4 ms·

How exactly are you defining a "recognition of danger"? I ask because I'm trying to grant the greatest possible latitude to generously interpreting your statem

How exactly are you defining a "recognition of danger"? I ask because I'm trying to grant the greatest possible latitude to generously interpreting your statement. And that, for me, is quite a stretch, given that I feel you are moving the goalposts in a very significant fashion with the modifier of "incorrectly attributed to the supernatural". To quite a seemingly intellectually and rationally dishonest degree. I get the sense you are building your argumentative trenches behind your restatement of "correct attribution", which involves way too much application of modern knowledge (and forgiveness) to past errors.

dllthomas 10y ago
I'm not "building argumentative trenches" - you made a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration. As any of those would have been interesting, I asked for some. I didn't intend to say you were wrong. I'm not sure what definition I can give that would clarify matters, but an example of "a recognition of danger with incorrect attribution of cause" would be something like "a community was affected by a particularly visible STI; someone noticed that it was afflicting those who were more promiscuous; decided promiscuity was being punished and therefore bad." I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction. That doesn't mean it's likely - any specific story is unlikely, a priori.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  It is quite curious to me that making a statement about the available historical record is interpreted as making "a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration." Do you make the same charge when someone says the ideas of Isaac Newton predated those of Albert Einstein? The historical record is there for you to interrogate and understand on your own. Given that you're suggesting a scenario that is far more difficult to prove than what the historical record shows us, I think the burden of citing examples is more squarely on your side here. There is ample historical evidence available that documents the establishment and spread of religiously motivated moral aversion to many things. Within the context of the available historical record, it can further be established when these ideas were created in relation to the history of other ideas that either supported, refuted, or otherwise informed pre-existing moral aversions. I'm making no strong claims here. I'm merely referencing the historical record. A religiously motivated moral and social aversion that demanded women on their periods keep themselves sequestered away from others predated the works of Shakespeare. Moral aversion regarding sexuality (documented in religious texts from centuries BCE) predated recognition and discovery of STIs (which started as early as the 15th century, iirc). > I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction. The historical evidence is there! Go look at it.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    I have no idea why you are treating this as so antagonistic. > It is quite curious to me that making a statement about the available historical record is interpreted as making "a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration." I can't imagine that you think you gave explanation, evidence or elaboration. You object to my characterization of it as "a relatively strong statement"? I can weaken that language, but you made a specific claim and I was interested in it. > Do you make the same charge when someone says the ideas of Isaac Newton predated those of Albert Einstein? That is a question that is answered far more directly and far more easily, to the point that adding evidence to the conversation is not terribly interesting. So, no. > Given that you're suggesting a scenario that is far more difficult to prove than what the historical record shows us, I think the burden of citing examples is more squarely on your side here. The only claim I made was that I did not find something obvious, coupled with a request for more information. Your labeling something "my side" is confusing - my example was in pursuit of clarification you'd asked for, not something I am claiming happened. > There is ample historical evidence available that documents the establishment and spread of religiously motivated moral aversion to many things. Within the context of the available historical record, it can further be established when these ideas were created in relation to the history of other ideas that either supported, refuted, or otherwise informed pre-existing moral aversions. This is closer to the kind of elaboration I was looking for, though not at all specific. > A religiously motivated moral and social aversion that demanded women on their periods keep themselves sequestered away from others predated the works of Shakespeare. Much earlier - it's present in Leviticus and presumably predates that. I don't see that it's necessarily related, though. > Moral aversion regarding sexuality (documented in religious texts from centuries BCE) predated recognition and discovery of STIs (which started as early as the 15th century, iirc). Your timeline on "aversion to sexuality" is what I've had in mind from the start. Regarding STIs, actual germ theory came hundreds of years after that. But this is talking past my question. It is certainly the case that no one said, "Hmm, there is an affliction spreading between people by way of sexual contact - let's tell people God will punish them if they fool around." That's Einstein vs Newton thing (or Einstein vs Ptolemy). That you think it relevant evidence confuses me. "The people who did X are the ones who got sick" is not predicated on any sophisticated understanding - it's the kind of thing that keeps people away from poison berries. > The historical evidence is there! Go look at it. You basically said the evidence wasn't there, above. I read your original statement as implying you had some in mind. It's clear that you don't.

dllthomas 10y ago

I'm not "building argumentative trenches" - you made a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration. As any of those would have been interesting, I asked for some. I didn't intend to say you were wrong. I'm not sure what definition I can give that would clarify matters, but an example of "a recognition of danger with incorrect attribution of cause" would be something like "a community was affected by a particularly visible STI; someone noticed that it was afflicting those who were more promiscuous; decided promiscuity was being punished and therefore bad." I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction. That doesn't mean it's likely - any specific story is unlikely, a priori.

bobwaycott 10y ago
It is quite curious to me that making a statement about the available historical record is interpreted as making "a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration." Do you make the same charge when someone says the ideas of Isaac Newton predated those of Albert Einstein? The historical record is there for you to interrogate and understand on your own. Given that you're suggesting a scenario that is far more difficult to prove than what the historical record shows us, I think the burden of citing examples is more squarely on your side here. There is ample historical evidence available that documents the establishment and spread of religiously motivated moral aversion to many things. Within the context of the available historical record, it can further be established when these ideas were created in relation to the history of other ideas that either supported, refuted, or otherwise informed pre-existing moral aversions. I'm making no strong claims here. I'm merely referencing the historical record. A religiously motivated moral and social aversion that demanded women on their periods keep themselves sequestered away from others predated the works of Shakespeare. Moral aversion regarding sexuality (documented in religious texts from centuries BCE) predated recognition and discovery of STIs (which started as early as the 15th century, iirc). > I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction. The historical evidence is there! Go look at it.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  I have no idea why you are treating this as so antagonistic. > It is quite curious to me that making a statement about the available historical record is interpreted as making "a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration." I can't imagine that you think you gave explanation, evidence or elaboration. You object to my characterization of it as "a relatively strong statement"? I can weaken that language, but you made a specific claim and I was interested in it. > Do you make the same charge when someone says the ideas of Isaac Newton predated those of Albert Einstein? That is a question that is answered far more directly and far more easily, to the point that adding evidence to the conversation is not terribly interesting. So, no. > Given that you're suggesting a scenario that is far more difficult to prove than what the historical record shows us, I think the burden of citing examples is more squarely on your side here. The only claim I made was that I did not find something obvious, coupled with a request for more information. Your labeling something "my side" is confusing - my example was in pursuit of clarification you'd asked for, not something I am claiming happened. > There is ample historical evidence available that documents the establishment and spread of religiously motivated moral aversion to many things. Within the context of the available historical record, it can further be established when these ideas were created in relation to the history of other ideas that either supported, refuted, or otherwise informed pre-existing moral aversions. This is closer to the kind of elaboration I was looking for, though not at all specific. > A religiously motivated moral and social aversion that demanded women on their periods keep themselves sequestered away from others predated the works of Shakespeare. Much earlier - it's present in Leviticus and presumably predates that. I don't see that it's necessarily related, though. > Moral aversion regarding sexuality (documented in religious texts from centuries BCE) predated recognition and discovery of STIs (which started as early as the 15th century, iirc). Your timeline on "aversion to sexuality" is what I've had in mind from the start. Regarding STIs, actual germ theory came hundreds of years after that. But this is talking past my question. It is certainly the case that no one said, "Hmm, there is an affliction spreading between people by way of sexual contact - let's tell people God will punish them if they fool around." That's Einstein vs Newton thing (or Einstein vs Ptolemy). That you think it relevant evidence confuses me. "The people who did X are the ones who got sick" is not predicated on any sophisticated understanding - it's the kind of thing that keeps people away from poison berries. > The historical evidence is there! Go look at it. You basically said the evidence wasn't there, above. I read your original statement as implying you had some in mind. It's clear that you don't.