Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 217
  1. #106
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    9,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    You don't have a point. People today don't live in pre-colonial society.
    So what is the next developmental step from the ''Intimate Knowledge'' - where would it take them in the next 250 years?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  2. #107
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Sure but both societies were developing according to their needs. What you actually mean to say is you want to identify that one was superior to the other and so what we need is an objective measure so he was determine which one was "superior".
    Which one would enable you even to communicate this instantly to someone living thousands of km away? The very mode of your arguing against MB's point actually proves this point!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    You would have to demonstrate firstly that a written language was necessary. Lots of cultures don't have written language and yet almost all have historical knowledge.
    But only writing enables us to access knowledge from widely dispersed places and times. When the Europeans came to Australia, they had the advantage of knowledged accumulated over centuries in Europe as well some from the Muslim and Chinese cultures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Also just because you can write something down it doesn't mean it is true or that it is transmitted without error to future generations. For example look at books of corruptions in the bible for example by new testament scholar Bart Ehrman.
    NT manuscript and Greek scholar Daniel Wallace points out:

    In this chapter, Blomberg rightfully shows the misrepresentations of the situation by Bart Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus. For example, of the approximately 400,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts, many who read Misquoting Jesus get the impression that this one datum is enough to destroy the Christian faith. But the reality is that less than one percent of all variants are both meaningful and viable. And even Ehrman himself has admitted that no cardinal doctrine is jeopardized by these variants.
    So let me see if I have this straight:
    • People are born male but can change to female.
    • People are born white but can change to black.
    • People are born homosexual but can never change.

    Makes perfect sense I guess …

  3. #108
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,341
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    So what is the next developmental step from the ''Intimate Knowledge'' - where would it take them in the next 250 years?
    Where do you imagine that they needed to go?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #109
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Which one would enable you even to communicate this instantly to someone living thousands of km away? The very mode of your arguing against MB's point actually proves this point!
    You don't have a point. People today don't live in pre-colonial society. In fact Michael proposed that the comparison be at the time of contact between Europeans and Indigenous people in Australia that is c. 1606. Since the internet didn't exist in the 17th century it has no bearing on the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    But only writing enables us to access knowledge from widely dispersed places and times. When the Europeans came to Australia, they had the advantage of knowledged accumulated over centuries in Europe as well some from the Muslim and Chinese cultures.
    Very nice but how was that necessary for indigenous societies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    NT manuscript and Greek scholar Daniel Wallace points out:

    In this chapter, Blomberg rightfully shows the misrepresentations of the situation by Bart Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus. For example, of the approximately 400,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts, many who read Misquoting Jesus get the impression that this one datum is enough to destroy the Christian faith. But the reality is that less than one percent of all variants are both meaningful and viable. And even Ehrman himself has admitted that no cardinal doctrine is jeopardized by these variants.
    Too easily trolled Jono. Just pointing out that things that aren't true can be preserved just as easily by written language and plenty of societies develop without written language including great cultural achievements. The works of Homer for example were very likely originally passed down as an oral tradition before they were first written down.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #110
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    9,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    You don't have a point. People today don't live in pre-colonial society. In fact Michael proposed that the comparison be at the time of contact between Europeans and Indigenous people in Australia that is c. 1606. Since the internet didn't exist in the 17th century it has no bearing on the discussion.



    Very nice but how was that necessary for indigenous societies?



    Too easily trolled Jono. Just pointing out that things that aren't true can be preserved just as easily by written language and plenty of societies develop without written language including great cultural achievements. The works of Homer for example were very likely originally passed down as an oral tradition before they were first written down.
    Your argument is based on the fact that for the Indigenous society literally ''nothing was necessary''! May be we can also question why it was necessary for Apes to get off the trees and start evolving? Any reason for it? were they not comfortable before?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  6. #111
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,304

    Atheist on C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters, including the leftist equality of outcome

    Why the Devil Loves Democracy
    Marco den Ouden, FEE, 14 July 2017

    "The claim to equality," he goes on, "outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior." This festering awareness leads to resentment. The patient "resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation." This leads to a demand for uniformity. No one should be different. "They've no business to be different. It's undemocratic."

    This attitude used to be called envy, he notes. And it used to be regarded as odious. "The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it – make it respectable and even laudable – by the incantatory use of the word democratic." This allows those who are in any way inferior to pull others down to their level.

    Screwtape goes on to argue that democracy now does what tyrants used to. He tells the story of one dictator asking another for advice. The second dictator takes him into a cornfield and with his cane, snicks off any corn stalk that is an inch or so taller than the others.

    The moral was plain. Let no pre-eminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser, or better, or more famous, or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level; all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus tyrants could practice, in a sense, ‘democracy.’ But now ‘democracy’ can do the same work without any other tyranny than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big stalks. The big ones are beginning to bite off their own in their desire to Be Like Stalks.

    Destroy their individuality and you destroy their soul.

    What About Democracy in Education?

    Screwtape lauds the fact that this perversion of the democratic ideal has worked itself into the school system. "Dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious students. That would be 'undemocratic.'" Individual differences "must be disguised":

    Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially held back, because the others would get a trauma – Beelzebub, what a useful word! – by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age-group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeaval's attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON THE MAT.

    The mantra of I'm as good as you will destroy education, he says. "We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men," he tells the graduating devils. "The little vermin themselves will do it for us."
    So let me see if I have this straight:
    • People are born male but can change to female.
    • People are born white but can change to black.
    • People are born homosexual but can never change.

    Makes perfect sense I guess …

  7. #112
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,341
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Your argument is based on the fact that for the Indigenous society literally ''nothing was necessary''! May be we can also question why it was necessary for Apes to get off the trees and start evolving? Any reason for it? were they not comfortable before?
    So many things wrong and just plan stupid about your post that it doesn't really warrant a response. I at no time said that nothing was necessary. In fact I maintain that indigenous societies had a lot of very necessary skills and technologies not known to the Europeans of the time which is why Europeans generally could not survive away from civilisation and why indigenous trackers were widely employed by colonial law enforcement.

    Regarding the analogy to evolution: Humans are not evolved apes both apes and humans are equally evolved from some common ancestor in the past. Your misunderstanding about evolution and directly comparable to your misunderstanding about societies. Just as neither humans nor apes are more evolved than the other, no society is more "evolved" than an other. You think humans are more evolved precisely because you are human and it appeals to your inflated sense of self-worth. Likewise, you imagine that European societies are superior to others precisely because you are European and that idea appeals to your inflated sense of self-worth.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #113
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Your argument is based on the fact that for the Indigenous society literally ''nothing was necessary''! May be we can also question why it was necessary for Apes to get off the trees and start evolving? Any reason for it? were they not comfortable before?
    Evolution is a process of adaptation to your environment. If the environment doesn't change, then it's not necessary, and probably won't happen. So apes (or, more correctly, ape-like creatures) were forced to adapt to climatic change.

    Indigenous societies didn't change because there was no reason to.

  9. #114
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    9,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Evolution is a process of adaptation to your environment. If the environment doesn't change, then it's not necessary, and probably won't happen. So apes (or, more correctly, ape-like creatures) were forced to adapt to climatic change.

    Indigenous societies didn't change because there was no reason to.
    So, Partrick...where would they be now without us? Still living they way they did 250 years ago? What you are suggesting can be interpreted as...they could very well continue to till now without taking the next step.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  10. #115
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    If the environment doesn't change, then it's not necessary, and probably won't happen.
    Leading evolutionist Ernst Mayr (1904–2005) noted something curious:

    In evolutionary biology we have species like horseshoe crabs. The horseshoe crab goes back in the fossil record over two hundred million years without any major changes. So obviously they have a very invariant genome type, right? . Wrong, they don't. Study the genotype of a series of horseshoe crabs and you'll find there's a great deal of genetic variation. How come, in spite of all this genetic variation, they haven't changed at all in over two hundred million years while other members of their ecosystem in which they were living two hundred million years ago are either extinct or have developed into something totally different? Why did the horseshoe crabs not change? That's the kind of question that completely stumps us at the present time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    So apes (or, more correctly, ape-like creatures)
    The leading evolutionary paleontologist, the late G.G. Simpson (1902–1984) wrote:

    “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.” (The World into Which Darwin Led Us, Science 131(3405):966–969, 1 April 1960 | doi: 10.1126/science.131.3405.966.)
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 18-07-2017 at 03:37 AM.
    So let me see if I have this straight:
    • People are born male but can change to female.
    • People are born white but can change to black.
    • People are born homosexual but can never change.

    Makes perfect sense I guess …

  11. #116
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Leading evolutionist Ernst Mayr (1904–2005) noted something curious:

    In evolutionary biology we have species like horseshoe crabs. The horseshoe crab goes back in the fossil record over two hundred million years without any major changes. So obviously they have a very invariant genome type, right? . Wrong, they don't. Study the genotype of a series of horseshoe crabs and you'll find there's a great deal of genetic variation. How come, in spite of all this genetic variation, they haven't changed at all in over two hundred million years while other members of their ecosystem in which they were living two hundred million years ago are either extinct or have developed into something totally different? Why did the horseshoe crabs not change? That's the kind of question that completely stumps us at the present time.
    Except that in 2012 it was demonstrated from a horseshoe crab fossil with very well preserved soft tissue that the number of legs of modern horseshoe crabs is to fewer than the ancient species. See "Silurian horseshoe crab illuminates the evolution of arthropod limbs" Briggs et al, PNAS September 25, 2012 vol. 109 no. 39 15702-15705.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    The leading evolutionary paleontologist, the late G.G. Simpson (1902–1984) wrote:

    “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.” (The World into Which Darwin Led Us, Science 131(3405):966–969, 1 April 1960 | doi: 10.1126/science.131.3405.966.)
    So it is true that that was the opinion of one scientist. However such loose language does lead to confusion such as demonstrated by MichaelBaron already. I've no problem with people saying our antecedent species were apes. Since we are effectively apes they must have been to a point. However when people say apes in an unqualified way in my experience they are almost always thinking of modern extant apes and excluding Homo sapiens.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  12. #117
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    9,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Leading evolutionist Ernst Mayr (1904–2005) noted something curious:

    In evolutionary biology we have species like horseshoe crabs. The horseshoe crab goes back in the fossil record over two hundred million years without any major changes. So obviously they have a very invariant genome type, right? . Wrong, they don't. Study the genotype of a series of horseshoe crabs and you'll find there's a great deal of genetic variation. How come, in spite of all this genetic variation, they haven't changed at all in over two hundred million years while other members of their ecosystem in which they were living two hundred million years ago are either extinct or have developed into something totally different? Why did the horseshoe crabs not change? That's the kind of question that completely stumps us at the present time.



    The leading evolutionary paleontologist, the late G.G. Simpson (1902–1984) wrote:

    “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.” (The World into Which Darwin Led Us, Science 131(3405):966–969, 1 April 1960 | doi: 10.1126/science.131.3405.966.)
    The very fact that a society and its handling of knowledge management/development can be compared to the animal world suggests...that something is wrong with it. Do we need to develop or not? What is the point of development if we are comfortable as we are?

    This is why a claim that ''we did not need to discover a wheel'' or ''we did not need to learn'' - is nothing but an excuse for failure to do so. And given lack of effective knowledge management systems - this is quite logical. At what point could they ever even make a map of their lands? At what point would they travel to other continents, come back and share travel impressions? At what point would they document medical practices to incorporate latest developments?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  13. #118
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,341
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    This is why a claim that ''we did not need to discover a wheel'' or ''we did not need to learn'' - is nothing but an excuse for failure to do so.
    Not at all. Any investment in knowledge of technology has a cost associated with it and if there is no need for that investment it is wasteful to make that investment. The Inca's, for example had no wheel but ruled over the largest empire on the globe at its height.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    And given lack of effective knowledge management systems - this is quite logical. At what point could they ever even make a map of their lands?
    Indigenous people seem to have very little confusion as to their country and its borders. How would the investment in map making have improved this and would any benefits offset the cost of doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    At what point would they travel to other continents, come back and share travel impressions?
    Seriously laugh out loud funny. Thanks for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    At what point would they document medical practices to incorporate latest developments?
    As previously mentioned the indigenous people had developed knowledge of locally available medicines that was superior to European knowledge at the time. The indigenous people had no issues with this knowledge being passed down to future generations so again it is unclear what you think was missing.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  14. #119
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    11,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Seriously laugh out loud funny. Thanks for that.
    So they had made no contributions to tripadvisor prior to 1788? How could they expect to grow as a society?
    meep meep

  15. #120
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    9,243
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    So they had made no contributions to tripadvisor prior to 1788? How could they expect to grow as a society?
    What did they make contribution to? or yes...boomerang....and ''intimate knowledge'''
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Anti-Christ Appreciation Society
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-07-2011, 04:06 PM
  2. ACF - A secret society?
    By Brian_Jones in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 15-01-2008, 04:23 PM
  3. Queensland Uni Games Society Tournament Results
    By Garvinator in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-03-2005, 12:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •