Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, there is a difference between a hypothetical gremlin and no hypothetical gremlin.
Since you - the one who postulates the potential existence of such factors - can´t even come up with an example, I am not sure what the point would be for me to try.
Kick the can down the road. If you don't want to explain your answer, don't post.
What, do you need to know why people are not identical?
As others have been saying, it is a combination of nature and nurture.
And? The "others" have not been able to establish those two factors as a complete explanation.
What's left after internal factors (nature) and external factors (nurture)?
Suppose? If you know those are the factors, then some scientific relationship was established (per the article you quoted), and you certainly should be able to make predictions. A theory without predictive power is not a scientific theory.
Saying you can't factor in experience is to say there is significant noise involved. But what noise? You can claim it is simply that you don't know a person's experience, but that is a cop out.
If a physicist were to say they know the reason for Mercury's precession, but they can't measure the factors involved so they can't prove it, you would reject their claim.
Upon the same principle, the claim here needs to be rejected - or at least acceptance needs to be withheld.
I don't doubt genetics and environment are factors, further that the effects of those factors can be demonstrated, but I've not seen anything to say they (and experience) are the only factors.
So I have no reason to accept our taste preferences (or morals) are determined.
This signals to me you're not going to put any effort into this conversation. OK.
But if you do continue the next step would be to quantitatively define this term "experience".
I made a suggestion in post #105, but you will need to explain what you (or the scientists you reference) mean by it.
As I noted to Ana, I accept genetics and environment as factors. I just haven't seen good reason to think they are the only factors. I'm not offering another factor, but simply stating it does not appear those have been locked down as the only ones. As such, it seems to me we should remain open to the possibility some other factor exists.
Your experiences are the things that have happened to you and things you have done.
I must've missed it.
Well, there are several genetic markers related to taste...but I sincerely doubt we know all of them. You read the article, didn't you?
Right. This is nothing like that though.
I don't think anyone said they are.
Yet you make no effort to go back and address it ... and I'm the one trying to "duck out"? Uh huh.
So, I'll ask again. How does your statement above differentiate "experience" from environment and genetics? As I noted to quatona & essentialsaltes, at this point your use of the word "experience" is no different than a claim of gremlins.
Yes, and I've conceded genetics are one factor. You, however, are claiming something different. You have claimed a complete explanation for taste. Then, when you can't make a prediction, can't actually give a complete explanation, you say it's because you don't know all the genetic markers, don't know all of someone's experience. Either you have a complete explanation or you don't. So far, you don't.
It's exactly what you're doing.
You did here.
That was regarding taste...you tacked on morality. The processes of forming both opinions aren't the same...and I never claimed they were.
Fine...I don't.
For the example of taste...environment might determine if the fugu fish is available to eat. Experience would determine if you've actually eaten it. See the difference? One creates an opportunity...the other is whether or not you took said opportunity. If you don't understand the difference between these and genetics...we've got a long talk ahead.
Isn't...all I've stated is what we know.
Yes, my apologies. The parenthetical expression confused the issue. I understand your claim only referred to taste. Hence my comment that other questions are forthcoming. I made a mistake and rushed the issue.
However, it seems you've now retracted your statement.
OK, but I don't see why this distinction makes a difference. How is my experience as described above affecting my taste?
So, if genetics plus environment plus experience doesn't determine taste, how important are each of the factors? i.e. is the undetermined portion 1%, 10%, 99%?
I'm sure there's some great scholarly articles on the topic which I won't be looking up.
I don't see why these percentages matter at all.
If this means you don't know, there is no shame in saying so. I wouldn't think less of you for it. Actually, it's those who try to avoid such a reply that I find wanting.
Because, if it explained 99% of taste, I would be willing to concede that, for all practical purposes, taste is determined. If it only explains 1% of taste, I would say it's a useless scientific endeavor and borders on deceptive to even mention it. Likely the truth falls somewhere between those extremes.
So do you want to back up to the questions on morality now, or should we end here? It seems you want this to end.
What are you basing that conclusion on? Hopeful optimism?
I don't see the relevance to morality.
My point is that when you suffer injustice, you'll know it, and you'll say it.
I suppose you could say that I would know my opinion on the matter. It would be similar to the way I know I like vanilla milkshakes, or that I know it's a pretty day outside.
This is far apart from the way I know 2+2=4.
I didn't want this to start.
Experience
That's odd, because it all stemmed from your exchange with Chesterton (below). You drew the connection.
However, given the result, I'm not sure there's much to conclude from attempting to make a connection. I had thought it might help to explore how your moral opinions are known differently from knowing 2+2=4, but ...
... it would make me feel guilty to continue to drag you through this in light of this comment.
Another question I had thought to ask was whether your moral opinions are formed primarily (or exclusively) from your experiences, or whether you think there might be others who are wiser than you.
Depends on your ideas. As long as you don´t even want to present them, this is a moot point.Sure. I just didn't think scientists were interested in gremlins. Are they entering new territory, cuz I could give them all kinds of ideas?
Three factors have been identified. If you think there are others and if you want me to consider them, it´s not my job to find them for you.I didn't say I couldn't. I said I wasn't offering it here. Do I have to do all the thinking while you sit in your easy-chair and take pot shots?
I thought I answered both of those....
1. This is a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only two options. I don't think your opinion on a moral matter can be "factually" proven right or wrong...if that's what you mean.
2. I disagree with your opinion because it doesn't match mine...again, that's how opinions work. When our opinions match, we agree...when our opinions don't match, we disagree. Make sense?
Maybe you meant to ask me for my opinion...which isn't the same question. Do you want to know my opinion? Is that what you're asking?
My guess is that they knew their little game was against the law.
Well why would you think that? You said yourself that situations are almost always a factor in morality, what makes abortion an exception?
I just pointed out that he didn´t have the same motives. So, better not project your value judgements on me.
Anyway, I still would like to learn what it would look like if your "philosophical experiment" (coming over and smashing one of the guitars) would be "successful". IOW, the logic behind this "philosophical experiment" and the criteria for "success".
No, I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just a simple question.
You disagree with my opinion because it doesn't match yours?
My opinion causes you to hold a different opinion?
That's not a reason, you're being continually evasive and I'm ready to drop this.
Not necessary. Since you're human, I already know your opinion on murder.
Yeah, that too.
The baby can't choose death like terminally ill people can.
Read what I wrote very carefully...because I'm talking about knowing what my opinion is, not forming an opinion, but merely accessing it. I could've stated literally any type of opinion for that comparison.
But? Opinions aren't facts? Is that what you were going to say?
That's a false dichotomy. No I don't think experience is the sole factor in forming moral opinions...I would consider emotions a factor as well.
I don't see what "others wiser than me" has to do with it...it seems they must form moral opinions the same way.
Lol ok...Well surely then you have a similar experience which you can share with us as an example. I'm curious about how you draw conclusions about unknowns like that.
Three factors have been identified. If you think there are others and if you want me to consider them, it´s not my job to find them for you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?