Which Sciences Are the Most Useful?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Which Sciences Are the Most Useful?

Post by teo123 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am

That's what peer review it for.
Well, yes, peer review catches obvious errors. Obviously, if you are making a statement about some very specialized field (where there is a reasonable chance of discovering something new), something passing a peer review doesn't mean it's right. For instance, I've published three papers having to do early or completely with my alternative explanation of the Croatian toponyms in three different peer-reviewed journals. Yet, when I contacted somebody whom I considered to be the greatest expert on the topic, Dubravka Ivsic, she said my conclusions didn't seem plausible to her.
You obviously don't know much about logic
What does that have to do with the logic I am taking a course on on the university, the Boolean Algebra, the Natural Deduction, the formal languages... Enlighten me, I just don't see the connection here.
Do you understand now?
That's not exactly what we were discussing. OK, let's imagine there is an oracle machine that could accurately determine what's a current scientific consensus on some issue. Would it also be reliable in determining objective truth? Of course not. If it existed in the early 1900s, and you asked it whether luminiferous aether existed or whether particles had wave-lengths, do you have any doubt in your head it would have given you a wrong answer? Also, such an oracle machine doesn't actually exist. And people pretending that it did and that there was a scientific consensus on some issue there wasn't have caused devastating consequences.
Especially in Biology and the soft sciences (though some mathematics can be applied).
And what exactly do you mean by "mathematics"? Mathematics doesn't just deal with numbers and formulas - graph theory, for example, is also mathematics. Genetics, as well as computer science and linguistics often deal with mathematics such as graph theory.
If you are going to advocate for Solipsism, just know that it's a bit of a moral issue.
I think it's not so much. Consider how many people were punished for what supposedly happened in Vukovar. If you are a solipsist (or just any form of skeptic), you will consider that immoral, because they were punished for the things we cannot know for certain they happened.
I'm not equating corrupt politicians with incompetent politicians.
It's almost impossible to tell them apart, isn't it?
People believing the scientists say something does not make it a theory.
For all practical purposes, it does. If people define some situation as real, it's real in its consequences.
I suggest you go and study it more, then come back.
How exactly would you suggest me to study English? And how do I know if I've studied it enough.
Can't you do a simple CTRL + F search?
An explanation of why my alternative explanation of the Croatian toponyms would be "soft science" arguably isn't anywhere on this thread by now.
And yet you accuse me of an appeal to authority?
That's not really an appeal to authority, I am not implying she is right. I simply tried to explain why I thought you were familiar with the arguments against animal testing.
I don't trust Bite Size Vegan (and most of us here don't), she's kind of a woo, and supports a lot of bunk science.
How do you know, you don't seem to be quite aware of her content? And don't say "because she is against FDA mandating animal testing", because that's circular reasoning.
I can name my reasons why I think she is actually more credible than other bloggers in this vegan world, she had qualified and well-respected dietitians (Michael Greger spoke quite a few times, and some other dietitians also) speak on her channel many times, and she had an actual neuroscientist talk about animal sentience on her channel.
What are you talking about? I am not brimstone. That's someone else.
I know, I encouraged everyone who was reading the Flat-Earth thread to read the thread on the TFES forum in which I supposedly explained my reasons for believing that Earth is flat. You are RedAppleGP, right? That guy who shared most Brimstone's political opinions, but was not nearly as scientifically literate (neither in social sciences nor in natural sciences) as Brimstone, right?
You would've known my rebuttal if you were to read the first few pages of this thread.
I won't read it, as you were writing that before you knew literally anything about my hypotheses (and likely historical linguistics in general). What does my alternative explanation of the Croatian toponyms say? Why exactly is it "soft science"?
Why don't you go to the thread about it on linguistforum.com and present your arguments there. There were a few "linguistics is not a real science"-people in that thread already who provoked a bit of a philosophical discussion.
I'll include a few excerpts from that thread, my name there is FlatAssembler, and Daniel is a PhD linguist and the moderator.
Daniel wrote:
FlatAssembler wrote:Why do you think those statistical methods work any better than common sense does? If you count the English dictionary equivalents of the Croatian words that start with a 't', do you think that a significant portion of them will start with a 'th'? Wouldn't the early loanwords and coincidences average them out?
I'm not arguing for blind statistics at all! What I'm saying is that if you have a large sample, you'll probably be right on average. If you have a single data point, there's no reason to assume you'll be right that one time.
...
But that doesn't mean we should just dump the dictionary into a statistical program and see what happens! (And far too often non-linguists do something along those lines and claim they've solved a major linguistics problem like where the homeland of Indo-European was-- they're almost always wrong, even though, unfortunately, papers like that can get a lot of attention in the world outside of linguistics.)
Daniel wrote:I don't disagree with you that there are some things in linguistics (including some published papers) that don't take much background to understand. But there are vastly more things that take a lot of background (e.g., a PhD, or lots and lots of self study).
Daniel wrote:
LinguistSkeptic wrote:He is making wild guesses based on questionable (if not just obviously wrong) premisses.
Well, yes. That's a good way of describing science, especially historical linguistics. Though you left out the systematic aspects (such as applying common patterns in sound change, or genuine efforts to self-falsify your theories, and considering alternative hypotheses).
Wikipedia wrote:Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
In this case we're talking about languages/etymologies (not the whole universe), and the biggest problem in applying that definition is the question of falsifiability, in that from a practical perspective it will be hard to find any evidence to potentially falsify these hypotheses (given how little data is available). But we could potentially find evidence. In fact, that's not so unusual for science: there has never been, and probably will never be, a direct observation of a black hole, because by definition light cannot escape them, so we cannot observe them. But they can be studied indirectly, based on theoretical predictions (sometimes "wild guesses based on questionable premises"!), and by observing related things like a 'missing' large object with enormous gravity.
Daniel wrote:
LinguistSkeptic wrote:Excuse me, to me it seems like he is just bombarding us with controversial statements we can't evaluate.
You cannot evaluate them because you don't have any expertise in this field. It would not make sense for you to tell physicists they are wrong because you don't understand, or biologists, or computer scientists, or whatever. Your understanding is irrelevant to others being correct.
Daniel wrote:
LinguistSkeptic wrote:Isn't such etymology, from so many words, extremely far-fetched?
What does "far-fetched" mean? Many etymologies are complicated, even ones we have direct evidence for. Therefore your objection is irrelevant. It's either this "far-fetched" etymology, or some other one. Etymologies are not always transparent and easy; why would you expect them to be?
You are making a common incorrect statistical assumption that unlikely events never occur. In fact, unlikely events occur every day. (I believe I wrote about this in earlier posts to FlatAssembler by the way.) What is unlikely is that a specific unlikely event occurs, but your objection would apply to any etymology because indeed any etymology is unlikely (and many are complex).
Daniel wrote:
LinguistSkeptic wrote:Social sciences don't appear to be real sciences. Trusting the mainstream social sciences has brought us things such as socialism and communism. Seems to me that I am better off thinking with my own head than trusting you guys.
Nonsense, but OK. Yes, please, go away.
Daniel (to FlatAssembler) wrote:That's the problem with the toponyms: you've crafted an explanation that is very difficult to falsify, both because of the little evidence (in support or against you) and because it requires a lot of expertise to even consider the question. But to be discouraging, here, I would caution you against thinking that by asking a harder question you have a better chance of being right, especially when you seem to be looking to challenge the mainstream views with everything you do.
Panini wrote: I feel compelled to object to the incorrect characterization of linguistics as a social science. Sociolunguistics is one, no doubt; the study of grammar is not
I hope you get a general idea.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:34 am

