Vegetarian Discussion: Are Humans Born With A Moral Grammar Wired Into Their Neural Circuits By Evolution?

Are Humans Born With A Moral Grammar Wired Into Their Neural Circuits By Evolution?
Posts: 145

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Immortalist
2010-10-26 20:44:53 EST
The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
conscious mind.

People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept
at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a
decision generated subconsciously.

This implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the
rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape
to an innate behavior.

This suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but,
rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.

Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
same moral judgments and the system that unconsciously generates moral
judgments is immune to religious doctrine.

The moral grammar is a system for generating moral behavior and not a
list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that
many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society - do
as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill;
avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.

The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
of their survival value.

Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
individual and punish offenders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html

K*@kymhorsell.com
2010-10-26 22:22:54 EST
In sci.skeptic Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
> moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
> must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
> conscious mind.
[...much much much more of the same...]

Wow. And people say Freud is/was screwed up.

--
R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

2010-10-26 22:28:39 EST
On Oct 26, 7:44 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
> moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
> must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
> conscious mind.
>
> People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept
> at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a
> decision generated subconsciously.
>
> This implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the
> rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape
> to an innate behavior.
>
> This suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but,
> rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.
>
> Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
> same moral judgments and the system that unconsciously generates moral
> judgments is immune to religious doctrine.
>
> The moral grammar is a system for generating moral behavior and not a
> list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that
> many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society - do
> as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill;
> avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.
>
> The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
> for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
> of their survival value.
>
> Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
> can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
> generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
> reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
> bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
> individual and punish offenders.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html

Humans are NOT wired according to any aspect of macro evolution since
it is impossible for it to occur. First, abiogenesis must have occured
and world reknown atheist scientists put that probability at a Faith
busting 10x40.000 th power ! In other words : God exists ... and
forget about trying to write him off with desperate philosophies.
Instead of desiring to be rebellious to God so you can live as you
like, make him your top priority of getting to know, have your many
sins forgiven by asking him, then make Christ the King of your life
and place him on the throne of your life, instead of Self. Then you
shall have a place in Heaven especially prepared for you . The
opposite is to continue to pretend atheism is real , have a few
earthly years of fun and hedonism, then to die never realizing what
your ultimate purpose in living was. The choice is all of ours.
People on earth die at a rate of roughly 150 k. per day...so make a
wise decision today.

DanielSan
2010-10-26 22:34:32 EST
On 10/26/2010 7:28 PM, IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 26, 7:44 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
>> moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
>> must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
>> conscious mind.
>>
>> People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept
>> at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a
>> decision generated subconsciously.
>>
>> This implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the
>> rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape
>> to an innate behavior.
>>
>> This suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but,
>> rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.
>>
>> Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
>> same moral judgments and the system that unconsciously generates moral
>> judgments is immune to religious doctrine.
>>
>> The moral grammar is a system for generating moral behavior and not a
>> list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that
>> many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society - do
>> as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill;
>> avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.
>>
>> The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
>> for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
>> of their survival value.
>>
>> Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
>> can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
>> generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
>> reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
>> bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
>> individual and punish offenders.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html
>
> Humans are NOT wired according to any aspect of macro evolution since
> it is impossible for it to occur. First, abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is not a concept of evolution.

No need to continue.

--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"There can be but little liberty while men
worship a tyrant in heaven."
--Robert Ingersoll
---------------------------------------------

2010-10-26 22:59:03 EST
On Oct 27, 8:44 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
> moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
> must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
> conscious mind.

For that, you would have to assert that the mind is a biological
entity.
>
> People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept
> at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a
> decision generated subconsciously.
>
> This implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the
> rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape
> to an innate behavior.

And sometimes, the child is far more advanced than the parent,Mozart
being a classic example.
>
> This suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but,
> rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.

People who need to be "told to be good", will attract an instructor.
Some need no instruction.
>
> Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
> same moral judgments and the system that unconsciously generates moral
> judgments is immune to religious doctrine.

As I said, some have 'evolved' beyond the need for guidance, some have
yet to.
>
> The moral grammar is a system for generating moral behavior and not a
> list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that
> many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society - do
> as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill;
> avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.

Just watched an incredible doco based in the slums of Mumbai, where a
million people live in a square mile, and have no need for such
guidence. Non of the above social problems exist.
>
> The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
> for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
> of their survival value.

On that basis, slum living is also part of the natural selection
process.
>
> Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
> can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
> generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
> reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
> bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
> individual and punish offenders.

Yes, what a very narrow predictability animals live in.

Of course, what is being alluded to here is the process of
reincarnation, with the attempt of rationalisation that is 'made up'
to suit the awareness of the beholder, such as the belief that the
mind is biological, and natural selection produces a remarkably wide
spectrum of human behaviour, from 'evil' to 'saintly'.

BOfL
>


2010-10-26 23:00:19 EST
On Oct 27, 10:22 am, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> In sci.skeptic Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
> > moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
> > must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
> > conscious mind.
>
> [...much much much more of the same...]
>
> Wow. And people say Freud is/was screwed up.

So was Beethoven ...and your point?

