Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument.
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
 RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
Runner,
following the recommendations of experts and the general population probably is, as you say, generally the sensible course. Yet, because I am in a phase characterized by some suspicion of authority in general, I am asking for evidence. The evidence provided by JohnC above, is good evidence, but mainly deals with autism and mercury. This would satisfy someone already predisposed to accepting vaccines, but that's due to confirmation bias. Dispensing with those two concerns hardly constitutes a risk-benefit analysis aimed at an uninformed, but reasonably intelligent person.
I am looking for something like: If I take the vaccines, what's my chance of dying/being horribly injured vs If I don't take the vaccines, what's my chance of dying/being horribly injured.
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 4 2015 18:39:37
 |
|
runner
Posts: 357
Joined: Dec. 5 2008
From: New Jersey USA
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
|
Miguel, I understand your position, and it makes fine sense if you are the only person in your calculations. When you expand the circle of concern to include others--friends, family, co-workers, healthcare providers, healthcare insurers and/or your fellow taxpayers, and those you influence in the making of their decisions, the question becomes more complex, and the consequences of your decision become more widespread than originally thought. If you get sick, who else shares in the dis-ease?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 4 2015 18:56:53
|
|
guitarbuddha
Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Miguel de Maria
Runner,
following the recommendations of experts and the general population probably is, as you say, generally the sensible course. Yet, because I am in a phase characterized by some suspicion of authority in general, I am asking for evidence. The evidence provided by JohnC above, is good evidence, but mainly deals with autism and mercury. This would satisfy someone already predisposed to accepting vaccines, but that's due to confirmation bias. Dispensing with those two concerns hardly constitutes a risk-benefit analysis aimed at an uninformed, but reasonably intelligent person.
I am looking for something like: If I take the vaccines, what's my chance of dying/being horribly injured vs If I don't take the vaccines, what's my chance of dying/being horribly injured.
A depressing post.
D.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 4 2015 19:27:58
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
The thing about the vaccine issue is that emotional/irrational arguments populate both sides. The anti-vaxxers have little evidence/science on their side, but the pro-vaxxers (anti-anti-vaxxers) rarely have any, either. They go along with the establishment for the same reason they do so in other issues. They know as much about vaccines as they do about CERN or advanced calculus or obscure Bible verses, or, come to think of it--climate science.
Hola, Miguel. I must respectfully take issue with your statement cited above. You appear to be trying to establish a false equivalency between the anti-vaxxers and those who support vaccines. Those who support the vaccine regime for children in fact do have science on their side. It is the anti-vaxxers who demonstrate scientific illiteracy. That there are supporters of vaccines who may not know the science behind it does not demonstrate that the science is wrong, any more than a person who watched "Cosmos" can accept that gravity is actually the result of mass causing a curvature in space-time without fully understanding the concept. His lack of full understanding does not invalidate the science he accepts.
The evidence is overwhelming that the MMR vaccine is extremely effective in preventing measles in children. The CDC and other studies conclude that the first dose, given at 12 months, is 95 percent effective. The second dose, given at four to six years, improves the effectiveness to 98 per cent.
According to Anne Schuchat, Director of the CDC's Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, for every 1,000 children who contract measles, one or two will die. But more common complications include pneumonia, encephalitis, and deafness. Measles can be a very dangerous disease. Before the development of the vaccine, there were hundreds of thousands of measles cases in the U.S. every year. After introduction of the vaccine and its widespread use, that number diminished to the point where there was not a single case in 2000.
Measured against the vaccine's demonstrated effectiveness, and the potential danger inherent in a decision not to vaccinate should the child contract measles, the possibility of an adverse reaction to the vaccine is very small. In rare cases the vaccine doesn't work. In cases where there is an underlying medical problem resulting in a weakened immune system, a child may not be safely vaccinated. But there is no evidence whatsoever that vaccinations cause autism. This is sheer nonsense that started with the completely discredited study of Andrew Wakefield, whose work was demonstrated to be fraudulent, and who lost his license to practice medicine as a result. Plus the nonsense spouted by Jenny McCarthy attracted a lot of gullible people who think "celebrities" have a deep well of knowledge just because they are celebrities.
