Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2010,16:26)|
|Quote (franky172 @ Feb. 02 2010,16:39)|
|Also, let’s face it. It is truly ridiculous to suggest that a burglar is the same kind of cause as a tornado, and then, when called on it, weasel out by saying, “well yes, they are both natural causes, yet they are, at the same time, different: The burglar is of the Natural 1 variety while the tornado is natural 2 variety. Please!|
You claim that cars and boats are both "vehicles"! Therefore you can't tell the difference between cars and boats!
It is truly ridiculous to suggest that a car is the same kind of thing as a boat, and then, when called on it, weasel out by saying, “well yes, they are both vehicles, yet they are, at the same time, different: The car is a land-based vehicle while the boat is a water based vehicle." Please!
Diffaxial said it well (he and I are remarkably like-minded):
|ScottAndrews @ 264:|
The willful acts of intelligent humans are all natural?
You are tripping over semantics and levels of description.
Analogous error: You may insist that a that a particular move in chess, in the context of a particular game, is either legal or illegal. It can’t be both.
But upon making a move that exposes my king to check the police don’t arrive and arrest me. Making illegal moves in chess is perfectly legal. And the forgoing sentence is both intelligible and correct once one affixes the (implicit) scope of applicability of the word “legal” in each instance. The ability to do so is a matter of linguistic practice.
Similarly, we conventionally refer to artifacts of human contrivance as “artificial” rather than “natural,” a useful distinction. That doesn’t compel us to attribute the origins of human intelligence, including the ability to contrive artificial objects, to “artificial” (agentic) causes. Conversely, to say that human intelligence is a natural (and cultural) phenomenon no more renders meaningless the conventional “natural – artificial” distinction than does the absence of the rules of chess from the Ohio Revised Code vitiate the rules of chess....
It does not follow from the above that the ordinary distinction between “natural” and “artificial” objects has been lost. It is a useful distinction that reliably denotes the fact that natural objects (in the conventional sense) have a very different sort of history than do human artifacts. But there is a larger/other sense in which both sorts of history are “natural” histories, as human activities, human culture, etc., on this view, are ultimately components of the natural world.
Indeed, that Diffaxil had a way with words. And yes, I think we are all still hearing the "whoosh"