  |
Giancarlo
Known Associate
Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 248
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Stop talking about occam's razor. You simply don't know what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Per Giancarlo, while you stop talking about Occam's Razor (you meant reduction in your last post), please also take a bit more time to familiarize yourself with evolution. First of all, evolution is not a theory. This is just a blatant misconception that has filtered through to the public imagination thanks to the overblown 'culture wars.' Evolution is a natural process, like soil erosion. Would you call soil erosion a scientific theory? No (or maybe you would, I don't know; in that case, I would need a lot of explanation on your part). That evolution as a natural process happens has been proven beyond doubt. Those who doubt it have mostly sociological reasons for doing so and can be safely ignored.
Second, we are not sure there is an absolute mechanism behind evolution. Natural selection, proposed by Darwin, is just one scientific theory that attemptes to show how evolution occurs, but it is not the only one (see Ernst Mayr's punctuated equilibrium for another example). So not all changes in allele frequencies are caused by natural selection, which can also be thought of as a natural process.
On your statement: it is reductionist, certainly, but that gives it few other special attributes. It is also a bit naive; trying to find a foundation for human motivation can be a particulary tricky thing, but you've brushed those problems aside apparently. Also, by your own admission, anyone out there can suggest a similar "theory" and have it stand on its own based on the illusory suggestion that it can't be disproven. In that case, none of these paragons are worth anything; we'd be drowned under a proliferation of crackpot ideas that would be of no use to anyone. And, of course, it's not like you're the only one that has fallen into this silly trap. Others in the past have attempted to find what drives humans forward; Nietzsche thought it was the will to power and for others, to modify your statement a little, "sex is the ultimate motivation."
The falsificationist criteria that you mentioned in the end does not apply only to scientific theories, but to any statement. There's no special sense in which only scientific theories can be unproven while not being fully proven. In the twentieth century philosophy of science, while you could consider Popper's falsificationism one important connotation that belongs to a scientific theory, it is not a denotation. That is, falsificationism does not define what a scientific theory is; what it does is highlight some of the standards that a scientific theory should be held up to. So that whole effort on making what you're stating on par with evolutionary biology is ridiculous and confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CryxicKiller wrote: | Per Giancarlo, while you stop talking about Occam's Razor (you meant reduction in your last post), please also take a bit more time to familiarize yourself with evolution. First of all, evolution is not a theory. This is just a blatant misconception that has filtered through to the public imagination thanks to the overblown 'culture wars.' Evolution is a natural process, like soil erosion. Would you call soil erosion a scientific theory? No (or maybe you would, I don't know; in that case, I would need a lot of explanation on your part). That evolution as a natural process happens has been proven beyond doubt. Those who doubt it have mostly sociological reasons for doing so and can be safely ignored.
Second, we are not sure there is an absolute mechanism behind evolution. Natural selection, proposed by Darwin, is just one scientific theory that attemptes to show how evolution occurs, but it is not the only one (see Ernst Mayr's punctuated equilibrium for another example). So not all changes in allele frequencies are caused by natural selection, which can also be thought of as a natural process.
On your statement: it is reductionist, certainly, but that gives it few other special attributes. It is also a bit naive; trying to find a foundation for human motivation can be a particulary tricky thing, but you've brushed those problems aside apparently. Also, by your own admission, anyone out there can suggest a similar "theory" and have it stand on its own based on the illusory suggestion that it can't be disproven. In that case, none of these paragons are worth anything; we'd be drowned under a proliferation of crackpot ideas that would be of no use to anyone. And, of course, it's not like you're the only one that has fallen into this silly trap. Others in the past have attempted to find what drives humans forward; Nietzsche thought it was the will to power and for others, to modify your statement a little, "sex is the ultimate motivation."
The falsificationist criteria that you mentioned in the end does not apply only to scientific theories, but to any statement. There's no special sense in which only scientific theories can be unproven while not being fully proven. In the twentieth century philosophy of science, while you could consider Popper's falsificationism one important connotation that belongs to a scientific theory, it is not a denotation. That is, falsificationism does not define what a scientific theory is; what it does is highlight some of the standards that a scientific theory should be held up to. So that whole effort on making what you're stating on par with evolutionary biology is ridiculous and confused. |
Thats a Harsh read, let me make it simple.
EVOLUTION: Is a process, not theory, we KNOW it happens. There is no guessing, hence the change of species in adaption.
Natural selection: Is a Theory ( very sound) that attempts to explain EVOLUTION, there are multiple theories, this is the most accepted.
THERE IS: Lots of evidence pointing to natural selection as the reason for evolution. In bones and their structures.
Conclusion: Comparing it to soil errosion, we know errosion happens thats no theory. You could theory as what caused it, rain, wind, snow, run-off, man, ect.
Good read, I just felt like making it simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Then perhaps just substitute my analogy to evolution to an analogy to natural selection, I have always heard it refferred to as the theory of evolution.
As to your point that ANYONE could come up with a theory for human motivation, this is untrue, because of the fact that all human motivation comes under power, any of those theories would be in essence, theories about power being the ultimate motivator.
Nietzsche was close, but a couple flaws lead me to my theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lester wrote: | Then perhaps just substitute my analogy to evolution to an analogy to natural selection, I have always heard it refferred to as the theory of evolution.
As to your point that ANYONE could come up with a theory for human motivation, this is untrue, because of the fact that all human motivation comes under power, any of those theories would be in essence, theories about power being the ultimate motivator.
Nietzsche was close, but a couple flaws lead me to my theory. |
Although I don't agree with calling your propositions a "theory," I also do not care much. I consider your "theory" to be so useless and ineffectual that I'd rather not bother examining it any longer. As long as you don't hold what you're saying up to the level of a scientific theory, then we're cool. Then you can call your statements whatever you like.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| How is it useless? You can use it to control and influence any member of humanity quite easily. Thats pretty useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's too imprecise, intellectually unsatisfying. Unless they are mathematical equations, I wouldn't consider a few lines of writing anything approaching a serious "theory." As I said, however, I only care about demarcating what you've said versus what a scientific theory would say. Also, categorical statements about human behavior are likely to be unpopular. I'll agree that the desire for greater power and influence is one aspect of what motivates humans, but the only one? Not really. And as I said above, I could replace power with anything I want and get away with your criteria that you can't disprove it. Sex, money, religion.......cows? Yeah, cows are the ultimate reason why humans do anything. This is just all too silly. I would advise that you relinquish your theory.
"all human motivation comes under power, any of those theories would be in essence, theories about power being the ultimate motivator."
Umm no dude. This is called an assumption, a postulate, but the problem is that it's not even a reasonable one. For me, all human motivation comes under cows, so your theory is just a part of how cows are the ultimate motivation. People are motivated by power because they want to grow so powerful to get cows, not because they want power. The more powerful you are, the more cows you can get. Cows are the end, power the means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
His_Princess
Newbie
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 19
Location: Earth :D
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| In my opinion wars are caused for many reason, yes religion is one of them but money, land, and power is also reasons for war. Most anything can be considered bad if used in a bad way, that shouldn’t mean its always bad. Moving on not just Atheist cause wars who ever thinks that is silly and naive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CryxicKiller wrote: | It's too imprecise, intellectually unsatisfying. Unless they are mathematical equations, I wouldn't consider a few lines of writing anything approaching a serious "theory." As I said, however, I only care about demarcating what you've said versus what a scientific theory would say. Also, categorical statements about human behavior are likely to be unpopular. I'll agree that the desire for greater power and influence is one aspect of what motivates humans, but the only one? Not really. And as I said above, I could replace power with anything I want and get away with your criteria that you can't disprove it. Sex, money, religion.......cows? Yeah, cows are the ultimate reason why humans do anything. This is just all too silly. I would advise that you relinquish your theory.
"all human motivation comes under power, any of those theories would be in essence, theories about power being the ultimate motivator."
Umm no dude. This is called an assumption, a postulate, but the problem is that it's not even a reasonable one. For me, all human motivation comes under cows, so your theory is just a part of how cows are the ultimate motivation. People are motivated by power because they want to grow so powerful to get cows, not because they want power. The more powerful you are, the more cows you can get. Cows are the end, power the means. |
Ahh but if everyone wants cows then the more cows you have the more power you have, it is just a way to count the power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| No, people ultimately want the cows. Imagine a somewhat equivalent situation: I want cake, but in order to get it, I have to walk over to the kitchen counter (the situation does not allow for anyone to bring you the cake). The walk here is an undesired part of wanting the cake, just like power is an undesired part of wanting the cows. I don't really want power, but I have to get it so I can get more cows. Likewise, no one really wants to walk to get the cake, but it has to be done because we want the cake. If the ultimate motivation breaks down, so does everything preceding it. If there were no more cows, no one would seek power anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Like I said, when everyone wants cows then the more cows you have the more power you have, the cow just becomes a unit of power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| It isn't a unit of power though. This would launch us onto a path to define power, but taking an intuitive understanding for now, which is never that great, cows are really not a unit of power. Also remember that the cows are the final goal (ends), distinct from the means to get there (power). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
In your world however(because the theory doesn't work in this world, cause of the progression from the country to the city) EVERYONE wants cows, and so to own 50 cows is to be 5 times more powerful than someone who owns 10 cows.
Power is not neccesary to gain the cows, they could be just given to you, but once you have the cows, you have power, so the cows become the means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lester wrote: | Then perhaps just substitute my analogy to evolution to an analogy to natural selection, I have always heard it refferred to as the theory of evolution.
As to your point that ANYONE could come up with a theory for human motivation, this is untrue, because of the fact that all human motivation comes under power, any of those theories would be in essence, theories about power being the ultimate motivator.
Nietzsche was close, but a couple flaws lead me to my theory. |
Thats a hypothesis, not a theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lester, you are contextualizing the cows in terms of power without realizing that power is insignificant, at least in this scenario. It is as paltry here as walking in the cake example. You keep thinking about the problem as if power as the mainstay of existence, but that mainstay is actually cows. Power is a way to get to the cows, but by itself it is completely useless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
