Religion III

[hcap]

I honestly do not see the attraction to the way Aristotle divided up cauaity.
He might have been one of the first western thinkers to investigate it, however his investigative skills missed a bunch. And there really wasn't any way to verify his conclusions.

Then or now.

Things Aristotle got wrong.

1. Women are monstrous.

2. Some people deserve to be slaves.

3. Eels don’t reproduce.

4.Aristotle was a geocentrist. He thought that the earth sits at the centre of the cosmos: the sun, moon, planets and stars, embedded in crystalline spheres, revolve around it.

It seems the reason he is popular here, is his unmoved mover assumption

Just found a moire complete list.
https://www.quora.com/What-was-Aristotle-wrong-about

Men have more teeth than women.
Heavy objects fall faster than light objects.
Men's blood is hotter than women's blood.
There are people who are naturally born to be slaves, and it is just and right to enslave them.
The earth is the center of the universe.
The earth and everything in it existed for all eternity and will exist for all eternity.
Some animals spontaneously come into being from mud and earth; they don't reproduce.
The natural state for all objects is to be at rest; they require constant application of force to move.
There are a total of seven heavenly bodies, which are perfect and never change.
The heart is the organ of reason and intellect.
The function of the brain is to cool the blood.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

My objection was to you saying this, afrer I criticized boxcar for somehow trying to invalidate evolution on shoddy metaphysical grounds...
This....
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...postcount=5003
You guys really should explain proportionate causation. And how causes are IN effects. Physically?

I never denied within a causal chain, within a practical subset, like an organism, (no need to go back to the origin of life), one may trace earlier causes. So what?

I am annoyed evolution is the target of convoluted metaphysical munbo jumbo trying to disprove it.

1)_Starting with boxcar's claim evolution violates the fallacy of composition.

2)-His claim causes must be greater than it's effects.

3)-And your nebulous something or other, you are saying disproves evolution. Or are you?

What is the principle you said "Boxcar was working from--whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause." Is that the same as "the principle of proportionate causation"?

What is he principle of sufficient reason?

And what does this mean?

All I was attempting was what the link to me stated. Though you guys were deadlocked as usual, this particular back and forth was particularly repetitious when I happened by out of boredom. So I tried to expand slightly on where Boxcar was coming from- without implying it was being conveyed well or not. Nothing to do for me with anything more such as evolution, or trying to sell Scholastic principles which would be rejected a priori ("anachronistic") anyway, etc.

The principal of proportionate causation proposes that whatever is in an effect is in the total cause (the collection of factors that are causing) in some way, either 1) formally ( the cause directly passing on the new property in the effect; a man "causes" a man) 2) virtually (the cause redirects the property found in other things to the effect, i.e., a blacksmith nails the property of "fixedness" in the nail to the horseshoe, which now has "fixedness"; 3) eminently (an effect only has a property analogously to the higher degree of the property in the cause (Andy Beyer causes the print in "Picking Winners" to be instructive. The print is instructive analogously).

I think I've got this right. I'm only a layman and therefore don't spend much time on it.

The principle of sufficient reason proposes that the intelligibility of the world depends upon things having a "reason, cause or ground". E.g., " if human beings have a special value, there must be a reason for the ascription of such value" (last sentence)...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/s...n/#PSRContPhil

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

I honestly do not see the attraction to the way Aristotle divided up cauaity.
He might have been one of the first western thinkers to investigate it, however his investigative skills missed a bunch. And there really wasn't any way to verify his conclusions.

Then or now.

Things Aristotle got wrong.

1. Women are monstrous.

2. Some people deserve to be slaves.

3. Eels don’t reproduce.

4.Aristotle was a geocentrist. He thought that the earth sits at the centre of the cosmos: the sun, moon, planets and stars, embedded in crystalline spheres, revolve around it.

It seems the reason he is popular here, is his unmoved mover assumption

Just found a moire complete list.
https://www.quora.com/What-was-Aristotle-wrong-about

Men have more teeth than women.
Heavy objects fall faster than light objects.
Men's blood is hotter than women's blood.
There are people who are naturally born to be slaves, and it is just and right to enslave them.
The earth is the center of the universe.
The earth and everything in it existed for all eternity and will exist for all eternity.
Some animals spontaneously come into being from mud and earth; they don't reproduce.
The natural state for all objects is to be at rest; they require constant application of force to move.
There are a total of seven heavenly bodies, which are perfect and never change.
The heart is the organ of reason and intellect.
The function of the brain is to cool the blood.

