Author dyermaker Posted March 20, 2004 Author Share Posted March 20, 2004 Oh right, so we get what we pay for. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 20, 2004 Author Share Posted March 20, 2004 I'm extremely skeptical that we can only become aware of our ingrained behaviors and seek to modify them by paying a professional to work through it with us. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I don't believe I said that. There's plenty of information out there for anyone who wants to sort himself out. There is TONS of self-help info and, of course, masses and masses of information about all the brain sciences (the psych... and neuro... s). This book, for instance: http://www.mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/?PHPSESSID=7385e7be1dba570e3d3e5bf5594d21eb Here is a really fascinating article which touches on several points which have arisen in this discussion. Click on this link and then read the top article ("Foreclosed Identities") http://www.mentalhelp.net Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 i tend to dismiss the wired/fidelity argument out of hand, simply because it's an easily recognizable fallacy. any appeal to nature if fallacious if the benefits of the argument cannot be demonstrated (i.e. environmentalists CAN use an 'appeal to nature' strategy sucessfully) i forget how to defeat it though, so let me look it up.... here we go: The naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. Two examples are argumentum ad antiquitatem (saying something's right because it's always been done that way) and the appeal to nature (saying something's right because it's natural). In both of these fallacies, the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case. David Hume called this trying to bridge the "is-ought gap," which is a nice phrase to use in debate rounds where your opponent is committing the naturalistic fallacy. One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds. Fortunately, debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation. For example, suppose your opponent has stated axiomatically that "whatever is natural is good." Inasmuch as this statement is an axiom rather than the conclusion of a logical proof, there can be no purely logical argument against it. But some nonetheless appropriate responses to such an absolute statement of value include: (a) questioning whether anyone -- you, your judge, or even your opponent himself -- really believes that "whatever is natural is good"; (b) stating a competing axiomatic value statement, like "whatever enhances human life is good," and forcing the judge to choose between them; and © pointing out logical implications of the statement "whatever is natural is good" that conflict with our most basic intuitions about right and wrong. from http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Nature,%20appeal%20to this is not the best page; i'm sure i have better stuff somewhere, but i'm too sleepy to be logical right now, though it would be soo fun to figure out how hume would deal with a cheating lover. g'night! Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 jenny Bravo!!! Great Link I’m sure plenty of con artists, and charlatans like to use the “natural” argument. This is like all natural bottled water vs. drinkable tap water. Some people are easily suckered. Viruses and bacteria are natural, but they are not always good for you. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 21, 2004 Author Share Posted March 21, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead This is like all natural bottled water vs. drinkable tap water. Some people are easily suckered. Viruses and bacteria are natural, but they are not always good for you. What? Tap water IS better for you. Small doses of bacteria are easily fought off by the whites, but the immunity stays for when it hits harder. Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 um...i think that was his point? Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 21, 2004 Author Share Posted March 21, 2004 Oh. It certainly was. Wow. I was at a tournament all day, I got up at four and it's now eleven, I'm just now relaxing. Forgive me. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 Viruses and bacteria: I was thinking of the digestive system, and the areas they occupy that would otherwise be occupied by harmful bacteria. Yes bacteria are everywhere including the air, water, everything we touch, and eat. Water: Pure water is H2O and flavorless. If you are getting the same thing from the tap and from a bottle, why pay extra? Yes there are emergencies where you would want to have bottled water. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts