… I actually expected the Rothbardians to have a simple and straight answer to that. On the other hand. This forum is about Austrian economics, but this doesn’t exclude debates about political theory, Libertarianism, legal problems etc.
The Rothbardians are entitled to their “holier then thou” attitude, even if it seems ridiculous from time to that. I can live with that easily.
So then people don’t possess the ability to deduce things logically either?
So you don’t know what deduction is…
Wow… So you would dismiss it out of hand because human beings write the observations about other creatures possessing similar traits to human beings like rationality and not the creatures themselves. What type of circle are you really looking for here?
Why are people on this forum so hostile to science that appears to counter the arguments of the Grand Rothbard and silly arguments defending people that torture small creatures?
I know I am logically deducing and others can show their logic too such as: A=A
A monkey doesn’t do that.
You don’t. I even gave you the definition of deduction, too. Must I do everything for you.
Let this monkey tell us these general laws. Why is Flombaum doing the study and not the monkey?
Cause it’s a crackpot study and you have yet to grasp your own intellect. Or, have you thought of this, you don’t even understand the study. As I’ve said deer will browse and estimate what they want to eat and if I run out the door they will run away. Wow, big deal. My two year old boy knows that. I have no time to waste on providing dictionary definitions from my computer. You can do that yourself or are you that lazy?
Except they observably do so.
No, I showed that some species other than human beings possess the ability to deduce and are rational thinking creatures by citing a professional and respected journal of peer-reviewed empirical data.
You say they don’t because you don’t understand what deduction is. Monkey observes human beings looking away or showing general disinterest with their food (through body language), monkey concludes that they will be able to take the food successfully without being noticed. This is a deductive reasoning, plain and simple. If you disagree I suggest you publish a retraction in a cited, peer-reviewed journal.
Flombaum is a scientist interested in observations. Monkey is a monkey interested in fruit. This is a red herring.
Well when you resort to personal attacks against a person who actually cites scientific studies at peer-reviewed journals with disagreement on what deduction is without the understanding of what deduction is… [8-)]
Obviously you can’t handle a grown-up conversation with a grown-up. Perhaps too much time with the two year old has turned your mind to spaghetti-o’s. I’m done.
It is observed that monkey’s logically state A=A? This gets more and more silly.
No you didn’t. I’m waiting for the monkey to discuss principles with me. I think you don’t understand the difference between estimative powers and cognitive powers. But to be more exact, which I have been, is to distinguish between intellect and reason, which animals have neither, necessarily intellect and qualified reason of human. Thus to signify the difference, estimative powers are animal and cognitive powers are human. Currently animals are labeled as having cognition, but this is animal cognition which differs from human cognition. I’m sure a quick look in wikipedia will help you further gain insight into this subject. I’m still waiting for a monkey to let me know about what a principle is, but since monkey’s don’t have an intellect - thus - the full distinction as defined by Aquinas for one, this gives precision to the conversation. Of the intellect is principles that deal with truth and being (that what is). Of reasoning is comparative and divisional functions, etc., etc. There’s much more but I’m not going to be a book and write pages on the subject.
What’s your definition of “deduction”? Let’s get this over with. Your obviously not aware of what intellect is, what principle is, and you think there’s such a thing as telepathy.
Obviously the monkey can’t - you fail.
What is human deduction? Or don’t you know the difference?
This is why the libertarian movement gets nowhere. Libertarians are COMPLETELY unwilling to concede when science disagrees with them.
Wilderness thinks that he can disprove a respected journal’s assertion that other species’ possess the ability of deduction and reason because he can’t talk to monkeys and doesn’t understand what empiricism is.
Nope, it’s your lack of understanding science. You can’t even read that study correctly it would seem. You like to dance around the issues very often I’ve noticed.
No. You can’t define principle and intellect and neither can monkey’s, but at least you potentially can but monkey’s can’t.
A little humor is always fun:
So what is it, wilderness? It’s a crackpot study or I can’t read it correctly? I’m saying the same thing the study is saying, it’s why you’re calling it a crack pot study.
Talk to me about understanding science when you get a degree in the field and publish something to a respected journal. Then maybe your critique of a peer-reviewed study by professionals as a “crack pot study” can be considered as anything other than partisanship for your ideology.
Really, if you think you’re doing libertarianism any favors, you’re wrong. When reasonable people see you guys defending people that torture animals because no animals other than human beings are rational - i.e. capable of deductive reasoning - it puts you on the same field as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the Obama birthers.
And another red herring. Defining principle or intellect has nothing to do with the power of deduction. Your point is largely based on a misunderstanding of what the study is saying. Since a severely autistic boy cannot describe to you what intellect or principle is, does this make him incapable of deductive reasoning? No. That’s ridiculous and most people - rightly - understand that.
Likewise, because a monkey cannot describe to you in words his ability to reason, does it mean he does not possess the ability to do so? Again, no. That is completely illogical.
What you want has nothing to do with deductive reasoning and just because you think that humans are better at deductive reasoning does not mean other species do not possess it in different degrees.
Seriously, get real and stop harming the movement for liberty by simply burying your head in the sand when facts are shown to be facts and when absurd positions by the Rothbard cult are shown to be wrong.
I’m waiting for the monkey to share with me what deductive reasoning is. I’m also waiting for you to do the same. Also what is intellect or what takes place in the intellect? What is a principle? I’m waiting.
No you’re not. You, like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the Obama birthers, wouldn’t be satisfied with all the evidence in the world to show that other species possess the ability of deductive reasoning.
Why would you? It flies right in the face of your ideology and it’s much more comforting to simply assume Rothbard = right about everything, than to face the facts.
No fruit can be gained from this conversation. You can have the last word.
maybe peer review is not a guarantee of perfection.
Sokal Affair.
It’s a crackpot study if it led you to read it incorrectly or in other words, to lead you to come up with ridiculous notions. But hey, I might be being too nice when I put the weight of understanding on the shoulders of the study instead of…
I’m waiting. I see your trained in evasive tactics. When you learn what science is, come back, we’ll chat.
I will ask again. When has another animal ever consented to having its property taken over by a human? Or when has one ever consented to being killed by a human, tortured by a human, or having sex with a human? When has an animal ever provided, everyday, food for a human to consume? When has an animal ever had an intelligent conversation with a human?
Libertarians generally get nowhere, because for some reason most humans do not understand reality.
Again, this isn’t about how similar human beings and animals are. It’s about animals possessing the ability to reason, i.e. animals possessing deductive reasoning. This is an empirical and observable fact. I think Rothbardians need to deal with that and come up with a different reason for why animals should be tortured without consequences to the person doing the torturing.
Wouldn’t reality include accepting facts when they’re shown to be facts?
Real human rights trump delusional animal ‘rights’ .
Next.
I’m still waiting Wilmot. What’s human deduction mean? What’s animal deduction mean? What is human cognition? What is animal cognition? What is estimative? What’s intellect mean? What’s principle mean? Either you or the monkey, but at least you have the potential to answer these - the monkey doesn’t.
Why should I debate with you any further? I’ve cited respectable journals and made the argument as clear as day. You won’t accept it if your own mother were recognized as the greatest ethologist ever for her works showing the rationality of animals. There’s no point in telling you that deduction is the same for both but in different degrees because you simply won’t let science convince you; you’re set in your minority beliefs that. I said you could have the last word. There you go.
Honestly, this is all very basic evolutionary stuff. Charles Darwin believed fully that differences between species were not qualitative but quantitative and that the development of logic within human beings was not an isolated event. There’s an entire literature out there that has just recently started to grow; I suggest you read into it.
I am done.
Will you grow up and answer the questions?
Let me ask some more. If someone kills me, and I wanted them to kill me, has any wrong been committed? If someone has sex with me, and I wanted them to have sex with me, has any wrong been committed? If I sell my property to someone, without coercion, has any wrong been done?
So again, when has an animal ever consented to being killed by a human, having sex with a human, or giving its property to a human? If they do not have the capability to give or withhold consent, then there is no wrong being done by doing whatever we want to them.