OK, so that's you making this political. I don't know if FlatAssembler has a political motivation. Maybe he does. But he hasn't made any arguments based on that, and you just did. No place "belongs" to any political entity because of the language that is spoken there. That's not how politics, or linguistics, or life or the world works.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:36 am

Sorry, I can't edit my last post for some reason, and posted it wrongly...
One more humorous quote from that thread that shows how much common sense can guide us astray if we don't do the research the right way and try to ascribe credibility to somebody:
Daniel wrote:
ForumExplorer wrote:FlatAssembler argues that many Croatian toponyms are explicable using an ancient language called PIE, and most of his arguments are not even comprehensible.
Proto-Indo-European is not a fringe theory in any sense. It's been an accepted hypothesis that every linguist knows about, since the late 1700s. The details (like exactly where or when it was spoken) are up for debate, but its existence and some of its general properties are not. In fact, only fringe theories would deny that PIE existed!
Without knowing that, I can understand how this thread would read oddly. But that's the fault of history classes not teaching about PIE, not the fault of us talking about shared technical knowledge.
And here is a response to "science is politicized":
Daniel wrote:
AGuyFromBalkanee wrote:He just doesn't want to admit that it's Serbian and therefore that it should belong to Serbia.
OK, so that's you making this political. I don't know if FlatAssembler has a political motivation. Maybe he does. But he hasn't made any arguments based on that, and you just did. No place "belongs" to any political entity because of the language that is spoken there. That's not how politics, or linguistics, or life or the world works.
Shane Killian also provided a good response to when somebody says "Economics is not a real science!"
Shane Killian wrote:So, when you make it look like economics supports your political agenda, economics is a real science. When somebody points to the flaws in your thinking, then all of a sudden it's not.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:37 am

teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
What does that have to do with the logic I am taking a course on on the university, the Boolean Algebra, the Natural Deduction, the formal languages... Enlighten me, I just don't see the connection here.
Why do you think they are referred to as logical fallacies? It's an error in logic.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
That's not exactly what we were discussing.
Yes it was.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
OK, let's imagine there is an oracle machine that could accurately determine what's a current scientific consensus on some issue. Would it also be reliable in determining objective truth? Of course not. If it existed in the early 1900s, and you asked it whether luminiferous aether existed or whether particles had wave-lengths, do you have any doubt in your head it would have given you a wrong answer? Also, such an oracle machine doesn't actually exist. And people pretending that it did and that there was a scientific consensus on some issue there wasn't have caused devastating consequences.
I already addressed this. I said that it is possible for scientific consensus to be wrong, but with modern techniques and equipment, this is very, very unlikely to happen.

And I'm not sure if you are implying such, since it's a bit ambiguous, but you might be committing a 'Science was wrong before' argument.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
And what exactly do you mean by "mathematics"? Mathematics doesn't just deal with numbers and formulas - graph theory, for example, is also mathematics. Genetics, as well as computer science and linguistics often deal with mathematics such as graph theory.
I know this. You aren't even making an argument against me.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
I think it's not so much. Consider how many people were punished for what supposedly happened in Vukovar. If you are a solipsist (or just any form of skeptic), you will consider that immoral, because they were punished for the things we cannot know for certain they happened.
No, that is obviously not what I was referring to. Do you even know what Solipsism is?
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
It's almost impossible to tell them apart, isn't it?
Not always, no. True, you can't always be certain of someone's intentions, but when using deductive reasoning, a fair statement can be made. For instance, I would consider someone like Trump to be more misguided than corrupt, where someone like Mussolini is more the opposite.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
For all practical purposes, it does. If people define some situation as real, it's real in its consequences.
No it doesn't. You didn't bother reading the Wikipedia article I linked on Scientific Theories either, did you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
How exactly would you suggest me to study English? And how do I know if I've studied it enough.
Don't ask me, I'm not the language expert. Try FluentIn3Months, they might have a program for English.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
An explanation of why my alternative explanation of the Croatian toponyms would be "soft science" arguably isn't anywhere on this thread by now.
I wasn't referring to using a CTRL + F search in this thread.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
That's not really an appeal to authority,
By your own definitions, it is.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
I am not implying she is right.
That's what I said about scientific consensus before, yet you still consider it an appeal to authority fallacy. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
How do you know, you don't seem to be quite aware of her content? And don't say "because she is against FDA mandating animal testing", because that's circular reasoning.
I used to watch her back in the day, and looking back, it's not very good. Terrible, in fact.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
I can name my reasons why I think she is actually more credible than other bloggers in this vegan world, she had qualified and well-respected dietitians (Michael Greger spoke quite a few times, and some other dietitians also) speak on her channel many times, and she had an actual neuroscientist talk about animal sentience on her channel.
She's a stopped clock, of course. Right every now and again, but wrong most of the time.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
I know, I encouraged everyone who was reading the Flat-Earth thread to read the thread on the TFES forum in which I supposedly explained my reasons for believing that Earth is flat. You are RedAppleGP, right?
Now you're accusing me of things.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
You are doing the same error I was doing in the Flat Earth thread when I asked you to read the thread in which I supposedly explained my arguments for believing the Earth is flat.
How do you know I didn't look at that thread?
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
That guy who shared most Brimstone's political opinions, but was not nearly as scientifically literate (neither in social sciences nor in natural sciences) as Brimstone, right?
Yes, because I recognize that brimstone knows more than me in just about every field, so it's best to defer to it, and ask it questions rather than get into a debate about something I know nothing about.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
I won't read it,
Then fuck off then.

