The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

Count Lucanor wrote: February 18th, 2018, 2:02 pm
Spectrum wrote: First we identify what acts [abstracted from empirical evidence] are defined as evil.
Then we apply the Golden Rule to establish objectivity.
So you're acknowledging that at first, defining an act as evil belongs to the subjective sphere (since it has not been established objectively). The Golden Rule, however, will not make its "evil property" objective, it will just set an intersubjective relation based on the effects of the act, not on the nature of the act itself: if an act affects me negatively, I should not apply the same effect unto others. I received flowers in St. Valentine's Day, but I hate flowers. Should I not send flowers to anyone else? If the person knew I hated flowers, the act would be judged differently than if they didn't. As we can see, the act itself becomes meaningful only in a given context, which varies under different personal or social circumstances. Even if you define social conventions as objective, they are not universal or absolute.
Btw, I claim 'objectivity' = 'intersubjectivity'.
There is no absolute objectivity that is totally unconditional.

The Golden Rule is intersubjective because it is inferred intersubjectively no human will want others to do evil to oneself [exceptions discounted].

Thus re the concept of evil, we start from the empirical and based on intersubjectivity we establish what is evil objectively. Then we use the Golden Rule [established intersubjectively] to establish an objective-evil-value for each type of evil act.
Spectrum wrote: It is the basic instinct of survival to avoid being murdered, rape and other evil acts [other than perverts].
Whatever other motivations we can think of are secondary.
Survival instinct has nothing to do with defining the "evil property" of an act as an objective quality. Actually, the words murder and rape already contain a social convention, which is based on the circumstances surrounding the act. In other words, several variables are taken into account and the acts alone of ending someone's life or having sex do not imply evil every time. In many cultures, the marriage contract implies the obligation of performing sexual acts and they are not considered rape. Punishing sin with death is also socially accepted and not considered murder. The French writer Catherine Millet described in full detail how she went on to have a promiscuous life in which she didn't mind her body being raped by strangers in streets and plazas.
I claim the grounding for what is 'evil' is grounded on survival instinct. What else?

As I had stated, any deviation from the above are perversions, e.g. suicide, suicide by murder, etc. Masochism is a perversion - see DSM-V.
Spectrum wrote: There are degrees to what [is inherently evil] has to be tolerated in the present circumstance but need to be prevented and eliminated in the future.
Note Chattel Slavery was tolerated by most 200 years ago but at present Chattel Slavery is illegal in all Countries.
War [inherently evil] at present is tolerated but humanity is striving its best to eliminate wars and this could be possible within the next 100 years or more.
Again, the word "tolerated" is used to imply that these are things that just happen to people, like epidemics or earthquakes, as if they weren't intentional human actions. But the fact is that certain acts that may be conventionally regarded as evil today, and consequently classified as unlawful, were not regarded as evil and unlawful before. The evilness compass changed.
It cannot be 'just happened' like natural catastrophe.
I used the term 'tolerated' with reference to events that are human related and can be changed in time.

Wars are basically driven by human instincts which as instincts are not easy to modulate.
But nevertheless, there is dramatic reduction/change in the number [not seriousness] of wars over the history of mankind to the present. As such it is possible to change one attitude to war within the human mind. What cannot be changed at present easily has to be tolerated and besides the average humanity are striving to prevent wars.

One cannot change nor control natural catastrophe like earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc. As such the term 'tolerated' is not appropriate.
BTW, slavery seems to be making a comeback and the idea that humanity is striving to end wars is very much disputable.
Note I used the term 'Chattel Slavery' [not general slavery] and the legal enforcement of it. I understand, being humans, there will be many who will try to break the law or practice other forms of 'slavery'. The point there is an improvement in term of legality of chattel slavery in All nations.

I don't believe any normal person will view unjustified 'war' as a good thing to be promoted.
The only exception is from Islam where war against non-believers is deem to be good as a divine duty, but universally this is an evil intent.
Spectrum wrote: We have to make a start somewhere then to improve our skills based on accurate data [with lots of caution and avoid hasty generalizations]. What is relevant here is there is a trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge in the various advance fields to increase precision but of course we need to exercise lots of care on such things.
Your whole statistical approach to judging groups is guaranteed to produce hasty generalizations. And that's exactly what is shown in your preliminary examples.
With or without statistics, people will naturally tend towards hasty generalization.
As such there will be a need to improve the average critical thinking levels of the masses.
With this knowledge and carefully produced statistics, hasty generalization will be minimized in the future [note I mentioned trend].
Spectrum wrote: The USA citizens has the same evil potential like any other group of citizens, i.e. 20% of any citizens are born with evil tendencies.
There's no factual basis for this assertion. Talk about hasty generalizations.
I have discussed and argued the above as a thesis elsewhere, i.e.
1. DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil.
2. 20% of ALL human are born [unfortunately] with an active evil tendency - argued elsewhere.
3. Thus 20% of USA citizens are born with an active evil tendency.
Spectrum wrote: Thus there is no change in the evil potential.
If all influencing factors are the same, there is no difference in the number of individuals committing murder.

The only difference is the number killed are more because Guns can easily kill many in one attack.
In terms of guns, there would a greater sense of fear [not greater potential] in the USA when compared to Britain.
You're now admitting that a good number of variables are to be taken into account for making sense of the data. The selection of variables itself and the weight one gives to any of them is greatly influenced by subjectivity. That proves that no "evil potential" can be measured as a discrete quantitative value or objective property.
I have never deny there is a complex set of variables influencing any human actions.

The critical point is there are evil acts by humans based on empirical evidence.
It is an onus on humanity to resolve, prevent and eliminate evil acts where possible.
To resolve any problem, the most effective way is to quantify all the relevant variables involved.
Thus the critical strategy is to quantify the "evil potential" and other variables else humanity will be doomed to evil for a long time.
Why I believe such quantification is possible is because there are already attempts in doing it and with the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge we will be able to improve on the quantification over time.
Note: Axiology [wiki] - (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value.
Spectrum wrote: You are going too wild with statistics without taking other specific factors into consideration.
That's exactly my critique of your statistical approach. You can do almost absolutely anything with statistics. Remember: there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
It is the same with knives and other things which are double-edged.
Statistics is a also a double-edged tool and with wisdom from philosophy, a person will naturally used statistic wisely.
I don't believe you will ignore statistics totally but I believe you will use them with caution and wisely?
Spectrum wrote: We know 20% of Christians are born with an active evil tendencies.
Oh, really? What's the factual basis for that assertion?
Spectrum wrote: But we also know Christianity has an overriding pacifist maxim. e.g. love your enemies, etc.
Well, actually it stands besides other Christian maxims that run against pacifism. They made possible the Crusades, the Inquisition and the killing of indigenous populations.
I don't believe the Crusaders justified their actions from the sayings of Jesus. The Crusaders has no choice but to go to war and went against Jesus' command of not killing one's enemies. The Crusaders had no choice and using their own freewill went to war with the hope Jesus will forgive them with mercy since there are justifications to do so.
As for those involved in the inquisition, God and Jesus would have 'f...' them to one corner of Hell.
Spectrum wrote: Thus even if all Christians carry guns in the USA, in general it is not likely they will go against God's commands to kill simply because they have guns, else they will go to hell [as usual there will be exceptions].
Guns are specifically manufactured and sold for killing. And they don't just happen to appear in people's hands, so that beats your argument. But It's interesting to see how you manipulate the variables, finding arguments to include or exclude those that you find convenient, so that statistics show what you want them to show. As usual in these apparently objective studies about human behavior, it's never about the raw numbers and objective properties of human action, but how to justify hasty generalizations.
It is a fact, in general there is no way a Christian will invoke the words of Jesus and God to justify their killing another person. We don't here of Christian killing while shouting 'God is Great' or 'Jesus-u-Akbar'.
There are Christians who kill but only when driven by their own inherent evil nature.
Spectrum wrote: What make the difference are the stimuli that triggers the potential into actions.
Humans are not Pavlov's dog. Behaviorism and its stimulus-response theory was debunked and abandoned several decades ago.
Your above is a straw man.

There are tons of research demonstrating evil elements in media, movies, sports, computer games, videos, etc. are triggering the vulnerable evil prone [especially children and certain adults] to commit evil acts. This is why there is censorship, PG ratings or banning of certain evil laden elements in various communicating medias.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Spectrum wrote:Btw, I claim 'objectivity' = 'intersubjectivity'.
There is no absolute objectivity that is totally unconditional.

The Golden Rule is intersubjective because it is inferred intersubjectively no human will want others to do evil to oneself [exceptions discounted].

Thus re the concept of evil, we start from the empirical and based on intersubjectivity we establish what is evil objectively. Then we use the Golden Rule [established intersubjectively] to establish an objective-evil-value for each type of evil act.
Your argument has shifted from objectivity being determined afterwards, via the Golden Rule, to being determined in a first instance. We could dismiss then the Golden Rule. But anyway, objectivity is not determined in either case. Intersubjectivity is basically an agreement. It is a necessary condition to determine the objective existence of things, however not all judgements agreed intersubjectively are about objective existence, as it is the case of moral or aesthetic judgements. I can agree with someone that this paint we have in front of us is beautiful, but that doesn't transform beauty in an objective property of the paint. The same with moral issues, even though there can be a social agreement, there's no intrinsic properties of good or evil in the acts themselves. That's because they are acts carried out by humans, they can't be detached from them, so subjectivity is always involved. You can determine that the acts exist, independent of the observers, but you cannot determine their good or evil properties as independent of the observers.
Spectrum wrote: I claim the grounding for what is 'evil' is grounded on survival instinct. What else?

As I had stated, any deviation from the above are perversions, e.g. suicide, suicide by murder, etc. Masochism is a perversion - see DSM-V.
Against survival instinct run other instincts. Perversions are not unnatural tendencies, but resurfacing of instincts repressed by social norms, which are not universal. Many ritual practices associated with goodness in some cultures may be associated with evil in others. People were sacrificed before for the gods and people are sacrificed today for patriotism or whatever.
Spectrum wrote:
Wars are basically driven by human instincts which as instincts are not easy to modulate
Wars are driven by human interests, which can be as simple or complex as one may imagine. And most of the time people are moved to act without a conscious knowledge of the factors that put them in a position to choose one course of action or another. Trying to put these variables in statistics is almost impossible without forcing assumptions and arriving to generalizations.
Spectrum wrote: But nevertheless, there is dramatic reduction/change in the number [not seriousness] of wars over the history of mankind to the present.
But that will be due to social factors, some of which can be measured, others don't. The least measurable of all seems to be a "potential for evil". The concept of tolerance does not solve the problem of why the same acts are judged evil or good depending on the circumstances, motives, scales of values, etc.
Spectrum wrote:
Note I used the term 'Chattel Slavery' [not general slavery] and the legal enforcement of it. I understand, being humans, there will be many who will try to break the law or practice other forms of 'slavery'. The point there is an improvement in term of legality of chattel slavery in All nations.
Assuming that "general slavery", as you call it, was not a sign of decay in today's society, chattel slavery is still going strong in some African countries. Just months ago the news broke about slave trading in Libya, which is explained by political conditions and the war after US interests messed up everything. The point is we're far from transitioning to a peaceful world. There have been and probably there will always be war mongers, murderers, genocidal and terrorist minds, etc., and their actions can be either celebrated as moral or abhorred as evil by the interested parties.
Spectrum wrote: I don't believe any normal person will view unjustified 'war' as a good thing to be promoted.
In which planet have you been living for your entire life? The history books are full of details about war conflicts and there's yet to find one war not promoted as justified. There's always a "good cause" for war.
Spectrum wrote: The only exception is from Islam where war against non-believers is deem to be good as a divine duty, but universally this is an evil intent.
George Bush Jr. is known to have regarded his war endeavors in the Middle East as a divine duty. And as a Christian, he was no exception.
Spectrum wrote: I have never deny there is a complex set of variables influencing any human actions.

