Roe vs Wade Overturned

#3,652
#3,652
PKT_VOL said:
Science cannot do that. What constitutes "two separate life forms" is a philosophical value judgement.

Science can only design falsifiable experiments to test whether a specific criteria is present within a previously delineated philosophical framework.
Click to expand...
Science does that constantly through the designation of species and one of the ways they do that is through common genetic characteristics. Another is deeming lifes existence in space whether it's mars, a comet, etc. A baby in the womb is its own separate organism since fertilization.


Here are several excerpts where science disagrees with you by simple definition of organisms and it's individuality
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#3,654
#3,654
BigOrangeTrain said:
Propaganda remember? Can’t be trusted. You just can’t get out of your own way. Maybe you should take off your 3 masks. You are losing brain cells. Or it could be all of those ridiculous flu shots you got.
Click to expand...
No no. You got this all wrong.

Fox News is pure propaganda, unless the left can use them for their advantage.

The Bible is a fairy tale, unless the left can use its contents for their advantage.

All Republicans are racist bigots that can’t be trusted, unless they have something negative to say about Trump, then we must listen and adhere to the wisdom of the Trump bashing republican.

That’s just how life works!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain, StarRaider and InVOLuntary
#3,657
#3,657
Vol8188 said:
It seems scientist make the distinction between life and none life, and distinguish one life form from another constantly. So I’m not sure I’m following
Click to expand...

No, science cannot make the distinction between life and non-life. Science is a rigid methodology of falsification. The best the scientific method can do is design falsifiable experiments testing whether an entity in question has X characteristic.

What precisely constitutes "life" is a fundamentally philosophical question and quite hotly debated (viruses, prions, alternative extraterrestrial life). It might help to think about what is the nature of consciousness as an analogous question. The latter is more readily thought about by the average person due to the advent of AI and interesting experiments involving plants.
 
#3,658
#3,658
utvols88 said:
Science does that constantly through the designation of species and one of the ways they do that is through common genetic characteristics. Another is deeming lifes existence in space whether it's mars, a comet, etc. A baby in the womb is its own separate organism since fertilization.


Here are several excerpts where science disagrees with you by simple definition of organisms and it's individuality
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception.
Click to expand...

Speciation is philosophical. It is merely categorization. Some people believe dog breeds can be different species while others reject such a notion and firmly believe them to be on species regardless of breed. Nothing to do with science.
 
#3,659
#3,659
PKT_VOL said:
The concept of individuality is a value-based judgment. Science does not deal in value-based judgements.
Click to expand...
I think you’re making a category error. Science certainly makes observations on when human development begins. The idea of a genetically unique being is most certainly scientific.
 
#3,660
#3,660
PKT_VOL said:
No, science cannot make the distinction between life and non-life. Science is a rigid methodology of falsification. The best the scientific method can do is design falsifiable experiments testing whether an entity in question has X characteristic.

What precisely constitutes "life" is a fundamentally philosophical question and quite hotly debated (viruses, prions, alternative extraterrestrial life). It might help to think about what is the nature of consciousness as an analogous question. The latter is more readily thought about by the average person due to the advent of AI and interesting experiments involving plants.
Click to expand...
I think you are again, playing loose with the terminology. Using some of those things to muddy the water seems a stretch.

Human development is well observed, repeated and documented. You are one of a billion living case studies.
 
#3,661
#3,661
PKT_VOL said:
Science cannot do that. What constitutes "two separate life forms" is a philosophical value judgement.

Science can only design falsifiable experiments to test whether a specific criteria is present within a previously delineated philosophical framework.
Click to expand...
Only? According to what?

Let’s set up an experiment you can falsify, how many times does a fertilized human egg not result in a unique human being?

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be 'Falsified' Is a Myth - Scientific American
 
#3,662
#3,662
It constantly amazes me how many people have no idea what science actually is. It cuts across education levels, political affliction, and religious belief.

Each group having their own pet "science" issue which totally bastardizes not only what science is but what it is not. They read their own biases into what little science can produce, downplay what little science go against their basis, and twist the relatively neutral experimental data to fit their pet narrative.

Science says very little about anything. It merely designs and executes falsifiable experiments. Humans, on the other hand, say a lot about everything. Humans have desires, wants, and needs which result in narrative agendas.

It doesn't help that the human brain short-circuits information due to evolutionary pressures. The brain didn't evolve to be a ridged truth detector. On the contrary, it evolved to keep us alive in dangerous environments with scant information laced with premade frameworks to process that information into making quick life or death decisions.
 
#3,663
#3,663
Allvols1996 said:
I think you are again, playing loose with the terminology. Using some of those things to muddy the water seems a stretch.

Human development is well observed, repeated and documented. You are one of a billion living case studies.
Click to expand...

Odd response. If anything, I am too rigid with terminology precisely to clear the water.
 
#3,664
#3,664
Allvols1996 said:
Only? According to what?

Let’s set up an experiment you can falsify, how many times does a fertilized human egg not result in a unique human being?

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be 'Falsified' Is a Myth - Scientific American
Click to expand...

Wow. What an awful article.

Falsifiability is literally what separates science from pseudoscience.

As for Newton's laws of physics, there are plenty of useful rules of thumb which are technically incorrect/falsified but are nevertheless simple and correct enough (within an specific scope/domain) to be preferred over more complex "correct" theories which make no difference (within an specific scope/domain). However, you are now crossing over from science into engineering. The first rule of engineering is KISS.
 
#3,665
#3,665
PKT_VOL said:
No, science cannot make the distinction between life and non-life. Science is a rigid methodology of falsification. The best the scientific method can do is design falsifiable experiments testing whether an entity in question has X characteristic.

What precisely constitutes "life" is a fundamentally philosophical question and quite hotly debated (viruses, prions, alternative extraterrestrial life). It might help to think about what is the nature of consciousness as an analogous question. The latter is more readily thought about by the average person due to the advent of AI and interesting experiments involving plants.
Click to expand...

Odd you argue all this yet I’m 99% sure you’d agree that our discussion is regarding 2 separate human life forms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#3,666
#3,666
PKT_VOL said:
Wow. What an awful article.

Falsifiability is literally what separates science from pseudoscience.

As for Newton's laws of physics, there are plenty of useful rules of thumb which are technically incorrect/falsified but are nevertheless simple and correct enough (within an specific scope/domain) to be preferred over more complex "correct" theories which make no difference (within an specific scope/domain). However, you are now crossing over from science into engineering. The first rule of engineering is KISS.
Click to expand...
OK,
How many examples do we have of a fertilized egg not resulting in a genetically unique human zygote???
Can you falsify that?

Here it is from an embryology textbook.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#3,667
#3,667
Vol8188 said:
Odd you argue all this yet I’m 99% sure you’d agree that our discussion is regarding 2 separate human life forms.
Click to expand...

Bad arguments should be either corrected or tossed to the side whether I agree with conclusion or not in favor of better arguments (whether I agree with the conclusion or not).
 
#3,669
#3,669
Allvols1996 said:
OK,
How many examples do we have of a fertilized egg not resulting in a genetically unique human zygote???
Can you falsify that?

Here it is from an embryology textbook.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
Click to expand...

Getting better. Keep science to what it can attempt to falsify.
 
#3,671
#3,671
PKT_VOL said:
Depends on how you define those terms.

I can see a scenario where I would agree, I can see a scenario where I would not.
Click to expand...

There’s two different life forms from conception. What is there to disagree with?

Also since you’re claiming it’s not a scientific argument, we should be clear that all scientists would agree the above claim also. That we are discussing two different life forms.
 
#3,673
#3,673
Vol8188 said:
There’s two different life forms from conception. What is there to disagree with?

Also since you’re claiming it’s not a scientific argument, we should be clear that all scientists would agree the above claim also. That we are discussing two different life forms.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Avoidance.
 
#3,675
#3,675
Vol8188 said:
There’s two different life forms from conception. What is there to disagree with?

Also since you’re claiming it’s not a scientific argument, we should be clear that all scientists would agree the above claim also. That we are discussing two different life forms.
Click to expand...

Again, it depends on how one defines those terms.

No different than if someone were to ask me the question, "does God exist?" Depending on how one defined "God" and what all such a concept entails, I could see a scenario where I would agree and I can see a scenario where I would not.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top