"Any general principle can be taken to absurd conclusions"

[Boojatta]

This comes from a different thread, but I think that it deserves its own thread. I'm thinking of all the papers published in academic journals devoted to evolutionary biology. If we identified precisely what scientific principles in those papers are used to support evolution, then would we find that the same principles could be used to arrive at absurd conclusions?

The interesting thing is the process that we use to classify a conclusion as absurd or to classify a conclusion as legitimate. Is evolution accepted today merely because evolution and associated ideas and associated conclusions are consistent with the gut feelings of academic authorities who specialize in biology? I say no, but I could be wrong.

[papau]

1. Now that is a "women's rights" topic !!! :-)

[Boojatta]

2. It's a general topic that could arise in ANY subject area.

It already arose in a discussion of women's rights and it might arise again in a discussion of women's rights.

[Quantess]

3. How does it apply to women's rights?

This is all so ethereal until someone gives an example, a scenario.

[Boojatta]

4. Some people claim that, not only is there an intelligent designer,

but that the intelligent designer created a man before creating a woman and that this sequence has a special significance that, for example, requires women to not even ask questions when in church.

If we are going to pay attention to the Old Testament allegation of a hypothetical creation sequence, then why not consult the gospels to see the significance of that sequence?

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

(Matthew 19:30, King James Version)

Some people (for example, perhaps some Pentecostalists) persist in claiming not only that a man was created before a woman, but also that the above excerpt from the Book of Matthew has no relevance here. Of course, they don't ever state any axioms of relevance to be used as a basis for demonstrations of the relevance of things that they claim to be relevant.

[Quantess]

5. No, the people who were in charge of writing the Bible

wanted to justify the notion that men should rightfully have dominion over women. But then, I'm an agnostic and I don't really give a rip what the bible says.

[Nobody]

6. As an incredibly old joke goes

On the seventh day god created man. Then she said "I can do better than that." and created woman.

Another older joke goes:

Why did god create man before woman? Because, like a novel, the first draft needs a little editing.

Not that I believe either the stories nor the jokes. Science adds to human knowledge and religion mires us in what was written eons ago.

Seems to me the bible was written not long after the discovery of sperm.

[Quantess]

7. Please give boojatta a yawn and a wave.

[Boojatta]

8. Why?

[WildClarySage]

9. "Any general principle can be taken to absurd conclusions"

Including this one. Ho fucking hum.

[Boojatta]

10. How do we know whether or not a particular conclusion is absurd?

That seems to be one of the major issues raised by this thread.

[Boojatta]

11. Kick