I mentioned in an earlier post that I am amused that so many anti-vaxxers are upper-middle class people who (correctly) condemn those who deny that climate change and global warming are caused, or at least are being accelerated, by man, referring to them as "rejecting science." These anti-vaxxers apparently do not see the contradiction (not to mention the irony) of their condemnation of the climate change deniers as "anti-science" while they themselves demonstrate their own rejection of science in their anti-vaccine stance.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 4 2015 22:42:45
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Bill, I was not claiming that vaccines are not generally effective. I was asking for a risk/benefit analysis for a single family. I did not see one in JohnC's link, or in 20 seconds or 20 hours of Googling, or in 2 of the 3 books I've read on the subject, or in my earlier inquiry to a 99.5% IQ group that included PhDs, MDs, and even a public health epidemiologist. The only one I've come across was in a book on vaccinations by a Dr. Sears. His "back of the envelope" tally was that there was slightly more risk of getting a preventable infectious disease than getting a serious adverse reaction as suggested by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, and this argued for vaccination. That was the only such sort of comparison I was able to find. Why this is so hard to find, and in fact, why the very attempt to do so is looked down upon, is curious to me. Especially in a country that glorifies individualism more than perhaps any in history.
Furthermore, my point about the anti-anti-vaxxers, I believe, still holds. While a few of them have done their research, most have not. If they are on the right side, it is purely by accident.
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 0:52:29
|
|
guitarbuddha
Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Miguel de Maria
Bill, I was not claiming that vaccines are not generally effective. I was asking for a risk/benefit analysis for a single family. I did not see one in JohnC's link, or in 20 seconds or 20 hours of Googling, or in 2 of the 3 books I've read on the subject, or in my earlier inquiry to a 99.5% IQ group that included PhDs, MDs, and even a public health epidemiologist. The only one I've come across was in a book on vaccinations by a Dr. Sears. His "back of the envelope" tally was that there was slightly more risk of getting a preventable infectious disease than getting a serious adverse reaction as suggested by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, and this argued for vaccination. That was the only such sort of comparison I was able to find. Why this is so hard to find, and in fact, why the very attempt to do so is looked down upon, is curious to me. Especially in a country that glorifies individualism more than perhaps any in history.
Furthermore, my point about the anti-anti-vaxxers, I believe, still holds. While a few of them have done their research, most have not. If they are on the right side, it is purely by accident.
Growing steadily more depressed.
D.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 1:02:17
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
Furthermore, my point about the anti-anti-vaxxers, I believe, still holds. While a few of them have done their research, most have not. If they are on the right side, it is purely by accident.
Not really, it's because medical history and record keeping has proven over a long period of time that vaccination has diminished and eradicated major diseases like Polio. It's not accidental that we come to these conclusions. Even a common sense view of this via medical histories shows over time vaccines are effective. It's medical fact. And the argument that vaccines can trigger the illnesses they are designed to prevent is a poor one because the greater good has been served by the suppression of these deadly diseases.
It really comes down to, I hate to say, a Vulcan logic proverb: 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
But if you really want a science fiction point of view, the anti vaccination party holds that.
_________________________
I love a sound bite from Antonio Gramsci- "Power is not discursive."
In the context in which he said that it means that power does not have to speak back to the critic of the power or the oppressed. But on the other hand, fighting the power simply because it is the power is not always logical or productive. Sometimes the power has resources that benefit the common good it seems unlogical to rally against something good simply because it violates a principal of total critique. The logical critique would include the recognition of that which is for the common good, even if it is pro power. Kant's concept of the Categorical Imperative basically argues that in that is says you should when framing an argument consider that you legislate not just for yourself but for everyone. If the actions of power benefit the greater population, even though the basic critique is focused on the unfairness of power that one aspect of good that power has manifested should be logically recognized if one os to create a good critique of power.
