Jump to content
Science Forums

Natural Science - Simple point?


Jway

Recommended Posts

I agree that, if you define "natural" this way, then it includes man-made artifacts. But what purpose does such a definition achieve? It is just a play on words.

 

To me, it is not merely a play on words. I actually strongly disagree with that. I believe that constructs whereby man made things are (pre)determined to be unnatural sets up a rather illogical / nonsensical paradigm of "man vs. nature." Man is natural. So, to me, it shows up as preposterous as "nature vs. nature." I wonder who wins? LOL.

 

What term would you use to mean this type of "natural" as opposed to "artificial" element?

 

Man made or man influenced. Both being natural. So, from my perspective, all artificial phenomenon is natural. Since that counters denotation of artificial, then artificial strikes me as inaccurate term.

 

Do you think that a nuclear power station exhibits intent? How about the computer I'm writing this on? Would such devices exist without intent? I think not. So I suggest that intent is observable in, at least some, artifacts.

 

Such devices, I believe, wouldn't exist without intent. My belief being key. Such devices do not exhibit intent. I do not believe intent is observable. It might be deduced, but that to me is getting into another discussion, than the simple point. The evidence for intent, I do not think, is found in the collective physical. If you believe otherwise, please provide definition of intent, and do let me know where you are actually observing that.

 

Thanks for the ongoing dialogue and challenges.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If admittedly we don't know why beavers build dams (from beaver perspective), then I think that presumes something in this discussion which is sidetracking.

That is why I said, in the text you quoted:

That is why it can be simpler to focus on man-made artifacts, as we, generally, know whether they are intentionally designed for a purpose.

 

I'm also curious why learned/intended behaviors that result in observable physical phenomena are automatically unnatural for you? This is entering, I believe, side discussion, but if the 'behavior' is deal breaker for you on consideration for 'what is natural,' then I am compelled to challenge the logic. Hoping that you keep things simple. It seems to me that learning and intention are innate behaviors of humans.

Learning and intent are innate behaviours of humans, and other sentient beings. They are not innate in the non-sentient elements of nature. By the definition of nature you choose, this distinction does not exist, but as has already been pointed out, that is just a play on words. It does not alter the distinction between "natural" causes, which exhibit event-event causation and are deterministic, and "sentient" causes, which exhibit agent causation and are indeterministic. Hence they are inherently different from "natural" causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem as I see it, Jway.

 

You have put forth a definition of natural (your simple point) that includes everything that can be sensed. It is an overarching definition and I get your point. Everyone else does too. But for this to be a discussion, it needs to go beyond that "simple point". If we all just agreed that anything man-made is also natural and everything we can possibly observe with our senses is natural, then that's it. The thread would be dead from the start. That is why others have been making distinctions between your over-arching definition (simple point) and the particulars of the many dictionary definitions for the word.

 

As I said, we can use your definition, which is not precise, for the word "natural", but that basically ends the discussion. :naughty:

 

I'd hate to see it end as I think some great points have been made and once we move past the overarching definition (and arguments against it), we can really dissect this thing in a philosophical manner. :eek2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Learning and intent are innate behaviours of humans, and other sentient beings. They are not innate in the non-sentient elements of nature. By the definition of nature you choose, this distinction does not exist, but as has already been pointed out, that is just a play on words. It does not alter the distinction between "natural" causes, which exhibit event-event causation and are deterministic, and "sentient" causes, which exhibit agent causation and are indeterministic. Hence they are inherently different from "natural" causes.

 

Are computers / devices indeterministic?

 

I beg to differ. When things are produced in the natural order, I feel they become / are deterministic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem as I see it, Jway.

 

You have put forth a definition of natural (your simple point) that includes everything that can be sensed. It is an overarching definition and I get your point. Everyone else does too. But for this to be a discussion, it needs to go beyond that "simple point". If we all just agreed that anything man-made is also natural and everything we can possibly observe with our senses is natural, then that's it. The thread would be dead from the start.

 

Not if we disagree on the simple point. As I said in OP, if we all do agree on the simple point, it is end of discussion. If you agree that all man made things are natural, then simple point is agreed upon, this thread likely sees no further posts, and I'll be okay with that. I really will.

 

That is why others have been making distinctions between your over-arching definition (simple point) and the particulars of the many dictionary definitions for the word.

 

And is why I will continue to challenge the logic of even dictionary definitions on this topic. Because a dictionary entry says: (natural means) growing without human care; also : not cultivated; this doesn't mean I accept it as logical. I understand there is that connotation. It is an illogical construct.

 

As I said, we can use your definition, which is not precise, for the word "natural", but that basically ends the discussion. :naughty:

 

Of this thread? Yes.

 

I feel this isn't "my" definition. I think it is the one that has been passed onto us all along. I linked to Wikipedia. Wikipedia, in it's article, goes further than the simple point. I feel prepared to do that, but have preference for that in another thread (unlikely on this site).

 

I have stated that what I'm getting at is the (illogical) construct that supposes man is or is capable of acting against nature. That could be something that goes just a bit further than the simple point, and which I think is within the context of this thread, though I reserve the right to update this if I find the discussion spinning into things that are essentially arguing for what is not observable, has little physical evidence pertinent to the simple point.

 

I'd hate to see it end as I think some great points have been made and once we move past the overarching definition (and arguments against it), we can really dissect this thing in a philosophical manner. :eek2:

 

For how I approach this forum, and for what I feel works for me on this site, I just assume nail down the simple point. If this thread ends with no disagreement on that simple point, it would please me much. The "other discussions" to be had are not ones I feel all that strongly to do on this site. I can make cases for inside-out manifestation of nature and why supernatural does exist and yadda yadda yadda, but then I get sense of reprimand from going beyond what is observable, evidentiary and plausible within common practices of science. And is outside the purposes of this site. "Take it elsewhere" is what I feel I will be told.

 

So, simple point being made and all agreed upon, while discussion doesn't go further than that, is something that works very well for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone saying (which we've all heard), "we don't know if gw is result of natural causes or man made ones." And where I'm at now, is if it is man made actions, then it is (without a doubt) natural causes.

 

As everyone else has already commented, you are just conflating two definitions presumably because they share a word. It's called an equivocation fallacy.

 

Equivocation Fallacy

 

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

 

Of course, most words are ambiguous, but context usually makes a univocal meaning clear. Also, equivocation alone is not fallacious, though it is a linguistic boobytrap which can trip people into committing a fallacy. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. Consider the following example:

 

All banks are beside rivers.

Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.

 

In this argument, there are two unrelated meanings of the word "bank":

  1. A riverside: In this sense, the premiss is true but the argument is invalid, so it's unsound.
  2. A type of financial institution: On this meaning, the argument is valid, but the premiss is false, thus the argument is again unsound.

In either case, the argument is unsound. Therefore, no argument which commits the fallacy of Equivocation is sound.

Fallacy Files--Equivocation

 

Refuting a description of global warming as natural or unnatural by using the "part of the physical world" definition of natural is a simple equivocation fallacy and certainly doesn't need a lengthy thread of debate to correct.

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, equivocation alone is not fallacious, though it is a linguistic boobytrap which can trip people into committing a fallacy. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. Consider the following example:

All banks are beside rivers.

Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.

 

Saying things that are artificial (man made) are equal to unnatural would be the equivocation fallacy. As a human, I made a table. Therefore it is unnatural.

 

I'm not saying that all natural things are man made. I'm not equating all man made things to all natural things.

 

What I am saying is akin to all things made/processed by birds are natural.

 

That's the direct version. Or how about, all numbers are symbols? All computers are devices?

 

Man made phenomenon could be (theoretically) more than natural, they are just not excluding of what is natural.

 

Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are computers / devices indeterministic?

No, and they are not sentient either.

 

I beg to differ. When things are produced in the natural order, I feel they become / are deterministic.

By your definition all things are natural, so I cannot see the relevance of this comment.

 

What term would you use to mean this type of "natural" as opposed to "artificial" element?

Man made or man influenced. Both being natural. So, from my perspective, all artificial phenomenon is natural. Since that counters denotation of artificial, then artificial strikes me as inaccurate term.

Sorry if that was not clear from the question, but I'm trying to establish what word you would use for "natural" phenomena that are NOT man-made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JWay,

Several posters have already tried to address the inherent muddled character of your thinking. (Though they have certainly been more circumspect than I, avoiding calling it muddled.) Here is my two cents worth:

 

The value of language as a communication medium lies in the distinctions we can make between events or entities. For these distinctions to be effective they must be generally agreed by the communicators.

Now, at times it is convenient to make the distinction between 'things' that are man-made and things that are not. The English speaking community has agreed, as is reflected within dictionaries, that in this context non man-made things will be called natural. This is a useful distinction. It appears to work effectively. I cannot quite discern why you find it so distasteful.

 

Two possibilities are suggested by your remarks. Firstly you find it illogical. If this is the reason then you need to make a better case for the lack of logic. I fail to see it. The use of particular meanings of words that make useful distinctions that are recognised by a large community are wholly consistent with good linguistic usage.

 

Secondly, perhaps you are trying to say that using natural in this way creates a tension between man and nature that may promote the abuse of nature. This would be true only if writers and speakers fail to use the word in the correct context, or the listeners and readers fail to understand the distinction being made. Of course that is possible, but errors are possible in all communication. I can recall no instance in which confusion arose through the natural use of the word nature in a natural setting.

 

In short, your objections seem groundless and based upon a faulty appreciation of how language functions. I hope there is some subtlety in your argument that I have missed and look forward to its exposition in your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if that was not clear from the question, but I'm trying to establish what word you would use for "natural" phenomena that are NOT man-made.

 

The words I would use, that I find accurate, are "not man made." If that's too long, the acronym of NMM could work also. As things are for me, and what is logical, natural works. If I need to distinguish for contextual reasons, I'd go with NMM.

 

Now, at times it is convenient to make the distinction between 'things' that are man-made and things that are not.

 

Agreed.

 

The English speaking community has agreed, as is reflected within dictionaries, that in this context non man-made things will be called natural. This is a useful distinction. It appears to work effectively. I cannot quite discern why you find it so distasteful.

 

Calling things we don't understand, or are mysteries, the result of "God's work" is effective, yes? But is it logical and observable in our physical world? Would age old distinctions whereby the term "God's work" be something that is (using your word) distasteful?

 

IMO, it is okay to say non man made things are natural. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about: Man made things are (also) natural. I, author of this thread, am not aware of any exception to this. But if presented with a situation where in a visible environment we have some things man made and some not man made, I would think "not man made" would be accurate terms that are useful, logical, agreeable.

 

Two possibilities are suggested by your remarks. Firstly you find it illogical. If this is the reason then you need to make a better case for the lack of logic. I fail to see it. The use of particular meanings of words that make useful distinctions that are recognised by a large community are wholly consistent with good linguistic usage.

 

I've actually seen on other parts of this forum and elsewhere online, people (I would say generally atheists) make the same point of logic I am touching upon. The other point, the one that says, man made things are not (always) natural shows up to me as somewhere between preposterous and unexamined. Much like the "God's work" claim for those approaching such discussions with logic and what's observable.

 

I think I could go along with idea that what is man made could be called "artificial" if artificial means "replicating what is natural" and that is considered, of itself, natural. But if deemed unnatural to replicate what is natural, that's where I would have questions about the logic at work.

 

Secondly, perhaps you are trying to say that using natural in this way creates a tension between man and nature that may promote the abuse of nature.

 

No, I don't think use of the word natural in the way you alluded to, "things that are not man made are natural" creates tension. While I do think that use of the word unnatural as applied to things that are man made DOES create tension.