BOfL
>
> --
> R Kym Horsell <k...@kymhorsell.com>
>
> If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
>   -- Howard Aiken


2010-10-26 23:16:57 EST
On Oct 27, 10:28 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 26, 7:44 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
> > moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
> > must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
> > conscious mind.
>
> > People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept
> > at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a
> > decision generated subconsciously.
>
> > This implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the
> > rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape
> > to an innate behavior.
>
> > This suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but,
> > rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.
>
> > Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
> > same moral judgments and the system that unconsciously generates moral
> > judgments is immune to religious doctrine.
>
> > The moral grammar is a system for generating moral behavior and not a
> > list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that
> > many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society - do
> > as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill;
> > avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.
>
> > The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
> > for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
> > of their survival value.
>
> > Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
> > can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
> > generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
> > reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
> > bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
> > individual and punish offenders.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html
>
> Humans are NOT wired according to any aspect of macro evolution since
> it is impossible for it to occur. First, abiogenesis must have occured
> and world reknown atheist scientists put that probability at a Faith
> busting  10x40.000 th power !   In other words : God exists

No...anything not understood is covered by the God 'all encompassing
answer'. "If we cant know, at least we have faith."

In fact I have heard so many times over the decades quotes from
priests "some things we are not supposed to know".

(Now ,where are those that suggest Im religious !!!)


>... and
> forget about trying to write him off with desperate philosophies.

Him! There's a clue.


> Instead of desiring to be rebellious to God so you can live as you
> like,  make him your top priority of getting to know, have your many
> sins forgiven by asking him,   then make Christ the King of your life
> and place him on the throne of your life, instead of Self.

And for Christs sake, ignore his statement recorded in Mathew where he
was purported to have said "you can go and do far greater things than
I", and just a minor point "as ye sow also shall ye reap" . No
'absolution clause' because he knew that the only way we learn is via
experience. Forgiveness is totally misunderstood. It simple means that
one acknowledges the previous fact mentioned, that whoever meant me
harm 'knew not what they were doing', and the experience I have gained
from that interaction has been invaluable in my growth.

But hey, Im not a Christian, so what would I know.


>   Then you
> shall have a place in Heaven especially prepared for you  .
>  The
> opposite is to continue to pretend atheism is real , have a few
> earthly years of fun and hedonism,  then to die never realizing what
> your ultimate purpose in living was.

So you think fun is bad for your spiritual health? Heaven of your
imagination must be an extremely 'flat' place.

>The choice is all of ours.

Go tell that to the kids dying of aids in Africa.

> People on earth die at a rate of roughly 150 k. per day...so make a
> wise decision today.

Do you sell cars or life insurance for a living? Not that Im knocking
either. Just curious, based on your references.

BOfL


2010-10-26 23:18:08 EST
On Oct 27, 10:34 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 7:28 PM, IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 7:44 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
> >> moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
> >> must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
> >> conscious mind.
>
> >> People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept
> >> at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a
> >> decision generated subconsciously.
>
> >> This implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the
> >> rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape
> >> to an innate behavior.
>
> >> This suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but,
> >> rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.
>
> >> Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
> >> same moral judgments and the system that unconsciously generates moral
> >> judgments is immune to religious doctrine.
>
> >> The moral grammar is a system for generating moral behavior and not a
> >> list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that
> >> many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society - do
> >> as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill;
> >> avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.
>
> >> The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
> >> for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
> >> of their survival value.
>
> >> Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
> >> can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
> >> generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
> >> reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
> >> bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
> >> individual and punish offenders.
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html
>
> > Humans are NOT wired according to any aspect of macro evolution since
> > it is impossible for it to occur. First, abiogenesis
>
> Abiogenesis is not a concept of evolution.
>
> No need to continue.

He he ...we are 'wired' to continue!

BOfL
>


Immortalist
2010-10-27 00:04:32 EST
On Oct 26, 7:28 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 7:44 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The moral grammar wired into their neural circuits generates instant
> > moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that
> > must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the
> > conscious mind.
>
> > People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept
> > at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a
> > decision generated subconsciously.
>
> > This implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the
> > rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape
> > to an innate behavior.
>
> > This suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but,
> > rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.
>
> > Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
> > same moral judgments and the system that unconsciously generates moral
> > judgments is immune to religious doctrine.
>
> > The moral grammar is a system for generating moral behavior and not a
> > list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that
> > many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society - do
> > as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill;
> > avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.
>
> > The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
> > for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
> > of their survival value.
>
> > Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
> > can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
> > generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
> > reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
> > bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
> > individual and punish offenders.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html
>
> Humans are NOT wired according to any aspect of macro evolution since
> it is impossible for it to occur.

If you claim it is impossible then you must be prepared to show how
any or all explanations or theories about the matter are impossible.
You must show how alternative theories are impossible and if you can
only make them more or less probable you have not made them
impossible, in which case you will be obligated to change the term
from "impossible" to "unlikely". Here is one theory about the matter I
lazily googled up, refute it or change your language man;

Macroevolution might be "the compounded effects of microevolution".

Here is a bit from the data source;

Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene
pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or
above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which
refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes
in allele frequencies) within a species or population...

...Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is
thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the
distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one
– the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W.
Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an
extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within
populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction
between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”. However, time is not
a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without
gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can
result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is
especially common in plants.

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as
being important in producing speciation through large and relatively
sudden changes in animals' morphology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

> First, abiogenesis must have occured
> and world reknown atheist scientists put that probability at a Faith
> busting 10x40.000 th power !

Do you mean for polymers and other chemicals to get blown by the wind
in ponds and "bubble up" into a pile of bubble is nearly impossible?
How about other dirt and molecules getting caught up in the bubbles?
Or how about minerals and crystals growing in similar ways as cells
divide increasing their population? However small the probability I
doubt if it applies to all the various theories about how the first
molecules divided and multiplied;

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the
formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily
used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a
'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most
probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living
but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis)...

...In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on
Earth", suggested that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-
less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he
suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are
dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse
with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original.
This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and
metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the
structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.

Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-
biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would
have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the
building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called
biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from
self-replicating but nonliving molecules....

...[The] Clay hypothesis (sometimes called clay theory) has been
presented by Graham Cairns-Smith as a possible solution of the problem
of origin of life from inorganic non-living matter. It is based on the
assumption that original living organisms were low-complexity "naked
genes", whose shape and chemical properties influenced their survival
chances; the transition from inorganic lifeforms to DNA-based
organisms was a "genetic takeover".

Cairns-Smith suggests crystals as original naked genes, and in
particular clays. Clays can also include other atoms and molecules in
their structures, and perhaps evolved including more and more complex
structures, until DNA-related molecules would have taken control of
the organism, becoming the genetic driver of its life...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

The iron-sulfur world theory is a hypothesis for the origin of life
advanced by Günter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer,
involving forms of iron and sulfur. Wächtershäuser proposes that an
early form of metabolism predated genetics. Metabolism here means a
cycle of chemical reactions that produce energy in a form that can be
harnessed by other processes. The idea is that once a primitive
metabolic cycle was established, it began to produce ever more complex
compounds.

A key idea of the theory is that this early chemistry of life occurred
not in bulk solution in the oceans, but on mineral surfaces (e.g. iron
pyrites) near deep hydrothermal vents. This was an anaerobic, high-
temperature (near 100°C), high-pressure environment. The first 'cells'
would have been lipid bubbles on the mineral surfaces.

Wächtershäuser has hypothesized a special role for acetic acid, a
simple combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen found in vinegar.
Acetic acid is part of the citric acid cycle that is fundamental to
metabolism in cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory

RNA world hypothesis states that RNA was, before the emergence of the
first cell, the dominant, and probably the only, form of life. The
phrase "The RNA World" was first used by Walter Gilbert in 1986.

This hypothesis is supported by RNA's ability to participate in the
storage, transmission, and duplication of genetic information,
similarly to DNA, coupled with its ability to act as a ribozyme
(similar to an enzyme), catalyzing certain reactions. From the point
of view of reproduction, molecules exist for two basic purposes: self-
replication and catalysis assisting self-replication. DNA is capable
of self-replication, but only assisted by proteins. Proteins are
excellent catalysts, but fail to catalyze processes complex enough to
recreate themselves, individually. RNA is capable of both catalysis
and self-replication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html

> In other words : God exists ... and
> forget about trying to write him off with desperate philosophies.

Are you saying that if Abiogenesis is impossible that God necessarily
exists and all other theories and explanations about the matter are
impossible? Actually you are basing your theory upon a probability
which however small does not mean it is impossible. You just don't
understand the meaning and consequences of some of your language
right? If Abiogenesis is impossible then God necessarily exists, you
say. What if there is some unknown way that life began, how will you
show that it is impossible? This is no appeal to ignorance fallacy
either since your the one making claims and implications that
something is impossible. Hence you must be prepared to show why or
else the argument is hollow and without evidence. Perhaps aliens
created life which is doubtful but for your claims to be true you must
show hw that is impossible, else you must retract your claim and
change it to highly unlikelly but still possible.

> Instead of desiring to be rebellious to God so you can live as you
> like, make him your top priority of getting to know, have your many
> sins forgiven by asking him, then make Christ the King of your life
> and place him on the throne of your life, instead of Self. Then you
> shall have a place in Heaven especially prepared for you . The
> opposite is to continue to pretend atheism is real , have a few
> earthly years of fun and hedonism, then to die never realizing what
> your ultimate purpose in living was. The choice is all of ours.
> People on earth die at a rate of roughly 150 k. per day...so make a
> wise decision today.

All this is based upon traditional stories you have been told? But
traditions are not very good evidence for a theory of God since there
are many traditions based upon superstition and and other errors in
thinking that would have to be accepted like in ancient tribal
religions of cannibalism and more.

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that
something is better or correct simply because it is older,
traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" is
fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it
correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by
the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause
disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause
diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

K*@kymhorsell.com
2010-10-27 00:10:43 EST
In sci.skeptic bigfletch8@gmail.com <bigfletch8@gmail.com> wrote:
> So was Beethoven ...and your point?
[...]

I shudder to think how well read clones 1 through 7 were in
respect of genetics, anthropology and how-to-write-an-argument-101.

--
R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron