This is an inappropriate response. just stating that I am wrong doesn't mean much. Show it. By the way unicorns to science are not mythology. They can be studied by biology because they are an animal.
My response was the ONLY appropriate response to anyone who advocates that unicorns are the legitimate study of science.
Now, it would not be legitimate for science to try to prove that any species that was found to have inspired to be the unicorn actually had powers as ascribed to the unicorn of legend. Or even to devote a large amount of time/money just to trying to prove the existence of the unicorn. But it still isn't wrong to try to study how a species could have been the inspiration for the legends.
See, that's really the problem. In order for it to be a unicorn, it would have to have all the magical powers ascribed to them in legend. Otherwise, you're just talking about a horse with a horn, not a unicorn. Science cannot study unicorns, they don't exist. It is patently dishonest to claim otherwise.
Then again, we have some patently dishonest people around here.
When Europeans started exploring Africa, they heard rumors of a human like creature. They encountered some, and when they returned they told some tall tales about how the apes would raid villages and rape the women, etc. Eventually, as more people explored and they studied the apes, they learned what was true and what was merely legend. IOW, the gorillas didn't have all the powers that were ascribed to them but nevertheless, they were real
The creature they were seeing was real. The stories they were telling were not. Now if you want to research the creature they were seeing, that's one thing. You cannot research the stories because they were false. A kernel of truth in a story does not make the story true. Separating fantasy from reality is important.
They didn't know if it was real until it was investigated. Separating fantasy from fact is something that scientists do on a regular basis.
1.Don't think he said that ....
2. So basically, because a unicorn is defined as an animal, studying it is an example of biology? If I were to look at a glass of water, would that be the study of chemistry (because water is a compound)? Could the same be said for physics: by looking at a wall, due to the atoms that said wall is composed of, I am engaging in the study of physics? No. It is not practical. Science is practical. What good would studying a mythological animal do?
I apologize for intruding, but I have to defend somebody whose words have not been read accurately. Either, the men and women who perceive these words are unable to read accurately, or they are practicing the agenda of having to be right at no matter the circumstances.
With the unicorn problem. As people earlier in this thread have stated about the God problem, there are scientists that in their mind have no stance, the simply, "Do not know" and go about investigating the reality in front of them. This approach was taken in the field of science with regards to unicorns.
At that time, science did not know without a shadow of a doubt if unicorns were either real or not real. Through their scientific investigation, they determined that the unicorn defined in most fairly tales, do not exist. They may also redefine the word unicorn for it to fit something else, who knows.
In either case, unicorns were under the magnifying glass of science. I know I know, it is too hard for you guys to realize the possibility that science not only validates theories, but refutes them as well.
Can you please cite the scientific studies that were completed that determined that the mythical Unicorn does not exist.
Note that I am not talking about the real life animals that have been studied that resemble unicorns, I am talking about the scientific studies that were completed that studied the supernatural qualities of unicorn 'animals' and were used to determine that those magical qualities do not exist and that therefore unicorns don't exist.
And, just in case you don't find any of those studies, because those studies don't exist, here is my observation. We all reject belief in magical/mythical/supernatural unicorns because why? Not because science has verified that they don't exist (because it hasn't done that at all). It is because claims about unicorns are fanciful claims. Just like all fanciful claims, we reject them because there is no evidence presented.
Except when the fanciful claim is about the god someone wants to believe in.
If I make a fanciful claim that the god Frey exists, it is rejected out of hand as a fanciful claim by both atheists and various believers in Yahweh and almost universally every other theist out there. But if I make the fanciful claim that Yahweh exists, and make additional elaborate fanciful claims to 'support' my main claim, lots of people believe it. They believe it with no more real support than any other fanciful claim.
The notion that unicorns have been rejected due to scientific study is preposterous. Anyone being honest knows that they reject the notion of unicorns because there is no evidence for them, not because there is evidence against them. Atheists simply apply the same standard for the notions of gods. Very similar to how everyone applies that standard to all the multitude of gods that have been claimed, except whatever particular god they happen to have chosen to have faith in. Atheists just apply the standard response consistently.
My response was the ONLY appropriate response to anyone who advocates that unicorns are the legitimate study of science.
See, that's really the problem. In order for it to be a unicorn, it would have to have all the magical powers ascribed to them in legend. Otherwise, you're just talking about a horse with a horn, not a unicorn. Science cannot study unicorns, they don't exist. It is patently dishonest to claim otherwise.
Then again, we have some patently dishonest people around here.
When Europeans started exploring Africa, they heard rumors of a human like creature. They encountered some, and when they returned they told some tall tales about how the apes would raid villages and rape the women, etc. Eventually, as more people explored and they studied the apes, they learned what was true and what was merely legend. IOW, the gorillas didn't have all the powers that were ascribed to them but nevertheless, they were real
The creature they were seeing was real. The stories they were telling were not. Now if you want to research the creature they were seeing, that's one thing. You cannot research the stories because they were false. A kernel of truth in a story does not make the story true. Separating fantasy from reality is important.
Actually, I don't personally reject the existence of unicorns, fae, vampires, dragons, Gods, or anything of the type. I would be skeptical of anything that wasn't absolute evidence of these existing if someone claims to actually know for a fact they exist, especially when ascribed with any kind of "powers" or the such or a specific thing is being attributed to them, but I don't automatically think that it is impossible for these things to exist.
This was exactly my point in noting the goat as a unicorn. Seriously, what kind of equine has ever had cloven hooves and the little beard thingy (yes that is a scientific term)? There was a time that a Liger would have been considered a legend and mythical, yet now they are very real and an area of study. Just because they don't have magical powers that may be ascribed to them, they are no less a legitimate area of study. Granted they aren't as exciting as if they did have powers. Same with unicorns. They simply become a specific sub species of goat. Heck you can even chalk them up to evolution. Whenever something new hit ancient or historical man they tended to make up stories about it. Supposedly manatees were the inspriation for mermaids. Now that is a case of mistaken identity. Unicorns are a real creature with extra "abilities" ascribed to it. Sort of like Al Gore and his ability to truthfully talk about GW (Ref: England's ruling on his film).
But it can make the creature real. Or whatever it is we're talking about, such as a god. Simply because man has ascribed additional powers or behaviors or attitudes about something does not make it any less real. Scientific study will either reveal it to be not real or expose what is real and what isn't.
But it can make the creature real. Or whatever it is we're talking about, such as a god. Simply because man has ascribed additional powers or behaviors or attitudes about something does not make it any less real. Scientific study will either reveal it to be not real or expose what is real and what isn't.
Can you please cite the scientific studies that were completed that determined that the mythical Unicorn does not exist.
Note that I am not talking about the real life animals that have been studied that resemble unicorns, I am talking about the scientific studies that were completed that studied the supernatural qualities of unicorn 'animals' and were used to determine that those magical qualities do not exist and that therefore unicorns don't exist.
And, just in case you don't find any of those studies, because those studies don't exist, here is my observation. We all reject belief in magical/mythical/supernatural unicorns because why? Not because science has verified that they don't exist (because it hasn't done that at all). It is because claims about unicorns are fanciful claims. Just like all fanciful claims, we reject them because there is no evidence presented.
Except when the fanciful claim is about the god someone wants to believe in.
If I make a fanciful claim that the god Frey exists, it is rejected out of hand as a fanciful claim by both atheists and various believers in Yahweh and almost universally every other theist out there. But if I make the fanciful claim that Yahweh exists, and make additional elaborate fanciful claims to 'support' my main claim, lots of people believe it. They believe it with no more real support than any other fanciful claim.
The notion that unicorns have been rejected due to scientific study is preposterous. Anyone being honest knows that they reject the notion of unicorns because there is no evidence for them, not because there is evidence against them. Atheists simply apply the same standard for the notions of gods. Very similar to how everyone applies that standard to all the multitude of gods that have been claimed, except whatever particular god they happen to have chosen to have faith in. Atheists just apply the standard response consistently.
But it can make the creature real. Or whatever it is we're talking about, such as a god. Simply because man has ascribed additional powers or behaviors or attitudes about something does not make it any less real. Scientific study will either reveal it to be not real or expose what is real and what isn't.
Everyone keeps missing the point that, in these cases, once you find out that it's a goat, you're no longer studying unicorns, you're studying goats. Once you discover you're studying manatees, you're no longer studying mermaids. You cannot study something that doesn't exist. You can only make a discovery and shift the focus of your investigation. This whole "well, it's like a unicorn, but not really a unicorn" doesn't make it a unicorn, it makes it something else.
No, it can't make the creature real. A creature is either real or it is not. Science can discover whether or not a creature is real (so long as we're not talking about genetic engineering, then I guess, in theory, you could make something real). If a particular creature, or a god, is described as possessing specific attributes, as soon as you start ignoring those attributes, you've fundamentally stopped talking about the same creature or god. Now you're dealing with something different. It's absurd to claim otherwise.
Maybe when humanity was pretty close to exploring all the land this World has to offer, and then scientist went out to various digs over the years, they made the observation that, "Hey! There are no mythical unicorns!"
Here is something about science you do not know about obviously....
Just as there are scientific studies with a known hypothesis and procedure, and they produce data directly towards their hypothesis, there are studies out there that use vast amounts of data of over studies to either refute or concludes another hypothesis. When a person goes to a hospital, and they do the preliminary screening, the hospital is taking data from that believe it or not. This data can be used for the hospital to analyze how their resources are handling the load of patients, to studies that might show a surprising correlation between time of day and a certain condition.
My point is this. There probably isn't a study like you said that specifically said, "I think unicorns exist. I am going to go look for them!" No, it is more like, "Through all of these digs, and accounts, through the years and through different areas of land, we can conclude that no mythical unicorn exists."
Okay true. In which case, I forgot to incorporate the validity process of science. When a scientific study is found Nature, or any other very credible sources, there are scientists that do their best to recreate the findings.
And with there is time, there is technology. In which case, scientists if they decide to, can use new technology to put conclusions that were made earlier in time under the magnifying glass. This is the very nature of the scientific method.
Does Religion Have the Burden of Proof?
As soon as it makes claims, of course. Any claim carries that burden, whether the claimant's agnostic or deeply religious. The negative suggests a reality that can't be explored. Bertrand Russel brilliantly phrased it with his teapot analogy:
That's soulless! K - You are a Teapot-atheist, go one further - YouTube
Bertrand Russell on God (1959) - YouTube
Religion is pretty broad of course. The numineus and the supernatural, exist outside our reality, outside the field of science. It's pretty useless to deny the existance of unicorns outside of this world.
Frederick Copleston on Schopenhauer: Section 2 - YouTube
I'm not a native English speaker, wouldn't know where the use of grammar nazi would be appropriate.That's not true. It's claims that are made about objective facts that need proof. If I claim that I like chocolate ice cream more than I like strawberry ice cream, I see no need to provide any proof for that claim.
Saying that all claims require proof is the result of the sort of fuzzy thinking that George Orwell warned against
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
I'm not a native English speaker, wouldn't know where the use of grammar nazi would be appropriate.
claim (klm)
tr.v. claimed, claim·ing, claims
1. To demand, ask for, or take as one's own or one's due: claim a reward; claim one's luggage at the airport carousel.
2. To take in a violent manner as if by right: a hurricane that claimed two lives.
3. To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters.
4. To deserve or call for; require: problems that claim her attention.
That's not true. It's claims that are made about objective facts that need proof. If I claim that I like chocolate ice cream more than I like strawberry ice cream, I see no need to provide any proof for that claim.
Saying that all claims require proof is the result of the sort of fuzzy thinking that George Orwell warned against
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?