In what sense is this not the Genetic Fallacy?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In what sense is this not the Genetic Fallacy?

Yes, much is irrelevant to his causality speculations, but it cast doubt on his clarity of thought. For instance there were other Greek thinkers who did not accept geocentrism entirely, but were closer to the heliocentric concept. "Pythagoras thought that the Earth was a sphere (in accordance with observations of eclipses), but not at the center; he believed that it was in motion around an unseen fire"

And even more so DATES him as cooking up concepts clearly lacking in such modern understanding of "energy", as in potential, kinetic, and conservation of.

Not to mention E=MC^2

Sorry, without the benefit of modern discoveries of the external world his causality theory is at best interesting but mostly beside the point

And you gents have not explained adequately the infinite regress conundrum the "unmoved mover" stirs up. As far as I can see, that is the only thing floating his boat for western religious types. Are there physicists using his "four causes"

Newton and Einstein and dozens of other modern thinkers have done a much better job explaining causality and how the universe works.

Unless you or boxcar have a better explanation for some phenomenon you can support using Aristotle and Aquinas speculations versus modern thought?

Just one?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

All I was attempting was what the link to me stated. Though you guys were deadlocked as usual, this particular back and forth was particularly repetitious when I happened by out of boredom. So I tried to expand slightly on where Boxcar was coming from- without implying it was being conveyed well or not. Nothing to do for me with anything more such as evolution, or trying to sell Scholastic principles which would be rejected a priori ("anachronistic") anyway, etc.

No boxcar was totally wrong and he extremely repetitious not remembering past erroneous statements, jumping up and down and insulting me for reminding him of such.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No boxcar was totally wrong and he extremely repetitious not remembering past erroneous statements, jumping up and down and insulting me for reminding him of such.

Actually you were wrong, you liar. The genetic code in the caterpillar (cause) is in the butterfly (effect).

In fact, just as you were also wrong about a once piece of paper being the total cause for tipping a see saw. The see saw tipped in one direction instead of the other due to, yet, another causual series. Would the see saw tip in either direction if there was no gravity?

You're pathetic. You have no self-awareness whatsoever. If you did, you'd realize how shamefully shallow you truly are.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Yes, much is irrelevant to his causality speculations, but it cast doubt on his clarity of thought. For instance there were other Greek thinkers who did not accept geocentrism entirely, but were closer to the heliocentric concept. "Pythagoras thought that the Earth was a sphere (in accordance with observations of eclipses), but not at the center; he believed that it was in motion around an unseen fire"

And even more so DATES him as cooking up concepts clearly lacking in such modern understanding of "energy", as in potential, kinetic, and conservation of.

Not to mention E=MC^2

Sorry, without the benefit of modern discoveries of the external world his causality theory is at best interesting but mostly beside the point

And you gents have not explained adequately the infinite regress conundrum the "unmoved mover" stirs up. As far as I can see, that is the only thing floating his boat for western religious types. Are there physicists using his "four causes"

Newton and Einstein and dozens of other modern thinkers have done a much better job explaining causality and how the universe works.

Unless you or boxcar have a better explanation for some phenomenon you can support using Aristotle and Aquinas speculations versus modern thought?

Just one?

My historian of medieval science on retainer says it was Aristarchus who presented the 1st heliocentric model. And geocentrism was the science of the day into the 17th century, for good reasons...stellar parallax, diurnal rotation, star size...

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/08...centric-world/

It took about that long to correct measuring the musical scale and overthrowing Pythagoras' ridiculous Harmony of the Cosmos theory. Even if that was only alleged to Pythagoras in legend, Newton bought it hook, line, and sinker. Away with them all! They've got nothing to say!