The critical point is there are evil acts by humans based on empirical evidence.
It is an onus on humanity to resolve, prevent and eliminate evil acts where possible.
So far, so good, but then...
Spectrum wrote: To resolve any problem, the most effective way is to quantify all the relevant variables involved.
Not all problems are reduced to numbers. Statistical inferences are often problematic, as the correlation fallacy has shown. As I said before, defining the relevance of variables, making the selection and giving weight to them is not a mathematical issue, but a qualitative judgement in which subjective bias apply.
Spectrum wrote: I don't believe the Crusaders justified their actions from the sayings of Jesus. The Crusaders has no choice but to go to war and went against Jesus' command of not killing one's enemies. The Crusaders had no choice and using their own freewill went to war with the hope Jesus will forgive them with mercy since there are justifications to do so.
Actually, anything can be justified with sacred scriptures. The call of Pope Urban II for the Crusaders to go to war as holy duty was no exception.
Spectrum wrote: It is a fact, in general there is no way a Christian will invoke the words of Jesus and God to justify their killing another person. We don't here of Christian killing while shouting 'God is Great' or 'Jesus-u-Akbar'.
There are Christians who kill but only when driven by their own inherent evil nature.
All I can say is you have found a way to detach yourself from the reality of the world. There's simply no other explanation for such an assertion, given the indisputable evidence of Christianity behaving exactly like Islamic terrorists do today. Just look at the activities of the Ku Klux Klan.
Spectrum wrote: Your above is a straw man.

There are tons of research demonstrating evil elements in media, movies, sports, computer games, videos, etc. are triggering the vulnerable evil prone [especially children and certain adults] to commit evil acts. This is why there is censorship, PG ratings or banning of certain evil laden elements in various communicating medias.
There are tons of research demonstrating exactly the opposite.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

Count Lucanor wrote: February 20th, 2018, 11:32 pm
Spectrum wrote:Btw, I claim 'objectivity' = 'intersubjectivity'.
There is no absolute objectivity that is totally unconditional.

The Golden Rule is intersubjective because it is inferred intersubjectively no human will want others to do evil to oneself [exceptions discounted].

Thus re the concept of evil, we start from the empirical and based on intersubjectivity we establish what is evil objectively. Then we use the Golden Rule [established intersubjectively] to establish an objective-evil-value for each type of evil act.
Your argument has shifted from objectivity being determined afterwards, via the Golden Rule, to being determined in a first instance. We could dismiss then the Golden Rule. But anyway, objectivity is not determined in either case. Intersubjectivity is basically an agreement. It is a necessary condition to determine the objective existence of things, however not all judgements agreed intersubjectively are about objective existence, as it is the case of moral or aesthetic judgements. I can agree with someone that this paint we have in front of us is beautiful, but that doesn't transform beauty in an objective property of the paint. The same with moral issues, even though there can be a social agreement, there's no intrinsic properties of good or evil in the acts themselves. That's because they are acts carried out by humans, they can't be detached from them, so subjectivity is always involved. You can determine that the acts exist, independent of the observers, but you cannot determine their good or evil properties as independent of the observers.
Beauty is generally subjective but it can be objectified via intersubjectivity.
What is objectified intersubjectively is always conditioned to a Framework and System.
Example, scientific knowledge is objective BUT only qualified to the Scientific Framework and System. Scientific knowledge cannot stand on its own without the necessary qualifications.

Beauty is objectified within a Miss Universe contest but qualified to the Rules imposed by the Miss Universe Organization and people who agree with it.

If two persons agree a paint is beautiful intersubjectively, it is objective but qualified only to two persons' subjective views. In this case the confidence level of objective is very low in contrast to say Scientific Knowledge.

It is the same with moral values, there is objectivity [in degrees] where there is intersubjective consensus with reference to the definition on what is morality and the degree of reason/rationality applied.

So anything can be objectified subject to the above processes and conditions.

Spectrum wrote: I claim the grounding for what is 'evil' is grounded on survival instinct. What else?
As I had stated, any deviation from the above are perversions, e.g. suicide, suicide by murder, etc. Masochism is a perversion - see DSM-V.
Against survival instinct run other instincts. Perversions are not unnatural tendencies, but resurfacing of instincts repressed by social norms, which are not universal. Many ritual practices associated with goodness in some cultures may be associated with evil in others. People were sacrificed before for the gods and people are sacrificed today for patriotism or whatever.
Survival instinct is the main set.
Any other instincts are subsets of the survival instinct.
Basically all human sacrifices are evil regardless of neccessity, time and conditions.

Spectrum wrote: Note I used the term 'Chattel Slavery' [not general slavery] and the legal enforcement of it. I understand, being humans, there will be many who will try to break the law or practice other forms of 'slavery'. The point there is an improvement in term of legality of chattel slavery in All nations.
Assuming that "general slavery", as you call it, was not a sign of decay in today's society, chattel slavery is still going strong in some African countries. Just months ago the news broke about slave trading in Libya, which is explained by political conditions and the war after US interests messed up everything. The point is we're far from transitioning to a peaceful world. There have been and probably there will always be war mongers, murderers, genocidal and terrorist minds, etc., and their actions can be either celebrated as moral or abhorred as evil by the interested parties.
Note at present, Chattel Slavery is illegal by law in all countries. This fact is an improvement over what was going on 50 years ago where in some countries Chattel Slavery was still legal.

Now that there are still people practicing chattel slavery is not the point. What they are doing [chattel slavery] at present is not legal. There are no legal provisions for anyone to practice chattel slavery legally anywhere in the world.

Spectrum wrote: I don't believe any normal person will view unjustified 'war' as a good thing to be promoted.
In which planet have you been living for your entire life? The history books are full of details about war conflicts and there's yet to find one war not promoted as justified. There's always a "good cause" for war.
I agree there are many who claimed wars were justified but deep down I believe they [the normal] wish there were no wars.
Spectrum wrote: The only exception is from Islam where war against non-believers is deem to be good as a divine duty, but universally this is an evil intent.
George Bush Jr. is known to have regarded his war endeavors in the Middle East as a divine duty. And as a Christian, he was no exception.
Anyone can make all sorts of justifications but there is no support for going to war within the NT from Jesus.
In contrast the Qu-ran condons wars against non-believers.
Spectrum wrote: I have never deny there is a complex set of variables influencing any human actions.
The critical point is there are evil acts by humans based on empirical evidence.
It is an onus on humanity to resolve, prevent and eliminate evil acts where possible.
So far, so good, but then...
Spectrum wrote: To resolve any problem, the most effective way is to quantify all the relevant variables involved.
Not all problems are reduced to numbers. Statistical inferences are often problematic, as the correlation fallacy has shown. As I said before, defining the relevance of variables, making the selection and giving weight to them is not a mathematical issue, but a qualitative judgement in which subjective bias apply.
To resolve any problem all variables identified MUST be reduced to numbers. One has to try one's best and qualify any limitations, then subject it to continuous improvements.

nb: Whatever is done by computers, notable AI has to be quantified.
Spectrum wrote: I don't believe the Crusaders justified their actions from the sayings of Jesus. The Crusaders has no choice but to go to war and went against Jesus' command of not killing one's enemies. The Crusaders had no choice and using their own freewill went to war with the hope Jesus will forgive them with mercy since there are justifications to do so.
Actually, anything can be justified with sacred scriptures. The call of Pope Urban II for the Crusaders to go to war as holy duty was no exception.
A Christian cannot override the maxim, 'To love your enemy' and thus if they ever go to war and kill anyone they will have to answer for it and hope for God's mercy and accept their justification.
Spectrum wrote: It is a fact, in general there is no way a Christian will invoke the words of Jesus and God to justify their killing another person. We don't here of Christian killing while shouting 'God is Great' or 'Jesus-u-Akbar'.
There are Christians who kill but only when driven by their own inherent evil nature.
All I can say is you have found a way to detach yourself from the reality of the world. There's simply no other explanation for such an assertion, given the indisputable evidence of Christianity behaving exactly like Islamic terrorists do today. Just look at the activities of the Ku Klux Klan.
Note the reality, there are still Christians who kills, rapes and commit all sorts of evil but such acts are not condoned by the NT at all.
Thus what the KKK did has nothing to do with Christianity and its doctrines.
It is the same with Buddhists in Myanmar who killed but such evil acts are never condoned by Buddhism per se.

OTOH, Muslims who killed can easily quote the verses to support their evil acts as a divine duty to Allah.
Spectrum wrote: Your above is a straw man.
There are tons of research demonstrating evil elements in media, movies, sports, computer games, videos, etc. are triggering the vulnerable evil prone [especially children and certain adults] to commit evil acts. This is why there is censorship, PG ratings or banning of certain evil laden elements in various communicating medias.
There are tons of research demonstrating exactly the opposite.
The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions

While it is difficult to determine which children who have experienced televised violence are at greatest risk, there appears to be a strong correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior within vulnerable "at risk" segments of youth.
https://www.aacap.org/aacap/Medical_Stu ... tions.aspx
The above is one example of my claim.
There are tons of others.

Show me one link to support your opposite claim, i.e. violence in media have no influence whatsoever on people.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Spectrum wrote:Beauty is generally subjective but it can be objectified via intersubjectivity.
What is objectified intersubjectively is always conditioned to a Framework and System.
Example, scientific knowledge is objective BUT only qualified to the Scientific Framework and System. Scientific knowledge cannot stand on its own without the necessary qualifications.
What is objective in scientific knowledge are the properties of the world, as they are claimed to exist independently of the observers. In that sense they are facts of the world. To this knowledge we arrive intersubjectively AND with a methodology that makes sure the statements of truth are verifiable by any other other observer and thus, remaining objective. It is this methodological framework and the set of truths it produces that constitute the system of science. If all that was needed for things to be objective was a mere convention, then any dogmatic claim about the world would be objective and science would be another dogmatic system, which of course it isn't.

Things are objective or subjective by their own nature. Aesthetic and moral reasoning are intrinsically subjective, as the properties assigned to objects or actions under this type of assesment are not independent of the observers. There are no moral or aesthetic facts.

Spectrum wrote: Beauty is objectified within a Miss Universe contest but qualified to the Rules imposed by the Miss Universe Organization and people who agree with it.

If two persons agree a paint is beautiful intersubjectively, it is objective but qualified only to two persons' subjective views. In this case the confidence level of objective is very low in contrast to say Scientific Knowledge.

It is the same with moral values, there is objectivity [in degrees] where there is intersubjective consensus with reference to the definition on what is morality and the degree of reason/rationality applied.

So anything can be objectified subject to the above processes and conditions.
Note that you're confusing objectification with objectivisation. Anyway, agreement is not what makes a property to be objective, unless it is shown that the property exists independently of the observers and of the agreement. Otherwise, the world simply would not have objective properties. The phone I have in my hands would not have objective existence unless I convinced someone else in the world that it exists, but the truth is that it exists objectively, independently of what I do, think or say. That people make aesthetic and moral judgements is an objective truth. That the properties claimed in those judgements exist independently of the observers, is not the case.
Spectrum wrote: Survival instinct is the main set.
Any other instincts are subsets of the survival instinct.
Basically all human sacrifices are evil regardless of neccessity, time and conditions.
There are plenty of situations, such as moral dilemmas, which show that survival instinct is not the ruling principle of moral reasoning and human action. Love for your children, for example, can easily override any survival instinct. But according to your claim that "all human sacrifices are evil regardless of neccessity, time and conditions", if I die trying to save my neighbor's children, I'm commiting a despicable evil act. Firefighters, who are always willing to sacrifice their lives, would be evil. People appointing them as firefighters will be evil, too. It doesn't make sense. And how about the Christian god sacrificing his earthly son? Isn't that evil, too?

Spectrum wrote: Note at present, Chattel Slavery is illegal by law in all countries. This fact is an improvement over what was going on 50 years ago where in some countries Chattel Slavery was still legal.

Now that there are still people practicing chattel slavery is not the point. What they are doing [chattel slavery] at present is not legal. There are no legal provisions for anyone to practice chattel slavery legally anywhere in the world.
Let's assume that it is not legal in all places. Yet, it was legal and morally justified before, extensively. That goes to the point that no moral compass is fixed, universal. Therefore, any purported measurement of evil would need to take into account that it's looking at a changing picture, not only in time, but also in terms of the criteria used to define the variables. As I said repeteadly, when dealing with social issues, such criteria is quite subjective and will not yield definite conclusions about objective properties to be found in the statistical sample.
Spectrum wrote: I agree there are many who claimed wars were justified but deep down I believe they [the normal] wish there were no wars.
"Deep down", "believe" and "normal wish" are not serious arguments.
Spectrum wrote: Anyone can make all sorts of justifications but there is no support for going to war within the NT from Jesus.
In contrast the Qu-ran condons wars against non-believers.
I see you conveniently left out the rest of the Bible, as if it had nothing to do with Christians, perhaps being aware of the genocidal endeavors in which the Christian god supposedly engaged himself or commanded his people to do in his name. Not to mention the other evil acts committed for the sake of his divine plan for humanity.
Spectrum wrote: To resolve any problem all variables identified MUST be reduced to numbers. One has to try one's best and qualify any limitations, then subject it to continuous improvements.

nb: Whatever is done by computers, notable AI has to be quantified.
That's an old fallacy and why the failure of empirism.
Spectrum wrote: A Christian cannot override the maxim, 'To love your enemy' and thus if they ever go to war and kill anyone they will have to answer for it and hope for God's mercy and accept their justification.
The issue here is not whether you think Christians cannot override a maxim or not. The issue is that they do override them, that they find justification for it, and that it shows the relativism of moral rules.
Spectrum wrote: Note the reality, there are still Christians who kills, rapes and commit all sorts of evil but such acts are not condoned by the NT at all.
Thus what the KKK did has nothing to do with Christianity and its doctrines.
It is the same with Buddhists in Myanmar who killed but such evil acts are never condoned by Buddhism per se.

OTOH, Muslims who killed can easily quote the verses to support their evil acts as a divine duty to Allah.
Such acts are condoned by the Bible many times. The OT, a decalogue of violence, is still considered by Christians as sacred scripture and it is often cited in church sermons. Right wing extremists and other violent groups in the US have often tied their political agendas with their religious morality. Religious differences have regularly been the cause of social conflicts, of which Catholics and Protestants are no exception (as the case in Northern Ireland). And if you look at the NT, it is not love and peace from beginning to end. Have you read Matthew 10?:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

What makes this any less promotional of violence for a Christian extremist?

Spectrum wrote: The above is one example of my claim.
There are tons of others.

Show me one link to support your opposite claim, i.e. violence in media have no influence whatsoever on people.
First, note that the referenced study talks about aggressive behavior, not about "triggering people to commit evil acts", as you claimed in support of the stimulus-response theory and behaviorism. In other words, it is not the same to contribute to a general environment of conflictive behavior, for which many other factors contribute, than to claim that specific criminal activities are directly caused by the corresponding stimulus. I've been exposed since childhood to practically the same media content present in US society and I'm not planning to harm anybody. The very same link you provided acknowledges that "the causes of youth violence are multifactorial and include such variables as poverty, family psychopathology, child abuse, exposure to domestic and community violence, substance abuse and other psychiatric disorders...". If you look at the stated factors, they are not independent of each other and themselves are derived from multiple circumstances. This places the understanding of the causes of each particular action in a very narrow context where the individual agent acts. That's why only individuals are held accountable of crimes. It's pressumed that under the same conditions, they have a choice. So, I have never claimed media cannot have any influence whatsoever, but influence and actually triggering events are different things.

Secondly, what I just said above explains why studies disagree in what is the relation between violence in media and actual crime statistics. Below, examples of such disagreements:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/virt ... lence.aspx
Opponents of this view find fault with the research and point to other studies and meta-analyses that they say show no link between violent media and aggression. At the least, they say, more research is needed before anyone starts legislating based on the science. At the worst, they argue, people are skewing the data to support a personal or political agenda.
APA was invited to submit a brief, but after a review of the literature, the association concluded it was premature to advise the court on research-based links between violent video games and problematic behavior in the context of a First Amendment challenge. Breckler explained that although most of the research in this area supports a connection between violent games and aggression, there is also some credible research to the contrary, and APA concluded that there was not a basis to weigh in with the Supreme Court given the nature of the relevant research and the legal issues at question.

In the end, Breckler says, only more research can settle the matter.
http://criminology.oxfordre.com/view/10 ... 4079-e-189
The study of media effects is informed by a variety of theoretical perspectives and spans many disciplines including communications and media studies, psychology, medicine, sociology, and criminology. Decades of research have amassed on the topic, yet there is no clear agreement about the impact of media or about which methodologies are most appropriate. Instead, there continues to be disagreement about whether media portrayals of violence are a serious problem and, if so, how society should respond.
Overall, a causal link between media exposure and violent criminal behavior has yet to be validated, and most researchers steer clear of making such causal assumptions. Instead, many emphasize that media does not directly cause aggression and violence so much as operate as a risk factor among other variables (Bushman & Anderson, 2015; Warburton, 2014).
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

Count Lucanor wrote: February 22nd, 2018, 8:33 pm
Spectrum wrote:Beauty is generally subjective but it can be objectified via intersubjectivity.
What is objectified intersubjectively is always conditioned to a Framework and System.
Example, scientific knowledge is objective BUT only qualified to the Scientific Framework and System. Scientific knowledge cannot stand on its own without the necessary qualifications.
What is objective in scientific knowledge are the properties of the world, as they are claimed to exist independently of the observers. In that sense they are facts of the world. To this knowledge we arrive intersubjectively AND with a methodology that makes sure the statements of truth are verifiable by any other other observer and thus, remaining objective. It is this methodological framework and the set of truths it produces that constitute the system of science. If all that was needed for things to be objective was a mere convention, then any dogmatic claim about the world would be objective and science would be another dogmatic system, which of course it isn't.

Things are objective or subjective by their own nature. Aesthetic and moral reasoning are intrinsically subjective, as the properties assigned to objects or actions under this type of assessment are not independent of the observers. There are no moral or aesthetic facts.
What you are trying to bring in is Philosophical Realism which is not a tenable theory at all for reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Nope, Realism (Philosophical) is only an assumption in Science that things exist independent of the observers. This assumption is relaxed for the observers' effect and Quantum Physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... to-reality
Things are objective or subjective by their own nature.
Nope, things are objective or subjective as defined by their Framework and System which are established by subjects, thus ultimately subjective.
There is no way anyone can nail the 'own nature' or thing-in-itself of anything.
At the most fundamental level, it is always subjective, i.e. conditioned by subjects as argued in Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.

Spectrum wrote: Beauty is objectified within a Miss Universe contest but qualified to the Rules imposed by the Miss Universe Organization and people who agree with it.

If two persons agree a paint is beautiful intersubjectively, it is objective but qualified only to two persons' subjective views. In this case the confidence level of objective is very low in contrast to say Scientific Knowledge.

It is the same with moral values, there is objectivity [in degrees] where there is intersubjective consensus with reference to the definition on what is morality and the degree of reason/rationality applied.

So anything can be objectified subject to the above processes and conditions.
Note that you're confusing objectification with objectivisation. Anyway, agreement is not what makes a property to be objective, unless it is shown that the property exists independently of the observers and of the agreement. Otherwise, the world simply would not have objective properties. The phone I have in my hands would not have objective existence unless I convinced someone else in the world that it exists, but the truth is that it exists objectively, independently of what I do, think or say. That people make aesthetic and moral judgements is an objective truth. That the properties claimed in those judgements exist independently of the observers, is not the case.
There is no absolute objectivity as in Philosophical Realism.
The world has objective properties because the subjects make it so via intersubjective consensus [explicitly or implicitly].
The phone is objective in one sense, but it is made by subjects at the fundamental level, thus we cannot get rid of the subjective [subjects] elements at all. Therefore what is a phone is objective in one sense but ultimately it is intersubjective.
As for morality there can be absolute objective moral laws and subjective ethical maxims. This is a complex subject to engage here.
Spectrum wrote: Survival instinct is the main set.
Any other instincts are subsets of the survival instinct.
Basically all human sacrifices are evil regardless of neccessity, time and conditions.
There are plenty of situations, such as moral dilemmas, which show that survival instinct is not the ruling principle of moral reasoning and human action. Love for your children, for example, can easily override any survival instinct. But according to your claim that "all human sacrifices are evil regardless of neccessity, time and conditions", if I die trying to save my neighbor's children, I'm commiting a despicable evil act. Firefighters, who are always willing to sacrifice their lives, would be evil. People appointing them as firefighters will be evil, too. It doesn't make sense. And how about the Christian god sacrificing his earthly son? Isn't that evil, too?
It is an exception and I agree the 'instinct to ensure the survival of the child' can override the instinct of the parents' own survival. But basically this is still reducible to survival instinct but of different people in this exception.

Re human sacrifices I meant all the forced kinds or even if someone volunteer to sacrifice themselves to please their God to gain various favors for themselves [suicide bombers] their kins or people..
Firefighters do not deliberately sacrifice themselves but merely some die accidentally and unfortunately in the course of their duty. I don't think you will deliberately sacrifice your live to save your neighbors children. At most you have taken a calculated risk.

The Christian God sacrificing his own Son is 'fake news'. I have argued God is illusory and impossible to exists as real.

Spectrum wrote: Note at present, Chattel Slavery is illegal by law in all countries. This fact is an improvement over what was going on 50 years ago where in some countries Chattel Slavery was still legal.
Now that there are still people practicing chattel slavery is not the point. What they are doing [chattel slavery] at present is not legal. There are no legal provisions for anyone to practice chattel slavery legally anywhere in the world.
Let's assume that it is not legal in all places. Yet, it was legal and morally justified before, extensively. That goes to the point that no moral compass is fixed, universal. Therefore, any purported measurement of evil would need to take into account that it's looking at a changing picture, not only in time, but also in terms of the criteria used to define the variables. As I said repetedly, when dealing with social issues, such criteria is quite subjective and will not yield definite conclusions about objective properties to be found in the statistical sample.
I did not claim a moral compass is fixed and universal.
In terms of 'Chattel Slavery' it is one example to a positive trend towards some kind of objectivity [in this case legal].
Therefore it is possible for all other moral values to reach the highest possible level of objectivity to act as a guide for ethical actions.
Spectrum wrote: I agree there are many who claimed wars were justified but deep down I believe they [the normal] wish there were no wars.
"Deep down", "believe" and "normal wish" are not serious arguments.
Agree, it is not a serious argument but its my own conviction it is true. I don't have the statistics, but show me any normal person who want war for its own sake and pleasure.
Spectrum wrote: Anyone can make all sorts of justifications but there is no support for going to war within the NT from Jesus.
In contrast the Qu-ran condones wars against non-believers.
I see you conveniently left out the rest of the Bible, as if it had nothing to do with Christians, perhaps being aware of the genocidal endeavors in which the Christian god supposedly engaged himself or commanded his people to do in his name. Not to mention the other evil acts committed for the sake of his divine plan for humanity.
The Bible in its whole context has an overriding pacifist maxim otherwise there would be contradictions with those that seemingly condone evil?
Spectrum wrote: To resolve any problem all variables identified MUST be reduced to numbers. One has to try one's best and qualify any limitations, then subject it to continuous improvements.
nb: Whatever is done by computers, notable AI has to be quantified.
That's an old fallacy and why the failure of empirism.
Odd - what has empiricism to do with the above?
If you do not engage in empiricism, it is likely to resorting to the supernaturals.

Spectrum wrote: A Christian cannot override the maxim, 'To love your enemy' and thus if they ever go to war and kill anyone they will have to answer for it and hope for God's mercy and accept their justification.
The issue here is not whether you think Christians cannot override a maxim or not. The issue is that they do override them, that they find justification for it, and that it shows the relativism of moral rules.
If a Christian were to kill his enemy [based on own justification], what do you think Jesus or God would say to them when they meet with God on Judgment Day?
Spectrum wrote: Note the reality, there are still Christians who kills, rapes and commit all sorts of evil but such acts are not condoned by the NT at all.
Thus what the KKK did has nothing to do with Christianity and its doctrines.
It is the same with Buddhists in Myanmar who killed but such evil acts are never condoned by Buddhism per se.

OTOH, Muslims who killed can easily quote the verses to support their evil acts as a divine duty to Allah.
Such acts are condoned by the Bible many times. The OT, a decalogue of violence, is still considered by Christians as sacred scripture and it is often cited in church sermons. Right wing extremists and other violent groups in the US have often tied their political agendas with their religious morality. Religious differences have regularly been the cause of social conflicts, of which Catholics and Protestants are no exception (as the case in Northern Ireland). And if you look at the NT, it is not love and peace from beginning to end. Have you read Matthew 10?:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

What makes this any less promotional of violence for a Christian extremist?
Note the counter explanation to 10:34
www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlands ... _10_34.htm
A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Matthew 10:34
At first glance it indeed appears that Jesus encourages violence and calls his disciples to practice it, presumably righteous violence. But appearances can be deceiving. A text without a context often becomes a pretext, as the old saying goes. Once this verse is read in its historical and literary contexts, the meaning will change.
I have read of many defense from Christians against the many cherry-picked verses accusing Christianity of being violent when as per its central ethos, it is not violent.

The point is the overriding ethos of the NT is pacifist in contrast to Islam which is aggression and violence against non-believers.
Spectrum wrote: The above is one example of my claim.
There are tons of others.

Show me one link to support your opposite claim, i.e. violence in media have no influence whatsoever on people.
First, note that the referenced study talks about aggressive behavior, not about "triggering people to commit evil acts", as you claimed in support of the stimulus-response theory and behaviorism. In other words, it is not the same to contribute to a general environment of conflictive behavior, for which many other factors contribute, than to claim that specific criminal activities are directly caused by the corresponding stimulus. I've been exposed since childhood to practically the same media content present in US society and I'm not planning to harm anybody. The very same link you provided acknowledges that "the causes of youth violence are multifactorial and include such variables as poverty, family psychopathology, child abuse, exposure to domestic and community violence, substance abuse and other psychiatric disorders...". If you look at the stated factors, they are not independent of each other and themselves are derived from multiple circumstances. This places the understanding of the causes of each particular action in a very narrow context where the individual agent acts. That's why only individuals are held accountable of crimes. It's pressumed that under the same conditions, they have a choice. So, I have never claimed media cannot have any influence whatsoever, but influence and actually triggering events are different things.

Secondly, what I just said above explains why studies disagree in what is the relation between violence in media and actual crime statistics. Below, examples of such disagreements:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/virt ... lence.aspx
Opponents of this view find fault with the research and point to other studies and meta-analyses that they say show no link between violent media and aggression. At the least, they say, more research is needed before anyone starts legislating based on the science. At the worst, they argue, people are skewing the data to support a personal or political agenda.
APA was invited to submit a brief, but after a review of the literature, the association concluded it was premature to advise the court on research-based links between violent video games and problematic behavior in the context of a First Amendment challenge. Breckler explained that although most of the research in this area supports a connection between violent games and aggression, there is also some credible research to the contrary, and APA concluded that there was not a basis to weigh in with the Supreme Court given the nature of the relevant research and the legal issues at question.

In the end, Breckler says, only more research can settle the matter.
http://criminology.oxfordre.com/view/10 ... 4079-e-189
The study of media effects is informed by a variety of theoretical perspectives and spans many disciplines including communications and media studies, psychology, medicine, sociology, and criminology. Decades of research have amassed on the topic, yet there is no clear agreement about the impact of media or about which methodologies are most appropriate. Instead, there continues to be disagreement about whether media portrayals of violence are a serious problem and, if so, how society should respond.
Overall, a causal link between media exposure and violent criminal behavior has yet to be validated, and most researchers steer clear of making such causal assumptions. Instead, many emphasize that media does not directly cause aggression and violence so much as operate as a risk factor among other variables (Bushman & Anderson, 2015; Warburton, 2014).
Noted your links which related to a decision to enact related laws but only confined to a State in the USA, i.e.
“There may well be a solid argument for an effect, but what the courts are interested in is how broad the effect is, how deep it is and whether it will result in socially meaningful levels of aggression,” he says. “I just don’t think the court is going to buy the evidence we have at this time to reach the strict scrutiny standard they’d need to uphold the California law.”
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/virt ... lence.aspx
Nevertheless, all over the world, there are laws against violent and other evil materials in media. Even in the US there are various forms of regulation on violent in medias.
The United States government had taken several steps to keep violent content on the internet away from children, but has not taken steps to eradicate it completely.
https://entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/ce ... t-content/
In Germany, there are several laws and legal and administrative regulations restricting presentation and propagation of violence in mass media. They have proven to be partly effective.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3907001150
You may have been exposed to violence your whole life but have not committed any violent act, but there is because you are not one of those 20% who are born with an active evil tendency.

If you do not agree violence in media will influence children and vulnerable adults to commit evil, will you allow your children to be exposed to the most violent materials in various medias they access?
Would you allow your children to a Muslim and mingle or join a jihadi cell?

Note you were lucky yourself, but you cannot be certain your children are one of those 20% who are born with an active evil tendency.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Spectrum wrote: What you are trying to bring in is Philosophical Realism which is not a tenable theory at all for reality...
Spectrum wrote: Nope, Realism (Philosophical) is only an assumption in Science that things exist independent of the observers...
Spectrum wrote: Nope, things are objective or subjective as defined by their Framework and System which are established by subjects, thus ultimately subjective.
So, after these few paragraphs taking the hard line on anti-realism, solipsism and quantum woo woo...you brazenly follow the next line with a blatant contradiction:
Spectrum wrote:As for morality there can be absolute objective moral laws and subjective ethical maxims.
Either solipsism or realism. Either relative objectivity or absolute objectivity. You cannot have both and you just argued against realism and absolute objectivity. So in order to be consistent with yourself, you are forced to say that there can't be absolute objective moral laws.
Spectrum wrote: It is an exception and I agree the 'instinct to ensure the survival of the child' can override the instinct of the parents' own survival. But basically this is still reducible to survival instinct but of different people in this exception.
But this is not a rare "exception". Moral dilemmas are quite common and they show that for guidance in actions, there is no unifying principle based on instincts. Moral judgement is context-sensitive.
Spectrum wrote: Re human sacrifices I meant all the forced kinds or even if someone volunteer to sacrifice themselves to please their God to gain various favors for themselves [suicide bombers] their kins or people.. Firefighters do not deliberately sacrifice themselves but merely some die accidentally and unfortunately in the course of their duty.
If people know that their voluntary actions will result in their death or in a high probability of their death, then they are acting against the "survival instinct" that you said was the commanding principle of human action and a key factor in identifying evil.
Spectrum wrote: I don't think you will deliberately sacrifice your live to save your neighbors children. At most you have taken a calculated risk.
And why this "calculated risk" at the expense of one's own life is not to be taken into account for your "evil potential", since you said the sacrifice was evil under any circumstance?
There are plenty of examples of people deliberately sacrificing their lives for others. Haven't you heard of the highly praised secret service agents that protect US presidents and have willingly taken bullets for them? Did you know about the football coach that took bullets to protect children in the recent Florida mass shooting?
Spectrum wrote: The Christian God sacrificing his own Son is 'fake news'.
Well, actually the entire Bible is fake news.
Spectrum wrote: I don't have the statistics, but show me any normal person who want war for its own sake and pleasure.
If there's something history is full of is warmongers. There's no need that they want it for its own sake and pleasure. They surely love it AND also pursue specific interests. Isn't that what power is all about?
Spectrum wrote: The Bible in its whole context has an overriding pacifist maxim otherwise there would be contradictions with those that seemingly condone evil
The Bible is a collection of legends, pieced together with many flaws, inconsistencies and contradictions, so there's no conclusive interpretation and an all-encompassing moral context. It can give you a peaceful message next to a violent one. But violent ones dominate its narrative.
Spectrum wrote: Odd - what has empiricism to do with the above?
If you do not engage in empiricism, it is likely to resorting to the supernaturals.
A purely inductive science, or that pretended to be, will be a failure. Thus, the distinction between empiricism and positivism, or between logical empiricism and empiricism.
Spectrum wrote: If a Christian were to kill his enemy [based on own justification], what do you think Jesus or God would say to them when they meet with God on Judgment Day?
I think he would say: "OK, look, Jesus and God, I really hope you're not here to judge my actions based on your messages in sacred scriptures and the preachers you sent. I mean, you really screwed up big time in communications. I'm pretty sure you liked war and you did a good bunch of genocides yourself. Look at Joshua down there enjoying heaven. So don't come here now to lecture me on peace, you little devils!!"
Spectrum wrote: Note the counter explanation to 10:34
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/ ... _10_34.htm
A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Matthew 10:34
At first glance it indeed appears that Jesus encourages violence and calls his disciples to practice it, presumably righteous violence. But appearances can be deceiving. A text without a context often becomes a pretext, as the old saying goes. Once this verse is read in its historical and literary contexts, the meaning will change.
I have read of many defense from Christians against the many cherry-picked verses accusing Christianity of being violent when as per its central ethos, it is not violent.

