Got the creation of the universe and evolution all figured out have we?
No, I just know that there is an obvious difference between liking something and claiming something to be the case, or between a report of one's psychological state and a truth claim. If I argue that unicorns exist, I'm not simply stating a personal preference, I'm making a claim about the world. If this claim is not true, it seems reasonable for one to say that it is "wrong", and not in a preferential sense. "Insane", in this context, has the same function.
Well, we're within fractions of a second of creation, and evolution is the most well parsed theory in the whole scientific community.
Biogenesis, not yet tho
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
justinx0r:If HIV doesn't cause AIDS then why do the vast majority of people with HIV end up getting AIDS? Correlation does not imply causation. justinx0r:Why does antiretroviral medication work? Before I can answer that question, I need to know what you mean by "work". Do you mean "successfully fight off the HIV virus", or do you mean "successfully eliminate the symptoms of AIDS", or do you mean something else entirely? justinx0r:Why does HIV live up to koch's postulates? It's not clear to me that HIV does live up to Koch's postulates, particularly his second and third postulates. justinx0r:If AIDS denialists are so right why don't they inject themselves with HIV to prove to the world that they won't get AIDS? This is a good point. Of course, if they consider other evidence to be strong enough to falsify the HIV theory of AIDS, they won't see the point in injecting themselves with HIV. On the other hand, they could just as well inject SIV into healthy monkeys and see if they develop the simian version of AIDS. But why do you lump all "AIDS denialists" together? Surely they're not a monolithic group. Also, why do you even call them "AIDS denialists", since (at least in Peter Duesberg's case) they're not denying the existence of AIDS, but rather denying the HIV theory of AIDS?
justinx0r:If HIV doesn't cause AIDS then why do the vast majority of people with HIV end up getting AIDS?
Correlation does not imply causation.
justinx0r:Why does antiretroviral medication work?
Before I can answer that question, I need to know what you mean by "work". Do you mean "successfully fight off the HIV virus", or do you mean "successfully eliminate the symptoms of AIDS", or do you mean something else entirely?
justinx0r:Why does HIV live up to koch's postulates?
It's not clear to me that HIV does live up to Koch's postulates, particularly his second and third postulates.
justinx0r:If AIDS denialists are so right why don't they inject themselves with HIV to prove to the world that they won't get AIDS?
This is a good point. Of course, if they consider other evidence to be strong enough to falsify the HIV theory of AIDS, they won't see the point in injecting themselves with HIV. On the other hand, they could just as well inject SIV into healthy monkeys and see if they develop the simian version of AIDS.
But why do you lump all "AIDS denialists" together? Surely they're not a monolithic group. Also, why do you even call them "AIDS denialists", since (at least in Peter Duesberg's case) they're not denying the existence of AIDS, but rather denying the HIV theory of AIDS?
Sure, correlation doesn't equal causation - just pointing out that it's statistically signifcant. Some types of antiretroviral medication actually block HIV from entering cells. So why do those medications prolong the lives of those infected?
HIV does fulfill all of Koch's postulates - that's a fact.
Brainpolice:If I argue that unicorns exist, I'm not simply stating a personal preference, I'm making a claim about the world. If this claim is not true, it seems reasonable for one to say that it is "wrong", and not in a preferential sense.
Can you prove unicorns don't exist?
justinx0r:Sure, correlation doesn't equal causation - just pointing out that it's statistically signifcant.
Likewise, the inverse relationship between the number of pirates and global temperatures is statistically significant.
justinx0r:Some types of antiretroviral medication actually blocks HIV from entering cells. So why do those medications prolong the lives of those infected.
Based on what I've read about antiretroviral medications, I don't doubt that they can block HIV from entering cells. But do they in fact prolong the lives of those with AIDS? It seems we might have just another correlation here.
justinx0r:HIV does fulfill all of Koch's postulates - that's a fact.
Then you won't mind providing an explanation of how it does, rather than simply asserting that it does.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
The anti-evolution stance I've found in LRC articles and among libertarians has been the most disappointing thing I've found in the sites. It goes to show that people can be so right in one area (politics, economics) and so wrong in other fields (religion). The brain is funny that way.
My understanding is that, just as the business cycle need not be proven by the Great Depression, evolution need not be 'proven' by prehistoric fossils and whatnot. The evolution of species has the same principle as the evolution of cultures. It involves both an a priori approach (even though Darwin may have gotten his ideas from his observations of specific species before formulating the more 'universal' theory) and methodological individualism.
The very existence of diversity within species and the interactions of individual creatures with other individuals, would point to a gradual evolution of both physical characteristics, as well as cultures, over time. Being 'American' in 1500 is not the same as being American in 1790 or 2010, just as being Homo Sapiens today is different from 40,000 years ago. We always look at individuals, and regard 'culture' and 'species' as mere generalizations of individual phenomena.
MnoruS:My understanding is that, just as the business cycle need not be proven by the Great Depression, evolution need not be 'proven' by prehistoric fossils and whatnot. The evolution of species has the same principle as the evolution of cultures. It involves both an a priori approach (even though Darwin may have gotten his ideas from his observations of specific species before formulating the more 'universal' theory) and methodological individualism. The very existence of diversity within species and the interactions of individual creatures with other individuals, would point to a gradual evolution of both physical characteristics, as well as cultures, over time. Being 'American' in 1500 is not the same as being American in 1790 or 2010, just as being Homo Sapiens today is different from 40,000 years ago. We always look at individuals, and regard 'culture' and 'species' as mere generalizations of individual phenomena.
Wow. A priori empiricism. That's a new one.
Welcome to the Mises community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entry_inhibitors
http://www.thebody.com/content/art2654.html
Also, you can read more about this subject here. I don't mean to come off as confrontational if you feel that way - just trying to have a good discussion!
MnoruS:My understanding is that, just as the business cycle need not be proven by the Great Depression, evolution need not be 'proven' by prehistoric fossils and whatnot. The evolution of species has the same principle as the evolution of cultures. It involves both an a priori approach (even though Darwin may have gotten his ideas from his observations of specific species before formulating the more 'universal' theory) and methodological individualism. The very existence of diversity within species and the interactions of individual creatures with other individuals, would point to a gradual evolution of both physical characteristics, as well as cultures, over time. Being 'American' in 1500 is not the same as being American in 1790 or 2010, just as being Homo Sapiens today is different from 40,000 years ago. We always look at individuals, and regard 'culture' and 'species' as mere generalizations of individual phenomena. Wow. A priori empiricism. That's a new one. Welcome to the Mises community.
I'm not sure what your comment really means... but anyway, here's a digression:
Computer science gets kind of funny when it comes to methodology With the right parameters, a metaheuristic that is given enough time will at some point find an optimal solution to a problem, such that the problem optimizes its fitness function. It is proven through mathematical reasoning why this is the case, yet because of real-world limitations (like time) we use empiricism to find good parameters to approach the best solution possible. Simply put, we have methods of finding the best answer but we can't because of constraints like time or computing power. (And those limits arise from subjective valuations)
As methodological dualists, we believe that the social sciences need to be advacned with rational and not empirical theories. But is the theory of evolution in the biosphere a social science? Some could argue yes, others would argue not. I admit that I might have to bend a little bit for some different fields of study as to what approaches actually make sense. When it comes to the theory of evolution, we may be able to learn some things and develop theory by experiment, and also come up with new theory and understanding through rational deduction alone.
I agree wholeheartedly. Evolutionary speculation is very similar to praxeology in that we have discovered how evolution works and now we can hypothesize about why/how certain things evolved since we have the "end" result.
Eric080:I agree wholeheartedly. Evolutionary speculation is very similar to praxeology in that we have discovered how evolution works and now we can hypothesize about why/how certain things evolved since we have the "end" result.
This is contingent upon man being a smarter ape.
I'm not sure that is fair to apes.
I've actually been lurking around mises.org for quite a while, but it only rarely occurs to me to check the forums. But thanks for the welcome.
What I had in mind with regards to "a priori empiricism" (your coinage) was just to point out the simple fact that there must be some sensory experience to even begin to formulate a theory. It couldn't be denied that it is specific experiences that influence the particular fields scientists tackle. Darwin had to know that a variety of life forms existed before he worked on the concept of natural selection. Economists in the 19th century had to be aware of the existence of media of exchange, of occasional economic crises, and the like before conceiving of a monetary explanation for the business cycle. I don't think I'm engaging in doublespeak when embracing Kant's and Mises' a priori while at the same time recognizing the relevance of sensory data (which nonetheless appear to us according to the structure of the mind).
In fact, Kant was an empiricist in the sense that he held that knowledge begins with experience. His twist was that it does not arise from it.
justinx0r:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entry_inhibitors
As I said, I don't doubt that they can block HIV virus from entering cells. That is not necessarily the same as prolonging the lives of those with AIDS. Until a satisfactory causative model has been established, all we're dealing with here is just another correlation. My point is that I'm questioning (as is Peter Duesberg) the proposed causative model of the HIV virus for AIDS.
justinx0r:http://www.thebody.com/content/art2654.html Also, you can read more about this subject here. I don't mean to come off as confrontational if you feel that way - just trying to have a good discussion!
It seems that the alleged proof using Koch's postulates hinges on the definition of AIDS. The article does not say which opportunistic infection the chimpanzee acquired. Furthermore, did the CD4 cell count become low enough that said opportunistic infection was effectively guaranteed to happen? Is there a satisfactory causative model for the opportunistic infection iteslf? Did the experiment control for as many variables as possible? Or how many variables did it (attempt to) control for?
Regarding the definition of AIDS vis-a-vis this experiment, if a CD4 cell count below 200 cells per cubic milimeter is sufficient for AIDS, then why is the presence of one or more specific opportunistic infections still part of the definition? Presumably such a low CD4 count would enable any of the given opportunistic infections to occur? Finally, has it been demonstrated that an HIV infection will ultimately and necessarily lead to such a low CD4 cell count?
I appreciate your efforts here, but as you can see, they've only raised more questions on my part.
lol
Brainpolice: "There's also the fact that Darwin explicitly states in "Origin of Species" that the theory of evolution does not in and of itself contradict theism and the notion that the universe was created by a deity. Why creationists so often conflate the two issues (evolution of species vs. beginning of life and universe) is beyond me."
He was of course correct.That evolution is true does not disprove theism per se nor does the truth of the big bang disprove theism per se.In fact it could be they are the very proof of god itself.....
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Marko: No you can't be. Nationalism is never so much about politics as it is about identity. 1. Why must Feminism be nationalist? You seem to have smuggled this in. 2. It can't be nationalist in the common sense of that word meaning belief that the nation is the basic unit of politics and following from that imperialism militarism etc. "Unless you identify yourself as a black person you can not be a black nationalist. Unless you think of yourself as a woman you can not be a feminist." It happens all the time.I hope your arguing that it makes no sense or is weird or contradictory instead of literally impossible to be say a man and a feminist because that would be absurd and plainly false and I'd see no real point in continuing the argument. It's also strange you'd argue that here since Rothbard was supportive of Black Nationalism in the 60s.He thought it was there right of freedom of association to choose to seperate from white people. "You can not be an actual Japanese nationalist but feel apart from the Japanese nation. No more than you can be a die hard Celtics fan but feel apart from Celtics." You can't support a football team without being from their area? how does that even follow? Why not? Unless you explain my previous point still stands. "Your point never stood in the first place because you don't understand what feminism is." Enlighten me. "If feminism was really defined as caring about human rights for women as you claim then every libertarian would be a "feminist" by default " They are! in a broad sense yes they are, political feminists anyways .Though Feminism is concern for specific women rights issues.And few libertarians directly talk about them. There's also cultural feminism about sexism and sexist practices which can be related but does not have to be. "and you wouldn't feel the need to tell us about your feminism every two minutes." I don't tell you about it every two minutes.It seems like you just knee jerk reject feminism based on an assumptive definition you have on some restrictive idea of what it is and honestly it's embarrassing.
No you can't be. Nationalism is never so much about politics as it is about identity.
1. Why must Feminism be nationalist? You seem to have smuggled this in.
2. It can't be nationalist in the common sense of that word meaning belief that the nation is the basic unit of politics and following from that imperialism militarism etc.
"Unless you identify yourself as a black person you can not be a black nationalist. Unless you think of yourself as a woman you can not be a feminist."
It happens all the time.I hope your arguing that it makes no sense or is weird or contradictory instead of literally impossible to be say a man and a feminist because that would be absurd and plainly false and I'd see no real point in continuing the argument.
It's also strange you'd argue that here since Rothbard was supportive of Black Nationalism in the 60s.He thought it was there right of freedom of association to choose to seperate from white people.
"You can not be an actual Japanese nationalist but feel apart from the Japanese nation. No more than you can be a die hard Celtics fan but feel apart from Celtics."
You can't support a football team without being from their area? how does that even follow?
Why not? Unless you explain my previous point still stands.
"Your point never stood in the first place because you don't understand what feminism is."
Enlighten me.
"If feminism was really defined as caring about human rights for women as you claim then every libertarian would be a "feminist" by default "
They are! in a broad sense yes they are, political feminists anyways .Though Feminism is concern for specific women rights issues.And few libertarians directly talk about them.
There's also cultural feminism about sexism and sexist practices which can be related but does not have to be.
"and you wouldn't feel the need to tell us about your feminism every two minutes."
I don't tell you about it every two minutes.It seems like you just knee jerk reject feminism based on an assumptive definition you have on some restrictive idea of what it is and honestly it's embarrassing.
You can't be a libertarian unless you are liberty manifested in human form!
Nationalism is the view that nationality, an identity derived from ones ethno-linguistic group is the overriding characteristic and the defining identity of an individual (political self-actualisation; national liberation/unification are only effects of this).
But in a broader sense nationalism can manifest in relation to any group identity (such an identity that it places the individual within a group among which there exists a sense of solidarity derived from the common identity) and does not have to have political consequences as it does in the case of nationalism of ethno-linguistic groups. Nationalism of extremist Millwall FC fans manifests in their clashes with their rivals and the police, not in demands for polical independence.
We are not discussing the merits of black nationalism. We are discussing wether you, Scott F could be a black nationalist if you wanted to.
The answer is you could not. Black nationalism is more than just a set of political demands. Black nationalists awakened as black nationalists when they begun to think of themselves primarily as a part of the Black American people. Regardless if they already had political demands and regardless of what these demands if any were.
I said it is impossible to at the same time feel a part of something and feel apart from something.
Who is the knee jerk? I have jet to say in what light I see feminism, jet you have already decided to complain about my "rejecting" it. Feminists are persons whose basic overriding identity is their belonging to the circle of womenhood. It is a case of politics being secondary to identity.