 

This would be true only if writers and speakers fail to use the word in the correct context, or the listeners and readers fail to understand the distinction being made. Of course that is possible, but errors are possible in all communication. I can recall no instance in which confusion arose through the natural use of the word nature in a natural setting.

 

I agree. There may be some logical fallacy that I'm not able to name off hand with regards to how you are framing the discussion, but I'm not saying / haven't said what you are alleging is my point. My point is that what is man made is natural. Related to this, and point I am also addressing is the opposite of the simple point, that what man makes is not natural. That to me is instilling confusion within us. It is false to conclude this. It is illogical.

 

People invoke into our understandings, "Man vs. Nature" as if that makes sense. Because why? Because we (that are natural) can manipulate things that might not work out well for other elements of nature? Okay. But nature apart from man does this to. And nature does this to man as well. So "nature vs. nature" seems as equally valid to me as man vs. nature. The SeaWorld killer whale violently attacking and killing the 40 year old female trainer in recent news would be pretty good example of "nature vs. man." Man (or woman) in that case wasn't up to something that would inherently harm the whale, but whale did what killer whales may do, and took the life of element (human) of nature. All process of nature at work in my worldview.

 

Thus nature vs. nature (and even man vs. nature) strikes me as, consistently, (relatively) natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the word natural is a very imprecise word and it's meaning very much depends on the context it is being used in. This is similar to the word organic, organic is often used in a broad sense to mean anything that is natural or unspoiled and not containing anything unnatural. This is circular reasoning at it's best.

 

I am often amused at the word organic being used as a synonym of good for you, dog **** is organic but I'm not planning to include it in my diet. For the word natural to have meaning it is very much necessary to define the context in which it is being used.

 

In it's broadest definition anything contained in the universe is natural but natural is seldom used in that context. To require one all encompassing definition for the word natural is unreasonable and makes the word as imprecise as the word organic outside it's use in chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a latecomer to this thread, but will offer my perspective on the natural – not natural/artificial dichotomy, informed mostly by a history-of-ideas approach.

 

Conclusion first: As the category described by “natural”, in a scientific context, includes all that is (or is observable, in the more ontologically-aware scientific contexts, eg: the Pondicherry interpretation), its complement, “not natural”, is empty. In short, nothing is not natural.

 

Yet, in most and myriad ordinary contexts, the not natural category contains many material and immaterial, physical and metaphysical, objects. We commonly speak of “natural food”, implying its complement “unnatural food”. When one avoids plowing and planting or building on wooded land, one is “preserving nature”. When one finds a skill unusually easy to learn, one is described as “a natural” at it. And so on.

 

This suggest that belief in the possibility of not natural being a non-empty category is due to equivocation/conflation, the fallacious conclusion that categories with attributes in common are the same category. While, as with informal language (coincidentally also known as “natural language”), this clearly occurs regarding the “natural” category, I think it only a minor cause of the belief. The greatest cause of the belief is, I think, a very old, very durable, pre-scientific theory explaining everything: the theory that the universe consists of inanimate matter and animating “spirit”, a dichotomy that, rather than “natural vs. not natural”, can better be named “mundane vs. divine”. This theory, or perhaps better termed, worldview, remains central to many or most, but not all, religions.

 

The natural vs. divine dichotomy has, I believe, become severely and ubiquitously conflated with the natural vs. not natural one. In evidence, consider that we commonly refer to human behavior that violates religious prohibitions, such as homosexuality, as “unnatural”, meaning not “in violation of the laws of nature”, but “offensive to the divine”.

 

This confation can, I believe, be avoided by carefully keeping distinct the “mundane vs. divine” and the “natural vs. not natural” dichotomies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JWay, the main issue here is that you wish to replace the word natural with the phrase not made by man because you are unwilling or unable to accept that words routinely have multiple meanings and that most of the population can comfortably distinguish by context which meaning is intended. (This ability is a primary aspect of languages skills.)

 

On that basis I see no point in continuing the discussion. Clearly I shall not convince you and I you shall certainly not convince me. Thank you for the thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...