You can’t ask whether there are more things in common than not in common, unless you can enumerate the things to be considered. If everyone agrees on something, perhaps it doesn’t get categorized under ethics anymore. Or perhaps it just doesn’t seem salient when you take your informal mental census of ethical principals.
You can’t ask whether there are more things in common than not in common, unless you can enumerate the things to be considered.
Doh!
Yes, of course… Slip of the brain’s transmission there.
As for the response to the theist, I wish that I had used that specific response. I cannot recall now what I did use to counter his claims.
As I mentions, his claim was that there is knowledge that is not available to the scientific method, yet can be observed in other ways.
I pointed out that there were no other ways of observing things than empirical methods, and that if some method of knowledge that just entered out brain should be discovered (Revelation), and its reliability were determined, then this would just be another form of observation (Proprioception) and the whole process would then just be another tool of science.
He just couldn’t seem to get around the fact that as soon as he makes an empirical claim that it falls within the realm of scientific discovery.
He was also misusing Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (some true statements in a formal system cannot be proved within that formal system).
At which point, he began to conflate science as some sort of religion and god that was being worshiped, and from which everything was meaningless and thus there were no ethics, so he could just go kill and rape whoever he pleased.
It frightens me that there are such people in the world.
You can’t ask whether there are more things in common than not in common, unless you can enumerate the things to be considered. If everyone agrees on something, perhaps it doesn’t get categorized under ethics anymore. Or perhaps it just doesn’t seem salient when you take your informal mental census of ethical principals.
Excellent response to the theist.
Doh!
Yes, of course… Slip of the brain’s transmission there.
As for the response to the theist, I wish that I had used that specific response. I cannot recall now what I did use to counter his claims.
As I mentions, his claim was that there is knowledge that is not available to the scientific method, yet can be observed in other ways.
I pointed out that there were no other ways of observing things than empirical methods, and that if some method of knowledge that just entered out brain should be discovered (Revelation), and its reliability were determined, then this would just be another form of observation (Proprioception) and the whole process would then just be another tool of science.
He just couldn’t seem to get around the fact that as soon as he makes an empirical claim that it falls within the realm of scientific discovery.
He was also misusing Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (some true statements in a formal system cannot be proved within that formal system).
At which point, he began to conflate science as some sort of religion and god that was being worshiped, and from which everything was meaningless and thus there were no ethics, so he could just go kill and rape whoever he pleased.
It frightens me that there are such people in the world.