- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,362
- 19,076
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Sot there's a tautology implicit in this statement: "2 arms are a feature of the hominidae family" ?
Upvote
0
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.
Sot there's a tautology implicit in this statement: "2 arms are a feature of the hominidae family" ?I don't get the question. I mean, the statement isn't false. Tautologies are all true, they're just useless.
If you're going to alter the format of the phrasing we're quibbling over, why aren't you doing so to the original statement? This is weird.Sot there's a tautology implicit in this statement: "2 arms are a feature of the hominidae family" ?
You are destroying the idea that a species has natural characteristics to make your point.If you're going to alter the format of the phrasing we're quibbling over, why aren't you doing so to the original statement? This is weird.
But okay, why do we call that a feature of the hominidae family? Because most members of the family have two arms. So, tautology time:
If most members of the homindiae family typically and enduringly have two arms, then its fair to say that having two arms is an objectively demonstrable feature of most members of the hominidae family.
So what?
All I've done is explicitly state what you've said you mean. I'm not leaving it open to imply what you say isn't implied. If rephrasing your argument while retaining it's meaning destroys your argument, then you've got some semantic trickery going on there.You are destroying the idea that a species has natural characteristics to make your point.
Ok. So whats a valid way to express a natural feature of a species? And is different than how a biologist would express it?All I've done is explicitly state what you've said you mean. I'm not leaving it open to imply what you say isn't implied. If rephrasing your argument while retaining it's meaning destroys your argument, then you've got some semantic trickery going on there.
There's nothing invalid about the phrasing I've provided already.Ok. So whats a valid way to express a natural feature of a species? And is different than how a biologist would express it?
Except that theres a useless tautology in it.There's nothing invalid about the phrasing I've provided already.
Well there's a useless tautology in the way you phrased it too, I just made it easier to spot.Except that theres a useless tautology in it.
Please explain to me exactly what you mean by "species level natural explanation".My main point is that if a taste for something is common enough, its reasonable to look for a species level natural explanation for it.
Anything part of the natural physiology or natural instinct of a species (or broader taxonomy). Like "felines are carnivores", "canines are quadrupedal".Well there's a useless tautology in the way you phrased it too, I just made it easier to spot.
Please explain to me exactly what you mean by "species level natural explanation".
Well there's a useless tautology in the way you phrased it too, I just made it easier to spot.
Please explain to me exactly what you mean by "species level natural explanation".
What exactly do you mean by "natural"? I think you mean "typical" because I can't see any other reason for using it. What physiology or instinct is "unnatural" or "supernatural"?Anything part of the natural physiology or natural instinct of a species (or broader taxonomy). Like "felines are carnivores", "canines are quadrupedal".
If youre an "everything is natural" sort of thinker, then natural will mean nothing as it distinguishes nothing....What physiology or instinct is "unnatural" or "supernatural"?
If you don't tell me what you mean by the words you use, how am I supposed to understand you?If youre an "everything is natural" sort of thinker, then natural will mean nothing.
Mirriam Webster:If you don't tell me what you mean by the words you use, how am I supposed to understand you?
Okay, that's fine. But then anything that can be different about a species from birth, without any interference from man, is natural.Mirriam Webster:
Essential Meaning of natural
1: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
Like, a guy who lost a leg in a car wreck has an non-natural physiology.
It sounds like you think nothing should be considered a species level trait so long as there are exceptions by birth defect or other natural cause, no matter how few. Is that right?Okay, that's fine. But then anything that can be different about a species from birth, without any interference from man, is natural.
So fitting with your definition, a human born with only one leg has a natural physiology.
I'm fine with calling things a "species level trait" even if there are exceptions if that's a part of your definition.It sounds like you think nothing should be considered a species level trait so long as there are exceptions by birth defect or other natural cause, no matter how few. Is that right?
The difference is in the extent to which members of a species are defined by a common genome, or whether the similarities among individuals are just accidents of statistics.I'm fine with calling things a "species level trait" even if there are exceptions if that's a part of your definition.
Anything part of the typical physiology or typical instinct of a species (or broader taxonomy) that isn't caused by human intervention. Like "felines are typically carnivores", "canines are typically quadrupedal".
Is there any real difference between the meaning of the definition you provided and my adjusted definition? It seems different though, doesn't it?
No, that's not right. We don't prefer or value something until we've experienced it. It's the experience itself that we prefer or value.They are in fact born with a whole raft of preferences and values written into the genome. These are matter of objective, observable fact (as opposed to the experience of having preferences, which is by definition subjective).
And what can we do with that information if it's true? Can we make a moral fact out of it?So back to ice cream: if we see a very broad appreciation for ice cream, its valid to ask if some of that comes from (objective) human biology which has evolved to seek out high calorie nourishment.
That cant be right as it excludes every thing we value for rational rather than experiential reasons.No, that's not right. We don't prefer or value something until we've experienced it. It's the experience itself that we prefer or value.
Do you think its true?And what can we do with that information if it's true? Can we make a moral fact out of it?
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?