Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (18295)	7/16/2001 1:24:51 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

We make the definitions. But that has no reality. We could just as well define a woman as a spider if we wanted to. Definitions are not proof. Of course we make the definitions. We make the classifications, we decide on the criteria, we classify according to the criteria. Of course these classifications have no "meaning" aside from the meaning we give them. They are meaningful to us, because we have decided that they are meaningful. If you want to classify women as spiders, you are welcome to do so, though the rest of us will think you an idiot, because your classification does not conform to the criteria - criteria which are based on extensive observation and consideration - that the rest of us accept. That doesn't mean that these criteria are "right", because no standard exists by which we can determine abstract "rightness". It does mean that if you act according to your definition and start stepping on women, or spraying them with insecticide, you will be locked up, because the rules are based on the definition agreed upon by the majority. All you're saying is "I'm relying on what others say, not what I know." If you insist on relying on the dictionary for your argument, you're using the dictionary just as the religious use the Bible. That comparison is nonsense, and I'm getting tired of hearing it. Accepted scientific definitions are based on observation and study. The process by which they are derived is open to study by anyone who cares to look at it and is able to understand it. These definitions exist because they have survived peer review and extensive challenges. If evidence emerges to support an alternative conclusion, the consensus definition changes. We don't accept these definitions because they are written. We accept them because they have emerged, after years of recorded study and challenge, as the best available explanations for observed phenomena. Religious texts are simply a bunch of human writings that some human has declared to have something to do with God. You cannot possibly equate the two, not without sacrificing the last vestige of common sense.