Posted on 08/13/2005 12:26:50 PM PDT by beavus
If so, I misunderstood. If you agree it is a fallacy, the same fallacy as "graded differences block principled legal distinctions" then we're in agreement. Though your other statements leave this in some confusion. Such as:
I don't know. [If "graded differences block principled legal distinctions"]
And:
I suppose graded differences can block principled legal distinctions, for the reasons the author gives.
Neurochemistry - NOT graded distinctions - are the reasons the author gives. The author agrees that "graded differences block principled legal distinctions" is a fallacy. ("One fallacy Gazzaniga exposes… Gazzaniga sensibly points out that we can… etc."]
This fallacy is not part of the author's argument. It seems that it is still part of yours.
Oh is that what he means. I took him to mean people block legislation by arguing graded differences. If he meant to say that it is possible for a person to draw a principled line where one does not already exist in nature, he is right, given the understanding that whatever line that is drawn is not significantly better or worse than one close to it.
And of course that doesn't mean that those concocted lines tell us anything about reality. Nor should they be used as a substitute for our understanding.
Too true. And "can be regulated" is morphing into "must be subsidized."
Argument based on the existence of graded differences, yes, block or affect legislation (or morality) by concluding graded differences make any distinction completely arbitrary, without meaning, since it could just as well be any other point, etc.
"…the logic goes like this: If we cannot say how long a man's whiskers must be to qualify as a beard, we cannot distinguish between a bearded man and a clean-shaven one."
If he meant to say that it is possible for a person to draw a principled line where one does not already exist in nature, he is right, given the understanding that whatever line that is drawn is not significantly better or worse than one close to it.
"…we can draw a reasonable, if imperfect, line."The placement of the line may not be perfect, the difference in conditions so distinguised can be quite significant. Life and death significant - which causes high concern for the law and society.
That the line cannot be perfectly placed does NOT mean nothing significant occurs along the way. To argue otherwise is to argue for insignificance in drawing the line and leads us back to the fallacy.
And of course that doesn't mean that those concocted lines tell us anything about reality. Nor should they be used as a substitute for our understanding.
On the lowest level of reality all we, humans, have is sense impressions: patches of light of varying frequencies, variations in air pressure on our ear drums, etc.
And we could say that everything else - "that's a tree trunk, that's a leaf" for example - is a "concocted line" that doesn't tell us anything about reality.
Yet we find it these distinctions exist in reality and that we live a reality where trees exist, leaves are real. Where love is real, and Truth exists as does Goodness and Beauty. "Concocted lines" are part of our reality and they have meaning and significance and value and they increase our understanding and - hopefully, ocassionally - our wisdom.
I forgot to add: Thank you very much for your replies and discussion.
Not exactly. The assertion that a principled law cannot be made among graded differences is a false assertion. Argument based upon--or at least consistent with--the existence of graded differences, however, is ESSENTIAL if those graded differences actually exist. That is, an argument cannot contradict reality and still be rational.
The placement of the line may not be perfect,
No perfect placement is possible. To think one exists is to misunderstand reality.
the difference in conditions so distinguised can be quite significant. Life and death significant - which causes high concern for the law and society.
Presumably the law is passed because the line falls somewhere between consensus significant differences. However, there MUST be (in a continuum) insignificant differences near and around the line.
And we could say that everything else - "that's a tree trunk, that's a leaf" for example - is a "concocted line" that doesn't tell us anything about reality.
No we couldn't. You are still clueless. There is nothing concocted about a tree, trunk, or leaf. Trees are real. Trunks are real. Leaves are real. Green is real. Red is real. Zygotes are real. Babies are real. B-flat is real. Beards are real. Clean shaves are real. None are concocted. All are independent of what anybody thinks about them. Yours is the thinking of an extreme subjectivist.
Strange change of disposition from malicious pigheaded arsehole on one thread to gracious interested ponderer on the next. Did you take your medicine in between?
"Dense" is sufficient. (An ordered set is dense if: between any two elements of that set, there is another element of the set.)
More than sufficient. The ordered set can be discrete provided the adjacent changes are too small to be considered significant. E.g. plucking hairs of a beard.
Yes, we're in agreement.
Ever notice how the mathematical symbol delta for the dirac delta function looks like a sperm?
Quite ironic in light of the current thread...
Cheers!
I always thought it was a cobra.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.