Kant basically said don't throw the vaccinated baby out with the bath water.
But then I'm not a philosopher, so what do I know.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 1:08:02
|
|
runner
Posts: 357
Joined: Dec. 5 2008
From: New Jersey USA
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
A simple question for Miguel: for what diseases are you personally, and also your family, vaccinated against? Some? None? Please don't feel you must answer; strictly voluntary. But it may help both you and others to fully grasp your position. As an old coot myself, I am currently vaccinated against flu, shingles, pneumonia, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and probably other things that I've lost track of. I can't picture myself ever going through risk/benefit analyses and the furrowed-brow hand-wringing that seems to be the hallmark of the vaccination skeptics-- this is something rather new in our recent history as a people, and the implications are disturbing. How did this begin? Has our politics become so ideologically driven that even vaccination has become something to fight over? I do know that the most active agent fighting polio vaccination (maybe any vaccination) in Pakistan is our old friend the Taliban; they think it's a devilish Western plot.
Getting back again to my biases for overwhelming agreement among specialists in areas of science, and also for old-fashioned common sense, I recommend that one read the recent 2014 statement on global warming issued by a joint committee of the US National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society (Google it). Given a choice of believing them or Oklahoma senator James Imhofe, my education in science and my common sense tell me to go with the NAS and The Royal Society. I also am convinced of the correctness of the heliocentric solar system, the expanding universe, a 4.5 billion year old earth, evolution, atomic theory, relativity, and plate tectonics-- they are all good science.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 4:08:17
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
Furthermore, my point about the anti-anti-vaxxers, I believe, still holds. While a few of them have done their research, most have not. If they are on the right side, it is purely by accident.
One does not have to research and "know" the science behind the success of vaccinations in eliminating dangerous childhood diseases, such as measles, in order to be a supporter of vaccinations. Most people who support vaccinations are not on the right side "purely by accident." The reason most people support vaccinations is because they can weigh the arguments on both sides of the issue and reach a reasonable conclusion using common sense.
Again, you seem to be trying to establish a false equivalency between the two positions on vaccinations and their supporters. There is no equivalency at all. Those who support vaccinations, including practically the entire medical establishment, CDC, physicians clinics, and others, have all the statistical and historical evidence on their side. One does not have to "research" the statistics and history; it has always been readily available: news media, Time magazine, one's personal physician.
The anti-vaxxers, on the other hand, can point to no sound scientific, statistical, or historical evidence to support their position. Their arguments are always anecdotal which, at best, may suggest a correlation, say, between vaccines and autism (e.g., "My friend has an autistic child who was vaccinated.") They fail to distinguish between correlation and causation and commit the logical fallacy "Post hoc ergo prompter hoc," i.e., since event A was followed by event B, event A must have caused event B. Their argument makes as much sense as noting that the cock crows every morning followed by the sun's rise. Therefore, the cock's crow must cause the sun to rise.
The anti-vaxxers' case is not helped by the fact that there are a significant number of conspiracy theorists among them who believe the U.S. Government and "Big Pharma" are conspiring to "peddle" vaccines at the expense of children. This, too, is nonsense. Of course pharmaceutical companies make money off vaccines. But vaccines go through a rigorous testing regime before they are put on the market. Most people are capable of detecting a conspiracy theorist's argument as lacking credibility. Ironically, it was Andrew Wakefield, the thoroughly discredited physician whose fraudulent study started the whole anti-vaxxer movement, who accepted a considerable amount of money from a law firm who had planned to sue pharmaceutical companies over vaccines using Wakefield's now discredited study.
