather than focusing on the pursuit of truth.
Sorry pal but the definition of murder includes the qualifier that the act is unrighteous, otherwise I would just have used "killing".yes people must be inspired that it is wrong and internalize it, simply forcing the viewpoint down their throat is going to make them resent you, just by the nature of human interaction. Forcing people to do stuff is only a temporary solution to anything but doesn't cure the problem, its not wrong to shoot a person that is going to kill your friend, but it is wrong to shoot a person because they killed your friend. Thats my moral outlook, of which your free to disagree with.
The Noble Morality that Neitzsche refers to would be for example useful in temporary altercations, but the Slave Morality that Neitzsche refers to would be an example for overall healing and empathy.
LoL. You're criticizing a supposed Sensor for making too many intuitive connections?That's correct, imo. It's obvious that he doesn't make the difference, mixing in the same bowl the Holocaust (and politics in general, as we could see in his previous threads) with natural sciences or psychology. I agree with making some connections and parallels, but not "prove" something right or wrong, especially when that means that the ones who disagree are "villains" :|.
You're right. Villainization would imply that the person wasn't a villain but was made one through the influence of another. Pinocchio IS a villain plain and simple.I don't think anyone was trying to villainize you here
Removed at User Request
I'm not the one that needs to justify himself when it comes to mixing things together that don't belong that way. I call upon your entire post history on this forum as evidence of your hypocrisy.
Doubt is meaningful way of experimentation, but it's not a meaningful way of exploration.
Fall down the rabbit hole occasionally but pick yourself up from the ground.