I've told you where to go, since it would save us some time and so you'd have an idea of my arguments, but you're being lazy and seem to be boasting about it. It seems to be that you're scared of the opposing side.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
Why exactly is it "soft science"?
Go back and read the thread, pal.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
Why don't you go to the thread about it on linguistforum.com and present your arguments there. There were a few "linguistics is not a real science"-people in that thread already who provoked a bit of a philosophical discussion.
This is incredibly rude on your part, and no, I will not do that. I am not going to waste extra time discussing with you something I already went over with someone else, and especially considering you're choosing to not listen to my arguments. You're just going to take me on a gish gallop there (as you do in this thread, and especially later in your post), and I haven't the time to do such a thing, where it would take you significantly less time to just go read what I told you to read.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:27 am
I hope you get a general idea.
I already have made arguments against these in this thread that you won't bother to read.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:05 am

A legitimate criticism of science requires an at least basic understanding of it.
And the same goes with philosophy (for example, that solipsism is defined as a position that only self can be truly known).
I've spent about half an hour trying to summarize the (what are here) possibly important points in the discussion that happened in another thread and on another forum. Because the thread goes through many topics, it took me way less time to find the possibly important points than it would have taken you. It would have taken me even less time had you explained what you consider to be legitimate arguments for linguistics not being a real science (or whatever it is that you actually claim), but you are somehow expecting me to read an entire 60-or-so-posts thread, even though you can easily summarize the relevant points in excerpts of 5-or-so posts.
If you think social sciences are pseudosciences, where are the typical features of pseudosciences in them, such as ad-hoc hypotheses, unfalsifiable hypotheses and a lack of scientific consensus on even the most basic things?

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:55 pm

I mean, let's face it, Red, our conversation here reads like this:
Brimstone wrote: Letting people hear both sides of the story has sometimes had negative consequences, here are examples:...
Me wrote: Those aren't true examples. People didn't even hear one side of the story there. Though, admittedly, it's hard to make people hear both sides of the story even if you want them to.
Brimstone wrote: That's sort of true, but trying to let people hear both sides of the story is usually impractical. People are lazy. We need to make people hear either scientists talking about some issue, or nobody at all.
Me wrote: Well, again, it's hard to do that, we might just make things worse. Besides, it wouldn't actually solve the problem, because the scientists speaking to the public can also support wrong theories.
Brimstone wrote: That's sort of true, but the theories scientists create tend to be much less wrong than the theories laymen create. Also, laymen rarely create actual theories, their "theories" usually fail to be testable.
You wrote: That's such an arrogant thing to say, Teo. You've been wrong so many times. Haven't you learnt the lesson? There has never in recent history been a well-accepted scientific theory that proved to be wrong.
Me wrote: What is it that I should have learnt? That the best way to explore some issue is to try to follow the scientific consensus, as if you could actually determine what it is? That's what you've been trying to teach me all that time, and I think it's not the case. In fact, people trying to do that has had devastating consequences, as in Lysenkoism.
You wrote: Lysenkoism wasn't an actual scientific theory. It was never actually widely believed by biologists.
Me wrote:I think it actually was. Besides, the actual number of scientists who believed that is irrelevant, there were enough of them and they were vocal enough to mislead the rulers into thinking most scientists believed them.
You wrote:No, it was not a scientific theory, you are ignoring what I said. Also, what does the fact that people were misled into thinking it was mainstream science have to do with anything.
Me wrote:I am simply saying determining what's the scientific consensus on some issue, as you seem to suggest I should do, is very error-prone. Besides, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the government should attempt to determine what's the scientific consensus and censor other ideas. You realize they are very unlikely to do it right?
You wrote:Well, yes, I do support government censorship. What does that have to do with anything? There has never been a wrong scientific theory in recent history, regardless of how hard it is for people to determine what's an actual scientific theory.
Me wrote:So what? You basically admit that scientific theories being reliable, regardless of whether they actually are, is useless to most of the people, including you and me. So, you support government censorship as a way to get rid of pseudoscience. What makes you think that would work? How do you know it won't even be counter-productive?
You wrote:Here is a thread about it...
Me wrote:That thread is very long, and it doesn't appear to be mostly about it. Can you provide some excerpts from that that you consider to be relevant here?
You wrote:No, I won't. You are being lazy.
Me wrote:I am not lazy. I just don't think attempting to follow that thread would be productive. It's much easier for you, if you participated in that thread, to provide some excerpts.
You wrote:No, I won't.
Me wrote:Why not?
You wrote:Because you are just being lazy.
Me wrote:I explained you, I am not being lazy. I just think it's easier for you to do that.
You wrote:Yes, you are lazy. I don't have time to do that, when you can easily read the relevant parts of the thread yourself in 10 minutes.
Me wrote:Of course I could, but I don't know which parts are relevant. Copy-paste them here.
You wrote:No, I won't. If you want to participate on this forum, it's your responsibility.
And it goes on for pages.
And, parallel to that:
You wrote:There are millions of people much more educated than you in just about every field you can think of. You cannot discover anything new in any field of science right now.
Me wrote:Actually, it's quite possible that I have. I've published three peer-reviewed papers about my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms, you can read about it here...
You wrote:That's not a real science! It's a soft science.
Me wrote:Why not? It's not an unfalsifiable pseudoscience. What does "soft science" mean?
You wrote:I wrote about it right on this thread.
Me wrote:This thread has got quite long. Could you copy-paste here what you think is relevant?
You wrote:No, you are just being lazy.
Me wrote:No, I am not just being lazy. Attempting to read the entire thing is counter-productive. What could it possibly have to do with my interpretation of the Croatian toponyms? Do you even know what it is about? Do you even know anything about historical linguistics?
You wrote:What I know or don't know about your hypothesis is irrelevant. Right on this thread, there is a proof that all linguistics is soft science.
Me wrote:I've skimmed over the thread, you seem to have a wrong idea of what a social science is...
You wrote:You are putting words into my mouth. No, I still won't copy the relevant points here. It's your job.
Me wrote:It would be a lot easier for you to copy-paste what you consider relevant than for me to find that in this long thread. By the way, I've already had a discussion about linguistics being a "soft science" in another forum, and one of the participants was actually a PhD linguist, here is a link to it and here are some excerpts from it...
You wrote:You are trying to Gish-gallop me. No, I won't tell you what's in this thread that I consider relevant here.
Me wrote:I would include a lot less excerpts if I knew exactly what you were talking about. Now, a legitimate criticism of science requires a basic understanding of it. You don't show it at all.
Do you honestly expect me to reply any more to this thread? If you think I am misrepresenting you or Brimstone here, let me know.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:30 pm