The point is the overriding ethos of the NT is pacifist in contrast to Islam which is aggression and violence against non-believers.
That's exactly what most Bible apologists do: cherry-picking and calling the bad verses "metaphors". And that's also what Islamists do to say the Quran has a peaceful and loving ethos:
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/6-quran ... -religion/
Even so, it's not my argument that Quran or the Bible are better or worse compared to each other. The point is that both texts can serve for justification of violence, just the same that they are used to justify peace.
Spectrum wrote: Noted your links which related to a decision to enact related laws but only confined to a State in the USA, i.e.
Spectrum wrote: Nevertheless, all over the world, there are laws against violent and other evil materials in media. Even in the US there are various forms of regulation on violent in medias.
But they are laws regulating them, not making them prohibited, which is what you would expect if they were the direct cause of violence. In fact, while everyone agrees that violence in media has increased, it doesn't seem to correlate with increased real criminal violence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ ... mass_media
8.Media violence rates are not correlated with violent crime rates. One limitation of theories linking media violence to societal violence is that media violence (which appears to have been consistently and unfailingly on the rise since the 1950s) should be correlated with violent crime (which has been cycling up and down throughout human history). By discussing only the data from the 1950s through the 1990s, media violence researchers create the illusion that there is a correlation, when in fact there is not. Large spikes in violent crime in the United States occurred without associated media violence spikes during the 1880s (when records were first kept) and 1930s. The homicide rate in the United States has never been higher than during the 1930s. Similarly, this theory fails to explain why violent crime rates (including among juveniles) dramatically fell in the mid 1990s and have stayed low, during a time when media violence has continued to increase, and saw the addition of violent video games. Lastly media violence researchers can not explain why many countries with media violence rates similar to or equal to the U.S. (such as Norway, Canada, Japan, etc.) have much lower violent crime rates. Huesmann & Eron's own cross-national study (which is often cited in support of media violence effects) failed to find a link between television violence and aggressive behavior in most of the countries included in the analysis (including America, and even in studies on American boys).
Spectrum wrote: You may have been exposed to violence your whole life but have not committed any violent act, but there is because you are not one of those 20% who are born with an active evil tendency.
As I said before, there is no factual basis for your assertion.
Spectrum wrote:If you do not agree violence in media will influence children and vulnerable adults to commit evil, will you allow your children to be exposed to the most violent materials in various medias they access?
I just don't want them exposed to any material that is not edifying, but that includes the Kardashians and distasteful music videos. Violence in media, anyway, is ubiquitous, so it's almost impossible to avoid access to such material. Nowadays, even if you go to see a religious movie you'll find the screen splattered with blood.
Spectrum wrote: Would you allow your children to a Muslim and mingle or join a jihadi cell?
Would you allow yours to join the army? What's the difference?
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

I think we are going off topic re OP.
Noted all the points you raised.

My point is, if there are no serious exceptions re ALL human variables, then The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve is most likely to be applicable to any human variables.
My focus earlier was on the human variable of the degrees 'human evilness.'

With a reasonable degree of confidence level, I have applied that to human sexuality;
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 05#p305905
I don't have actual statistics, but yes human sexuality of the 7 billion humans of the present + those who had died [given such a large population] is very likely to follow the pattern of the Normal Distribution.
Human sexuality operates on a gradation, i.e. along a continuum.
I will have reasonable confidence to apply to any other human variables for the whole of the human population.
Count Lucanor wrote: February 24th, 2018, 11:42 pm Either solipsism or realism. Either relative objectivity or absolute objectivity. You cannot have both and you just argued against realism and absolute objectivity. So in order to be consistent with yourself, you are forced to say that there can't be absolute objective moral laws.
I will address the above point.
I agree with dualism where applicable. To have an either/or view is too restrictive and not pragmatic.

But in another perspective we need to entangle the opposites in a complementary basis.
Note the complementarity principles of the Tao with Yin-Yang where Bohr had used to reconcile opposities within Quantum Physics.

Image

There are no ontological absolute objective moral laws existing independently of humans or from a God.
But there is nothing to stop us from generating absolute moral laws by thoughts [thinking], i.e. reason and understanding that such absolutes are not empirically real and are impossible ideals.

Note this;
  • The efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) is a theory in financial economics that states that asset prices fully reflect ALL available information. -wiki
'ALL' in this case imply 100% of whatever is relevant to the point.
Obviously 'ALL' or 100% is an impossible absolute in realty but nevertheless it is thought of and imputed within the above hypothesis to highlight a gap.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Count Lucanor »

You have gone full Eastern and quantum stuff now. For me that's all pseudoscience and actually contradicts the basic assumptions of the OP, which should have undermined the "reasonable confidence" in your stats. Good luck with your research.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021