In sum, most people do not have to engage in deep research to reach the conclusion that the benefits of vaccinating children far outweigh any potential adverse reaction. The evidence is out there in the public sphere. All it requires is common sense.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 11:32:42
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Bill, it seems like you are making a really good argument, but I'm not sure it what it has to do with me. Trust me when I say I am no follower of Wakefield or McCarthy. The people I know who are going on about measles are also Republican and church-goers. As a group, if you will permit me to paint with a broad brush, they believe in an invisible entity who snapped his fingers and created the universe, etc. They consider Evolution self-evidently incorrect. They think having a gun around the house is a good play. They are more or less happy we attacked Iraq, since, after all, 911. In their minds, global warming is a liberal PR plot. Forgive me if I fail to cede them, as a group, any undue respect for their intellectual rigor. Their arguments can be safely ignored.
Runner, when did people start asking for risk-benefit ratios? Don't know...Perhaps it is indeed tied to political issues, as you said. I have a less than normal trust of the medical system here as it is tied to closely to profits. I hope someday a way can be found where MDs can make decisions based purely on medicine and not how much it puts in their pockets. (Not that this has a great deal to do with vaccines directly)
Estebanana, thank you for your philosophical discursions. The greater good is certainly something to keep in mind in such calculations--thank you for not assuming that I am indifferent to it.
D--as usual, your posts are indecipherable, vague, negative and disrespectful. If you have a point, it really would be best to use English instead of Lewis Carrolese. That way I could gauge what you are trying to say instead of filling two or three words with my suspicions.
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 13:26:06
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
The people I know who are going on about measles are also Republican and church-goers. As a group, if you will permit me to paint with a broad brush, they believe in an invisible entity who snapped his fingers and created the universe, etc. They consider Evolution self-evidently incorrect. They think having a gun around the house is a good play. They are more or less happy we attacked Iraq, since, after all, 911. In their minds, global warming is a liberal PR plot. Forgive me if I fail to cede them, as a group, any undue respect for their intellectual rigor. Their arguments can be safely ignored.
You should get out more, Miguel (just kidding). Trust me, the universe of vaccine supporters is much larger than the cohort of "Creationists" and right-wing fundamentalists you describe above.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 14:21:30
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
D, okay, just as some feedback--that's not how I interpreted your posts. They just seemed like insults to me. I understand and like you better when I know what you are talking about.
Bill, my sketch of Republicans is not exaggerated. The recent Pew poll shows that 50% of them do not believe in evolution*. (33% of Democrats, which is ridiculous as well). I never began to realize this until my PhD father in law, who went to school with Stephen J. Gould, began to harangue me about monkeys and how Evolution is a "failed theory". My head began to spin... in his library were several books on Creationism written by mathematicians and scientists. I suppose they seemed convincing to the naive... but I digress.
The other questionable views I mentioned will also be held by a significant amount of them. You will forgive me if I discard their process on vaccines. It comes down to group norms and identity, which some call common sense. I would never put you into this category, as you always back up your opinions with defensible logic and facts.
*http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 15:18:05
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
Bill, my sketch of Republicans is not exaggerated....I would never put you into this category, as you always back up your opinions with defensible logic and facts.
Miguel, I am not questioning your view of Republicans. I am aware that many are troglodytes. My quarrel with your post is that you seemed to be saying that troglodytes who are "Creationists" and right-wing fundamentalists make up the bulk of the vaccine supporters. Thus, my response that followed: "Trust me, the universe of vaccine supporters is much larger than the cohort of 'Creationists' and right-wing fundamentalists you describe above." And that is true. You will find vaccine supporters across the political, cultural, and intellectual spectrum. (Forgive me if I misinterpreted your post.)
As a side note, while I appreciate your refusal to categorize me, I want to make clear that I would like to think of myself as "un-categorizable," if that is indeed a word. I am conservative, particularly on economic and foreign policy/defense matters, but I have never been considered "hard right" (at least by most people who know me), and I am not a Republican. I'm sure you would consider many of my positions (though not all) on cultural issues to be on the liberal side of the spectrum. I hope you would have gleaned that from the couple of lunches we have shared in Tempe, but wanted to get it out on the table to dispel any doubt.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 17:40:38
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Miguel de Maria
Bill, it seems like you are making a really good argument, but I'm not sure it what it has to do with me. Trust me when I say I am no follower of Wakefield or McCarthy. The people I know who are going on about measles are also Republican and church-goers. As a group, if you will permit me to paint with a broad brush, they believe in an invisible entity who snapped his fingers and created the universe, etc. They consider Evolution self-evidently incorrect. They think having a gun around the house is a good play. They are more or less happy we attacked Iraq, since, after all, 911. In their minds, global warming is a liberal PR plot. Forgive me if I fail to cede them, as a group, any undue respect for their intellectual rigor. Their arguments can be safely ignored.
I must be missing the point.
I am not a Republican. In religion I am agnostic. My sister-in-law criticizes me for my lack of church affiliation. Suspicion of authority and resistance to it has been a lifelong theme. When I was 19-year old university sophomore I declined further financial support from my family, since I was unwilling to follow their advice.
I accept the theory of evolution as validated by the evidence. The evidence of anthropogenic global warming seems credible to me.
I wrote a lengthy internet post questioning the credibility of the "intelligence" Powell quoted in his U.N. speech justifying the invasion of Iraq. It was based in part on my personnal experience in the intelligence business. I believe that rather than spreading democracy, the invasion of Iraq was a serious destabilizing factor for the whole Middle East, leading fairly directly to the rise of the Islamic State. (My son's friend Scott McClellan, G.W. Bush's Press Secretary, says in his book that spreading democracy was Bush's true motive for the Iraq war. The threat of weapons of mass destruction was just a way to sell it.)
Though I was raised in the Air Force and the Texas ranch culture, I don't own a gun.
As I have grown older and had more contact with the medical profession I have become much more cautious about accepting their advice. I have suffered potentially serious side effects from a prescribed medication. The side effects were misdiagnosed by the prescriber. Fortunately the effects appear not to have been lasting. Discussing this with my brother, a distinguished retired physician, and his wife who ran the Nurse Practitioner program at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston has, if anything reinforced my caution.
As a child before the discovery of effective vaccines for them, I and my large extended family all survived measles, chicken pox, mumps and rubella. My brother and I, and many of my cousins were vaccinated against diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough and typhoid. We came into contact with all these, but were spared. We were spared from polio, perhaps by a rigid family imposed quarantine during the summer, despite the widespread devastation.
Despite being about as far as one could imagine from your portrait of church going Republican pro-vaxxers, I still think general vaccination is a good idea, based on the evidence for herd immunity, and the low incidence of individual side effects.
I appreciate and admire your concern for your family. As a parent I recognize the tendency to regard this responsibility as absolute. But as Stephen points out, each of us has a responsibility to the general public. Despite a lengthy career as mathematician, scientist and engineer, at one time recognized as an authority on statistical decision theory, I can't suggest any way to quantify this responsibility.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 18:52:06
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
It seems we are in agreement. I think most people are generally following the(ir) herd, and thus I value their opinions less than those who can support what they say with coherent logic and verifiable facts. My arguments are rarely well-organized (due to lack of writing/thinking skill), so such misunderstandings as to my point are usual.
As to your beliefs, they are yours to share or hold close, and I try not to assume. Being a working musician, it is often assumed that I am: a "bleeding heart liberal", lazy, chronically tardy, unemployed. I guess that's what I get for having long hair!
Richard, thanks for your thoughts. I am sorry that my incompetent writing has led you and Bill to interpret what I wrote as "All pro-vaxxers are Creationist-endorsing Republicans". That is not what I meant to say. I must accept responsibility for not writing clearly. Closer to my meaning, I suppose, was "I refuse to take vaccine advice from Creationist-endorsing Republicans".
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 18:58:58
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14806
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Johnc)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Johnc
quote:
I mentioned in an earlier post that I am amused that so many anti-vaxxers are upper-middle class people who (correctly) condemn those who deny that climate change and global warming are caused, or at least are being accelerated, by man, referring to them as "rejecting science." These anti-vaxxers apparently do not see the contradiction (not to mention the irony) of their condemnation of the climate change deniers as "anti-science" while they themselves demonstrate their own rejection of science in their anti-vaccine stance.
Hi Bill
As far as I'm aware the cause (or the acceleration) of global warming is still only "likely" attributed to man. I'm not so sure that the science is as clear as you say. I would be interested if you have any references to back this up, at this point I'm open to being persuaded either way. When I do a search all I can find are people's opinions on what scientists might think, or editorial opinions, neither of which exactly are peer reviewed(sorry Kevin)
The science on vaccines is far clearer ;)
John
It's something like 100s of billions of tons more greenhouse gasses we put out than natural causes. It's a ridiculous load of responsibility on our shoulders. The problem is we can't "see" what we are doing all the time, and hard number are difficult as with other things when so many variables are there. But it's a ridiculous amount of responsibilyt that I had once believe, with no figures, could have been a nominal contribution.
To miguel about his quesion of what's the odds? The answer is , it's the same percentage of people that have allergic reaction to something. The numbers will become much harder when you get more specific. WHICH vaccine, how old, where you live, etc...just like refining the allergy thing, some people don't KNOW They have an allergy till they are exposed to a food or plant or whatever, if you say allergy to nuts, or specific nut, it gets sharper the number. The bottom line is we are talking SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than a 50/50 situation, will your family and self be in danger from negative reaction to vaccine X.
And last to runner about human nature...my point is that even "choice" is natural. There is not the more natural course, both are natural. And animals not making a mess of their world....that is why I brought up the carbiniforous period and the Permian. The trees, like us, didn't realize what they were doing. True, NOW we know better and can do something I agree...I am not saying we have no free will. But the idea that animals need to live cuz they are sweet and cute is naive. THings are unfolding as nature intended IMO. I can't predict the future, but nothing wrong with attempting to fit to an ideal picture, especially we are the only animals that CAN.
Ricardo
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 19:06:58
|
|
runner
Posts: 357
Joined: Dec. 5 2008
From: New Jersey USA
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
|
Ricardo, I think we are using the word "natural" with two different ideas as to the meaning we attach to it. I sense that you use "natural" in the sense that "what is, is natural". Under such usage then, there is no such thing that exists that is not natural, or is un-natural. Needless to say, I hold with my usage, which posits that, up until some 200,000 years ago, the biosphere was entirely the product of unpremeditated, unpurposed, unconceptualized "natural" forces. Following this, hominid evolution produced creatures capable of profound and unprecedented alterations to the biosphere that in their totality serve to degrade and pauperize its continuing ability to maintain itself. In my usage, I hold this to be "un-natural" in that it is at severe variance with what has transpired over the previous several billion years of life and evolution. In many senses, it has been the choice of Homo sapiens, "thinking man", to effect these alterations. The rise of the disciplines of science has made it now impossible for us to evade this basic truth. That is not to say that all or even many are aware even now of what it is that they do, as Garrett Hardin's profoundly important essay, The Tragedy of the Commons made so clear when first published in Science back in the 1960s. So it is in this sense of the words "natural" and "un-natural" that I ascribe all previous extinction events to "natural" causes, and the current event, whose magnitude is still unknown but which may rival some of the larger past episodes, to "un-natural" causes.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 5 2015 20:09:55
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14806
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: runner
Ricardo, I think we are using the word "natural" with two different ideas as to the meaning we attach to it. I sense that you use "natural" in the sense that "what is, is natural". Under such usage then, there is no such thing that exists that is not natural, or is un-natural. Needless to say, I hold with my usage, which posits that, up until some 200,000 years ago, the biosphere was entirely the product of unpremeditated, unpurposed, unconceptualized "natural" forces. Following this, hominid evolution produced creatures capable of profound and unprecedented alterations to the biosphere that in their totality serve to degrade and pauperize its continuing ability to maintain itself. In my usage, I hold this to be "un-natural" in that it is at severe variance with what has transpired over the previous several billion years of life and evolution. In many senses, it has been the choice of Homo sapiens, "thinking man", to effect these alterations. The rise of the disciplines of science has made it now impossible for us to evade this basic truth. That is not to say that all or even many are aware even now of what it is that they do, as Garrett Hardin's profoundly important essay, The Tragedy of the Commons made so clear when first published in Science back in the 1960s. So it is in this sense of the words "natural" and "un-natural" that I ascribe all previous extinction events to "natural" causes, and the current event, whose magnitude is still unknown but which may rival some of the larger past episodes, to "un-natural" causes.
