Originally posted by twhitehead To assume that a particular strategy is 'perfect' just because it evolved is a fallacy. For example elephants evolved a large size because it benefited them, however as circumstances change so does the cost/benefit. Thus their large size could become a burden resulting in their extinction. Similarly humans evolved intelligence, which has so far clearly be ...[text shortened]... the point where it no longer is, and it would then either evolve away or result in extinction.
That's pretty much the point I was getting at.
Addition: That and the fact that all human ingenuity comes from the
brain which is subject to mutation between generations like any other
physical property, which would explain how come we seem so special in
relation to what we know about the rest of the animal kingdom, where the
capacity for abstract thinking hasn't been as big a necessity for survival as
for humans.
Originally posted by dj2becker Are there any facts that are absolutely true?
No. Facts, as opposed to relations of ideas in a Humean sense, are observable, contingent, emprircal entities. As such they are only confirmed by probability and repetition. As far as I am concerned, the perseverence of factual knowledge is inductive in basis and as such is relative to experience.
Originally posted by dj2becker When given two statements, where one is a fact and the other is not, would you not say that the factual statement is true?
What does the "two statements" have to do with whether facts are true or not?
Originally posted by dj2becker Are facts true or not?
I may have been wrong previously. Facts are only facts when verified by
several independent sources. Before that they are merely observations that
can have to the observer external or internal causes, and when you use a
personal experience with an internal cause as a matter of fact, your truth
becomes all skewed.
Question for Atheists
22 Feb '07 09:25
Back to Top