Quote from: Desty on May 21, 2016, 03:33:33 AMIf they don't feel that they're under attack, how do they know that they are? If it's built in, then what's the difference between us and them aside from moments after we experience pain? If we feel a pain somewhere we will instinctively avoid what's causing it. Plants do the same, but they're not able to think, so the capacity to suffer isn't there for themhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulityJust because you don't understand how plants could "know" they're in danger without pain doesn't mean that they do feel pain. It just means that you don't understand something.We don't understand it, and there is absolutely no logical, rational reason to apply human logic to a plant.
If they don't feel that they're under attack, how do they know that they are? If it's built in, then what's the difference between us and them aside from moments after we experience pain? If we feel a pain somewhere we will instinctively avoid what's causing it. Plants do the same, but they're not able to think, so the capacity to suffer isn't there for them
QuoteHoly shit this part is retarded No it isn't. You probably just don't understand it.
Holy shit this part is retarded
Me: Scientific methodYou: SO WHATOk then
Is anybody else noticing that, on a lot of issues, our arguments start to boil down to the same few questions and issues over and over again?I find it encouraging. It feels like we're approaching the bedrock, our core values.
When the evidence is provided by using the scientific method, it's not pseudoscience. It's not anthropomorphism. It's real.
Just deal with it. There's no good way to eat other than completely artificial food.
For me the idea of “ultimate truth” is a bit tricky. The scientific method itself is careful to not use words like truth or fact. There are only theories that have so much supporting evidence that we determine that there is little to be gained from continuing to try to test them, so we move on. These become underpinnings of future scientific inquiry, and in general conversation we just call them “facts”.It’s a little nuanced, but ultimately it comes down to the idea that science can only really falsify a hypothesis. Tests are often constructed to prove the hypothesis false. Steve get’s into that a bit with this earlier post http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/a-quick-logic-lesson/But no matter how much evidence there is, in theory there is always the chance, sometimes vanishingly small, that we (humanity) just got it wrong in some way. And as skeptics we must always be open to the groundbreaking evidence that will prove that. Open, but not credulous. This is where the phrase “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, comes from. Some theories are going to require a whole lot more than one or two studies to overturn our assumptions about them.But I think that most people here will agree with you that Science is far and away the best system we have for approaching the truth. For my part I think it’s well worth making the distinctions about “ultimate truth” though because it reminds us of the concept of “Neuropsychological Humility” that Steve touched on in the article above.In my experience this concept of “Neuropsychological Humility” is the hurdle that even many longtime skeptics tend to stumble at (most certainly I have). The ways we fool ourselves are ongoing, and we are all susceptible to them. Being a skeptic well trained in the scientific method does not make us immune to logical fallacies, confirmation bias, placebo effects, or even plain-old pigheadedness. Constantly reminding ourselves that any “truth” can be overturned with enough evidence is not only good for our own intellectual goals, but makes more convincing and better communicators when speaking to non-skeptics.In fact I have often thought that it was exactly this kind of awareness and humility that makes Steve such a good communicator of skepticism.
They do suffer, I've already proven that.
So apart from linking a literal meme tier comment that has no relevance and explains what we already know about the scientific method, what actual evidence do you have that plants don't suffer in any way? Because they do suffer, just not in the traditional or human sense of the word.
You seriously need to mature.
Copying and pasting my posts will get you nowhere.
lmaoYou're easily one of the most immature people here.
You're like Pip tier immature. The stuff you say to people and your general attitude is beyond childish.
LOOOOOOOOOL Says the biggest sheltered kid on the website.
Dude, the most life changing experience you've had in the past year is playing Dark Souls. Get back to me when you aren't a sheltered kid who spends all day arguing on the Internet.
All I have to do is drive around to have more life experience than you lmaooooooStop being a baby.
>sheltered kid who's never even lived in another country telling me I lack life experience
I'm literally just messing with you at this point.
How do you guys feel about Slavoj Zizek