Correct, I take issue with the word usage...and I do so because I think it is arrogant for man to believe he is so above it all to separate himself from the role of others in the bioshere that have shaped the world since the beginning. Regardless if you make a distinction that human thought and action to be "un-natural" in one direction vs another, it doesn't change the fact that what happened in the past, is indeed happening again thanks to US and other factors. Labeling one event as "natural" vs "un natural" because each involved different living entities spawned by earth herself, is arbitraty to what is ultimately happening with extinction and environmental change...ie a wiping clean of the slate to make room for the new bioshpere is "natural". In our case it is also "timely"...It's just a coincidence WE popped into existence right on time for the new Mass Extinction event. The only thing we have going for us is the simple abilty to recognize it is happening. This ability, might be the ONLY thing I can see as "not natural", or "not normal" if it is only because it is so rare amongst the living entities we know of.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 6 2015 15:47:21
|
|
runner
Posts: 357
Joined: Dec. 5 2008
From: New Jersey USA
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
|
Let's try another word, then, instead of "natural", since we can't buy each other's use of the term. Let's explore "inevitable" instead. Following your version of what natural means, do you believe that the Great Extinction Event that we are now entering is inevitable? I certainly call all of the previous extinctions inevitable, as conscious choice never was involved; there was just the the relentless working of things--enormous outpourings of flood basalts, asteroid impacts, snowball earth episodes, huge swings in ocean and atmosphere geochemistries, megavolcanos, sudden plagues as once-sundered land masses combined, varying sea levels leaving continental shelves high and dry, and the list goes on. Inevitable, in my book. Now, though, we know to a very high degree of accuracy what are the major drivers in the current degradation of the biosphere: Número Uno is catastrophic population growth, which Reverend Malthus warned us about quite a while back; then Paul Ehrlich did. This metastatic growth, sometimes armed with and multiplied by our modern technology, is both directly attacking and degrading whole ecosystems everywhere, but also (artificially, un-naturally) altering the geochemistry of our oceans and atmosphere. Not inevitable. Is every car crash inevitable? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 6 2015 17:23:55
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Arg... (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
It's just a coincidence WE popped into existence right on time for the new Mass Extinction event.
Ricardo, if I understand both your and Runner's positions correctly, I think your statement cited above demonstrates that your respective positions remain at great variance with each other. Your statement seems to suggest that the new Mass Extinction event was on track to occur in any case, and WE (homo sapiens) coincidentally popped into existence right on time as it began to occur. Runner, on the other hand, appears to be saying that WE (homo sapiens) are the cause of the new Mass Extinction event.
Or am I misreading or misinterpreting your statement, and you are saying that the new Mass Extinction event began occurring as a result of our (homo sapiens) popping into existence?
Not arguing. Just requesting clarification in order to follow both Runner's and your follow-on comments.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 6 2015 20:10:18
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.109375 secs.
|
Printable Version