I've never seen such a blatant misrepresentation from someone, who is also just trying to cover up for his laziness, AND who is also trying to project his stupidity onto others to save face.

I will miss our little talks though. If you don't think that this debate will go anywhere Teo, then I'm done with you.

So, with all due respect, shut the fuck up.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:05 pm

@teo123 You should read the conversation about social sciences Red and I had earlier in the thread.
Oh fucking hell I can't think of a new signature.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:52 pm

I'm breaking off this post into another:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4518

It has strayed much too far off the original subject matter.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm
Religion: Other

Post by carnap » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:17 am

Lay Vegan wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:50 am
You should practice what you preach, and quit challenging the consensus of trained professionals who have been properly trained to draw from hard science. Your flippant dismissal of legitimate dietetic organization position papers (based on hard data) is
I do....and its the claim that there is a scientific consensus that I've disputed. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the evidence behind some paper. That is especially true when the paper was created by a trade group rather than a scientific organization.

You guys are upset about someone asking about research and looking at the citations to the paper you've cited.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:50 am
The ability to understand an argument as valid and sound isn’t contingent one’s educational status. Neither is the ability to make both valid and sound arguments.
Of course it is....both your understanding of the subject material and logic itself hinges on your educational status.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:50 am
Many philosophers may or may not be vegan due to practical concerns, but that’s really besides the point. Animal ethics has historically been, and continues to be an important subject of philosophical inquiry.
You're obviously aren't very familiar with philosophy. Animal ethics is a very mirror area of philosophy and there are very few works on the subject. But discussing animal ethics doesn't make you vegan, if you actually walk into philosophy departments you'll find very few vegans.

Lay Vegan wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:50 am
The more you discuss this clearer your ignorance becomes. Consensus in science isn’t necessarily unanimity, nor is it reached by an arbitrary collective “vote” of scientists. Rather it’s the general agreement of scientists based on the weight of empirical evidence.
Funny stuff....and how exactly do you imagine people come to know what is the "general agreement of scientists"? You'd have to survey the scientific community for that and that is rarely done....especially on arcane subjects that few scientists care about.

But, yes, my ignorance.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:50 am
The fact that there exists a handful of nutty climate science deniers does not negate the fact that climate change is not disputed by the larger scientific community.
Your comment here demonstrates your dogmatism. A scientist that holds an outlier view is not "nutty", they simply disagree with the majority of other scientists in their field. What is important is that they are committed to the scientific method....not the amount they agree with other scientists.

But, again, in this case you guys are claiming a scientific consensus where there is none. Your only evidence for a "consensus" is a position paper written by vegans that was published by a trade group.


Lay Vegan wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:50 am
This is not an 'appeal to authority,' it's only a fallacy when that authority is unqualified. How can you know who is more qualified? S
An appeal to authority is only a cogent argument if there is agreement that the authority is qualified. If the parties don't agree then then argument is fallacious because you're asserting the truth of the authority when that is part of what is being contested.

Your "argument" is simply you upholding your position as the truth. I've made an argument as to why the American Academy of Dietetics isn't an authority on nutritional science and you're not responding to that argument. You just keep repeating your view as true while repeatedly distorting what I've said.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests