Dogmatism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Dogmatism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:39 pm That's so sad. The comic isn't doing that, it just relying on the obviously true answer. Didn't you get the joke?
Seems you are conflating "obvious truths" and "non-obvious truths".

Which is why you don't see the difference between "the machine which takes the correct reading is the correct machine" and "Which machine is the correct one?"

Point it out. Why can't you?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Dogmatism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:17 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:39 am So half your argument is a secret. You gave me the "Everyone??" with double question marks. And then you listed the people who argue against you and did exactly the same thing again by calling us all dogmatists again... in the same post.

You can call it serious engagement if you want, but you still haven't explained what makes the contents of DNA right. you have an entirely ungrounded theory, and you have been dogmatically refusing to deal with that issue.

Your primary dogma is this assertion that there is some unquestionable quality of DNA that provides oughtness without any explanation of what makes it actually right.
I claimed the moral 'oughtness' is innate, thus has to be from the DNA even we have not traced it to any specific genetic codes yet.

Note coherently,
we can extrapolate the moral function from the higher primates to humans on an evolutionary basis,
https://www.livescience.com/24802-anima ... -book.html#
surely the innate moral behavior of monkeys are from their DNA.

It is also inferentially that morality is innate, i.e.
  • The Moral Life of Babies
    Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
    Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/#:
There are so many research findings that are available for us to 'triangulate' 'quadrigulate', or multi-correlate that innate morality is from the DNA.

There is no dogmatism here. I am willing to give up the above [just like any scientific claim] if you can prove me wrong convincingly with evidences and arguments.
You have had many responses raising serious questions about all of that. You write all them off as "dogmatism" but you don't actually answer any of them.
Further, you express regularly that yo are "confident" you can do things that you show no sign of being able to do such as remediate the structural problems of your many arguments where the relationship between premise and conclusion has gone awry.
And you regularly insist one of your arguments must be good simply because you personally have never been persuaded it is not.

All of these behaviours are dogmatic. All I am saying is that until you resolve all of the above, you have no right to write off Pete or Sculptor as a dogmatist, and that it is time for you to stop doing that.
Post Reply