The rest is essentially a nod to Scientific Reductionism, in the sense that the micro-world is privileged over and above the common sense experience of the macro-world. That is a philosophical preference and not something warranted by science. It's interesting how philosophies on both sides play whack-a-mole to advance views. If one wants to thwart a metaphysical observation about the world that might lead to an understanding of the universe (which Aquinas, for one, did not reason to) cite the fallacy of composition. In the next breath one establishes the micro-world (symmetric force, etc,) as representative of all reality.

Aristotle was answering Parmenides about the reality of change. Do you accept change as a feature of external reality? I am a realist about time and change, and therefore act/potency, powers in nature, etc. are alive and well.

Metaphysics purports to precede science, make it possible. My strongest personal evidence for that is in the scientific method itself, conducted at the macro-level by irreducible man, consisting of observation, measurement, experiment, formulation, testing, and forming hypotheses. If the macro-level is wholly reducible to micro-level, mathematical descriptions of the interaction of particles, then science itself is illusory.

I don't have a "better" explanation of some phenomena, but rather a foundational description about an aspect of fundamental reality about the universe, utilized by some bit player...

https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

The rest is essentially a nod to Scientific Reductionism, in the sense that the micro-world is privileged over and above the common sense experience of the macro-world.

"... quantum mechanics provides an exact description of every physical system, but some things are massive enough that quantum mechanics can be reliably approximated by classical mechanics. That's all that classical mechanics is: an approximation." Leonard Susskind & Art Friedman, Quantum Mechanics, the Theoretical Minimum, pages xix, xx.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're pathetic. You have no self-awareness whatsoever. If you did, you'd realize how shamefully shallow you truly are.

Ad hominem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

You're so cute when you stick up for your soul mate.

P.S. By the way, I did attack the substance of Hcrap's lame see saw analogy.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

My historian of medieval science on retainer says it was Aristarchus who presented the 1st heliocentric model. And geocentrism was the science of the day into the 17th century, for good reasons...stellar parallax, diurnal rotation, star size...

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/08...centric-world/

It took about that long to correct measuring the musical scale and overthrowing Pythagoras' ridiculous Harmony of the Cosmos theory. Even if that was only alleged to Pythagoras in legend, Newton bought it hook, line, and sinker. Away with them all! They've got nothing to say!

The rest is essentially a nod to Scientific Reductionism, in the sense that the micro-world is privileged over and above the common sense experience of the macro-world. That is a philosophical preference and not something warranted by science. It's interesting how philosophies on both sides play whack-a-mole to advance views. If one wants to thwart a metaphysical observation about the world that might lead to an understanding of the universe (which Aquinas, for one, did not reason to) cite the fallacy of composition. In the next breath one establishes the micro-world (symmetric force, etc,) as representative of all reality.

Aristotle was answering Parmenides about the reality of change. Do you accept change as a feature of external reality? I am a realist about time and change, and therefore act/potency, powers in nature, etc. are alive and well.

Metaphysics purports to precede science, make it possible. My strongest personal evidence for that is in the scientific method itself, conducted at the macro-level by irreducible man, consisting of observation, measurement, experiment, formulation, testing, and forming hypotheses. If the macro-level is wholly reducible to micro-level, mathematical descriptions of the interaction of particles, then science itself is illusory.

I don't have a "better" explanation of some phenomena, but rather a foundational description about an aspect of fundamental reality about the universe, utilized by some bit player...

https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover

Your historian missed a few tidbits about early Greek thinking about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. You are attempting to excuse Aristotle's misconception of the solar system because it was "counter-intuitive" for the Greeks? And invalidate all Pythagorean philosophers because of....

Pythagoras' ridiculous Harmony of the Cosmos theory. Even if that was only alleged to Pythagoras in legend?

Nonsense! There is quite a bit of value in the Pythagorean approach to numbers.

"The Pythagoreans engaged in the study of number theory or arithmetic (number in itself), geometry (number in space), harmonics or tuning theory (number in time), and astronomy (number in space and time). These descriptions correspond well with the modern definition of mathematics as "the study of patterns in space and time."

Our modern worn world owes much to Pythagoras focus on numbers. Try building, creating any technology without counting and calculating.

Where was Aristotle? Where are his mathematics today?


BTW, did Aristarchus and Philolaus propose that Harmony of the Cosmos theory theory you ascribe to legend as well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioc...m#Pythagoreans
The non-geocentric model of the Universe was proposed by the Pythagorean philosopher Philolaus (d. 390 BC), who taught that at the center of the Universe was a "central fire", around which the Earth, Sun, Moon and planets revolved in uniform circular motion. Later, Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC). Like his contemporary Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of the Earth and measured the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times wider than the Earth, and thought that the larger object would have the most attractive force.

Aristarchus out thought Aristotle MATHEMATICALLY, and it was not counter intuitive as you claim. Here is an early diagram he constructed. Much better than Aristotle.

Go to the link......


Aristarchus's 3rd century BC calculations on the relative sizes of the Earth, Sun and Moon, from a 10th-century AD Greek copy

Do me a favor please, and answer my questions in your own words with yes some strategic highlights from your sources. My eyes are not good enough to spend hours delving thru your links. That is the way I try to do it.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're so cute when you stick up for your soul mate.

P.S. By the way, I did attack the substance of Hcrap's lame see saw analogy.

Yes, you totally misunderstood all my examples of how a system in balance could be unbalanced with causes less than their effects. And how a causal chain may be initiated by what is tiny in comparison, eventually altering the outcome of major effects of that causal chain.

Contrary to another of your dumb proclamations from on high. Remember?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Effects can never be in their causes. Why? Because effects are not greater than their causes! Therefore, the opposite must be true!

You just don't grasp these things.
Then attacked me. And have done so whenever I have proven you wrong.

Btw, the human body consists of many subsystems in balance. Heat, circulation, fluids, ph balance, electrolyte balance and balance of white blood cells and the immune system, all must be maintained, or we get sick.

I know you think the coronavirus is a hoax, but that virus , just killed 100,000 people in 3 months here.

Do you know what a scanning electron microscope is? We need one to see a virus. Even the billions of them required to kill an adult human are not easily visible without intense magnification. Do you believe the "elite experts", dems, globalists and liberals made viruses up?

Are you going to insult me also for telling the size of viruses to you ? I mean how can a cause be less than it's effects?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Yes, you totally misunderstood all my examples of how a system in balance could be unbalanced with causes less than their effects. And how a causal chain may be initiated by what is tiny in comparison, eventually altering the outcome of major effects of that causal chain.

Contrary to another of your dumb proclamations from on high. Remember?
You just don't grasp these things.
Then attacked me. And have done so whenever I have proven you wrong.

Btw, the human body consists of many subsystems in balance. Heat, circulation, fluids, ph balance, electrolyte balance and balance of white blood cells and the immune system, all must be maintained, or we get sick.

I know you think the coronavirus is a hoax, but that virus , just killed 100,000 people in 3 months here.

Do you know what a scanning electron microscope is? We need one to see a virus. Even the billions of them required to kill an adult human are not easily visible without intense magnification. Do you believe the "elite experts", dems, globalists and liberals made viruses up?

Are you going to insult me also for telling the size of viruses to you ? I mean how can a cause be less than it's effects?

Now you're equivocating! Originally, that 1 oz. stack of paper was "the" tiny cause that accounted for such a great effect as tipping the see saw. Now, you're talking about how a "causual chain" may be initiated by what is "tiny in comparison". You have just unwittingly admitted that it was, after all, the causal chain that caused the see saw to tip.

You're so duplicitous!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Now you're equivocating! Originally, that 1 oz. stack of paper was "the" tiny cause that accounted for such a great effect as tipping the see saw. Now, you're talking about how a "causual chain" may be initiated by what is "tiny in comparison". You have just unwittingly admitted that it was, after all, the causal chain that caused the see saw to tip.

You're so duplicitous!

No, you are not following. And I have changed nothing.
The 1 ounce paper and see saw is an example of a system in equilibrium being unbalanced.

Ben's horse shoe nail is a minor cause initiating a larger causal chain

Both only a few days ago.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No, you are not following. And I have changed nothing.
The 1 ounce paper and see saw is an example of a system in equilibrium being unbalanced.

Ben's horse shoe nail is a minor cause initiating a larger causal chain

Both only a few days ago.

You're lying again. Both with your Ben see saw examples, you're entire point was that the effect for each was greater than THE cause for each (singular in each case!)