Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

Oh come on be serious sordavie. Use the standards that are fitting. Calling something evil in a day to day conversation is not the same as calling something evil in a scientific(-isc) or philosophical discussion. Catch me on that if you want, I'll gladly admit I did contradict myself.

I take it that the standards that are fitting in a debate are ones where loose use of language isn't tolerated.

1)I smell a rat here, you seem to be bothered by the things I say, and seem to vehemently want to disprove anything I say. As a psych, (my field isn't logic ) that makes me think you have an emotional issue here.
Why? Who are you angry at? Do you think all whales or all endagered animals should be killed if anyone at all wants money off them?

A critique of what I say through a guess at what my psychology is clear a very weak critique of what I've said. I'm bothered by the arguments you put forth because they aren't cogent. That has nothing to do with some hypothesis you have about my emotional state. To respond to critiques of your arguments by questioning the psychology of the author is no response to the critiques at all, since the critiques may be valid whatever the psychology of the author. This is something I teach my students within the first two weeks: when you critique someone's ideas or line of reasoning critique the ideas or lines of reasoning - don't critique the person. To do the latter is just ad hominem. The critique of your reasoning is either sound or not regardless of my motivations for critiquing it. Perhaps my motivation is that I just dislike you. Or maybe my motivation is that I'm practicing and polishing up my logic on you. Or maybe my motivation is to use this as an example for my students. Or maybe my motivation is that I really care about you and I want you to see your mistake and become a better critical thinker. Whatever my motivation for criticizing your reasoning, it's independent of whether that criticism is apt. The criticism is apt. No need to worry about my motivations for giving the criticism.

2)As I said, I don't remember the logic lessons enough. But still, how would my reasoning be correct then? What exactly would be needed to make it right? Teach me? Help me fix it so we can discuss the matter itself instead of you easily dismissing me by using a field I am not versed in. Play your own Devil's advocate I ask.

I don't know how to make your reasoning correct. The problem is that your conclusion is far too strong given your premises. Either you need to supply stronger premises (they would have to be strong evidence that the extinction of the species of whales that the Japanese hunt would very likely cause the extinction of the human race) or you need to weaken your conclusion. If an argument is bad because of this reason, then there's nothing I can do to play devil's advocate and fix the argument. The argument is just invalid - the premises don't support the conclusion. That's a formal matter, which is objective.

I'm sorry but that is totally false. Ever heard of intestinal microbes
Man cannot live without animal life. I'm sure more knowledgeable people could provide you with more examples. The microbes-one is sufficient though.

Snoogums did say animals. The intestinal microbes are protista. Your intestinal microbes don't require the existence of whales either...

Really do you believe that? None of the quota in the world are truly respected and...well I really can't go into it. It is too obvious to me that that information is nothing more than disinformation for those who want to believe. "They say it is sustainable" says it all really.

I don't know. I don't think anyone has a very good idea whether it's sustainable or not, since we don't have a good count on the whale population. Can you supply the evidence that shows you're right?

3) Plz any of you tell me then why you think killing off loads of the life that supports us will NOT endanger us really. God knows I can't prove it, it is not my field, and I am not going to study it for you guys, but really... The opposite hypothesis seems ever so much more rediculous and uncertain; that we would be able to lose huge percentages of biodiversity without risking the survival of our very species. The Dino's certainly vote we can't.

Who's talking about killing off loads of life? I thought we were discussing Japanese whaling. That's a very particular subject and animal we're talking about. You're sliding back in to your slippery slope argument.

PS to sordavie: You must be a fan of Carl Popper with his falsification principle. I studied a branch of psychology that totally disregards that principle. I bet you would find it utter bull****. Still, so much can be learnt and used effectively in life that doesn't obey the rigidety of that principle. There are those who say science is just what one can prove, but that would leave only one science: mathematics.

I am a fan of Karl Popper, but I do not subscribe to his philosophy of science. Yes there are branches of psychology that are not falsifiable - psychoanalysis for one. And most scientists and philosophers of science don't think psychoanalysis counts as a science. It's also why more postmodernists in English departments use psychoanalytic methods than real psychologists.

In any case, I haven't said anything about science or the scientific method here. I don't know why you'd hazard another guess in the dark at my psychology.

By the way, I treat science as a species of philosophy - natural philosophy. I don't hold any rigid scientific principles, since I think science proceeds by inference to the best explanation and that can take many forms.