Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Mar 10 2009 - 22:27:16 EDT

Just to chime in very briefly - I'd have to side with David here. The
responses so far to the potentiality argument come across to me as downright
absurd. Why not claim that, according to the potentiality argument, plankton
are deserving of human rights because you can imagine a technology (or even
claim it exists for these purposes) whereby plankton is genetically
manipulated to develop into a sentient, high-IQ quasi-human being? Sure,
that criticism could be advanced - but it's so absurd that it practically
serves as a reinforcement to the potentiality argument, because it
illustrates what kind of irrationality starts to pop up once people decide
that nature can be approached in any way we see fit.

I for one will be sticking with potentiality as traditionally understood and
defended (as well as quite a lot of Aristotle's philosophy, for that matter)
until I see a persuasive reason to abandon it. So far the attempts here are
anything but persuasive to me. Admittedly the conversation seems very casual
rather than an attempt at serious discussion, but really, the suggestion
that someone can show the absurdity of the argument by citing medicine as
'unnatural' indicates that people either are unaware of the reasoning behind
those 'traditional' perspectives, have a poor grasp, or simply don't care.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 10 22:27:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 10 2009 - 22:27:54 EDT