Originally posted by HumeAWhy would someone accept the "moral" of a story that is manifestly untrue? Presumably the moral is a conclusion or lesson to be drawn from the events in the story; if the events in the story are inaccurate, how can you draw a valid conclusion from them?
Why?
You need to subscribe to Science to read their articles online, so I can't gain access to the article. However, one of the co-authors wrote an article on the same subject in American Scientist and it is presented here:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=true&print=yes
Originally posted by HumeAI think you will find that discussing morality is not one of his stronger points.
The only thing that the later date of colonisation means is that the Islanders began their destruction of the environment sooner, it doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
The facts don't have to be 100% in order for an analogy to be correct. It just means that it might be slightly more anagorical... if the data is untrue, that is, which is something that you can't prove. The moral remains the same.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Originally posted by no1marauderCodswallop. You can take a moral from a story that is entirely untrue (How about Jesus' parables?). Of course there can be a moral here, even if the facts are not definitively proven.
Why would someone accept the "moral" of a story that is manifestly untrue? Presumably the moral is a conclusion or lesson to be drawn from the events in the story; if the events in the story are inaccurate, how can you draw a valid conclusion from them?
You need to subscribe to Science to read their articles online, so I can't gain access t ...[text shortened]...
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=true&print=yes:
Edit: I do not have time now, but will read that article later, it looks interesting.
Originally posted by HumeAPerhaps I should amend that to say that the moral from a story with allegedly true facts which turn out to be untrue is useless. The true facts might lead to a moral directly opposed to the "moral" gleaned from the untrue one.
Codswallop. You can take a moral from a story that is entirely untrue (How about Jesus' parables?). Of course there can be a moral here, even if the facts are not definitively proven.
Edit: I do not have time now, but will read that article later, it looks interesting.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Originally posted by no1marauderThat can be true, but Hunt's version, however, if correct, would not provide a 'directly opposed moral.
Perhaps I should amend that to say that the moral from a story with allegedly true facts which turn out to be untrue is useless. The true facts might lead to a moral directly opposed to the "moral" gleaned from the untrue one.
Originally posted by HumeAdid you see the movie?
The short version of the story goes like this...
People come on boats to Easter Island, quite possibly the most remote place on this earth, bringing some supplies with them, some animals to breed, and some plants to grow, etc. But with the main intent to live off the land. They cut trees down down to engage in a little bit of arable farming, all is happy. T ...[text shortened]... le I have never been an enviromentalist, this little bit of history has been making me think...
The Hunt article cited states this:
I believe that the world faces today an unprecedented global environmental crisis, and I see the usefulness of historical examples of the pitfalls of environmental destruction. So it was with some unease that I concluded that Rapa Nui does not provide such a model. But as a scientist I cannot ignore the problems with the accepted narrative of the island's prehistory. Mistakes or exaggerations in arguments for protecting the environment only lead to oversimplified answers and hurt the cause of environmentalism. We will end up wondering why our simple answers were not enough to make a difference in confronting today's problems.
I agree with you whole-heartedly HumeA. I don't see how some miss the blatantly obvious analogy that's happening here.
Stop arguing about the facts and realise that they don't have to be 100% correct in order to make a point. Regardless of whether it's true or not it's looking suspiciously similar to the situation we're currently in: unnesscesarily wasting resources that we rely on to survive. This could very well happen to our society as we know it.
There are 2 possible outcomes that could result out of the paths our civilization has taken: either the world goes to waste, resulting in mass famine, drought, war, deforestation, et. al., OR it goes on as is, with no major consequences. The facts are increasingly saying that we are going the way of the former. Even if it doesn't go this way, and all turns out fine, it'd be a much safer bet if we played it safe and cut back on this trend at least a little bit. I'd much rather sacrifice a little bit of luxury for our civilization to survive for longer than the next 100 years.