Tom More

Why isn't red reducible to micro structure? Sound is simply a lower frequency of the same type of wave... Edward Feser (like Stephen Law) is an example of how far a man can go with no intelligence....

Tom More

Thomism is a contradiction between direct realism and indirect realism. If you believe the objects of consciousness are prior to awareness then you are an Idealist not a Thomist.

And thus contradict yourself, violating the Thomist PNC.

Tom More

Believe what you want. Error is inherent in all measurement.

And this is just a bad pun, but it seems you regard , or rather disregard Thomism .. realism... as indeed Utopia.... no place. Which of course is a fitting point of departure for us. I am persuaded that the objects of consciousness are prior to our awareness of consciousness and that with Descartes reality went away. Thomism is the way home.

I am unfamiliar with that claim about Mendel but did come across this as a response.

Why didn’t Mendel admit seeing linkage?

We can only guess.

He might have thought it was a statistical accident and not a solid result. That makes sense given that his paper clearly acknowledges that numbers can vary on account of chance.[4] He had no way of knowing how serious a problem that was because modern statistical methods hadn’t been invented yet.

He might have planned to study the matter further and never got to it. We know that he conducted more research with hawkweed and bees but the results were never published or saved.

My favorite hypothesis is that he might have wanted to avoid confusing his readers with complicated results. That’s because when I was active in science, I learned that it is never a good idea to emphasize experimental results that didn’t fit my hypotheses, because doing so makes reviewers criticize the overall work. So, I learned how to truthfully describe discrepant results without drawing attention to them.

If Mendel had reported that one of his crosses didn’t follow his laws, his readers would have used that as a reason to reject his ideas.

From the blog of philosopher Ed Feser author of "Aristotle's Revenge" where realism is defended.

"The essence of a thing is not reducible to its microstructure, even if specifying the essence requires reference to the microstructure. (See e.g. David Oderberg’s discussion at pp. 12-18 of Real Essentialism.)

In light of this, we might say that what physics tells us about red is its microstructure, but that red isn’t reducible to that microstructure. There is in red, in addition to its microstructure, something-that-resembles-RED." From Ed Feser's blog. There is nothing in physics that precludes the inclusion of that which one experiences as "RED" as being within the substance considered. By all means feel free to demonstrate otherwise. notice that you keep using image signs purportedly to evoke universals encompassing objective realities abstracted somehow by what.. the "active intellect"?

But to claim every "climate change denier" (or even most of them)
arrived at his or her political position by making a "prudential"
judgment is not credible.

Usually Dave you're pretty good at asking for clarification rather than putting words in other people's mouth. We're talking about the political tactic of left wing calling right wing politicians "climate change deniers". I'm unaware of any right wing politician that claims climate change is in the category of "non-existent". They may claim the climate changes are not human induced or the climate changes occurring due to natural climatic cycles, but they don't deny the climate changes. Using an alternate meanings of plain English to define into existence rhetorically irrational point of view is politics and has no place in a rational dialogue. This has been my point all along so congrats on getting likes by the blatant political rah rahs that lack the ability to understand moral/ethical is a qualitative knowledge outside the purvey of science. You're in bad company doubling down on meaningless political rhetoric.

Those right wing politicians that use their intellectual judgement to not engage in green initiatives because there is no scientific consensus that shows a human-induced climate change catastrophe is imminent and preventable by political action are indeed using rational judgement (using prudence). Prudence need not have a Catholic theological meaning, so rather than assuming, just ask. And having brought it up, from a Christian perspective rhetorically attacking someone using the term "climate denier" is a cunning lie. In ethics, prudential judgement means to weigh the circumstances to determine a correct course of action. Generally, it means you can have two people weight the circumstances differently and come to two different ethical conclusions. BTW donors and constituents are not mutually exclusive. You can have the last word; I've had my fill of politricks.

Oh WCB-2! Arguing with you is like playing a video game in godmode. Mowing down yer foe is easier than falling in love. You never manage to say anything that is even remotely learned or challenging? Yer no David Nickol or Ficino sir. That is for sure. How do you do that consistently?
I still think this is a troll because nobody could be this clueless unless it was on purpose. I think yer making god awful bad arguments on purpose to make me loose my temper or something? Well it won't work I am too amused.

> Sorry, but no matter how you twist the words of Genesis 1, there were only two midwives for the Israelites.

Rather there are only two whose names are mentioned and addressed by Pharaoh. That seems obvious if we take a plain reading of the text. Yer argument by special pleading here not withstanding.

> You do not get to hand us your personal interpretation and tells us the very easy to understand words of Genesis 1 means something than what they actually say.

Well then why do you get to hand me your personal interpretation by yer own standards? Which clearly is not formulated by one of the four interpretive schemes that Ficino mentions (note Ficino is an ex-Catholic religious skeptic and a scholar of Aristotle's texts. He is a better informed non-believer then you mi' laddio but you are not a high bar to jump over in the first place I am afraid). So it is worthless.

Sorry but yer opinion here is just that till the Church tells me otherwise and good luck waiting for that train to arrive at the station.

>Key words here are "one of whom" and "the other".

Actually it says:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, לַמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת, אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאַחַת שִׁפְרָה, וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית פּוּעָה.

When you do some actual word studies and Grammar studies using original languages instead of reading nonsense into yer English KJV after consulting Chick Comics then get back to me .

>The Bible often exaggerates! No!

Yes in fact that is a recognized cultural genre. The "Semitic Exaggeration" as my professor called it. "If thy right eye offends thee pluck it out". etc
So the book of Psalms speak of God enfolding us in his wings So you think that is literal? God is not Subsisting Being Itself but Cosmic Mega Chicken according to you? This is getting old WTC-2 and just plain sad.

>And sometimes just out and out lies. such as the exact numbers given to us in Numbers.

It is not a lie. It is just you misreading the Hebrew.

>I have several books by various apologists who try to explain this all away and they are a laugh riot

Yes Young Earth Creationism sucks! Tell me about it. Why you think I would be moved by this is the real laugh riot. What part of "We are Catholics here nor Baptists" do ye still nor get wee laddie?

>Maybe you can write another such book explaining all of this away to add to the pile?

If I did it would be above yer heid. Geez you think animals and inanimate objects can be "morally good" because they can do good? Yeh that is not true.

On yer way laddie. The grown ups are talking and till you learn to make credible intelligent arguments yer sad attempts to make me a fundamentalist are simply that, sad.

I am far too sophisticated for that. Live with it.

NAB Genesis 1:15

The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah,

Sorry, but no matter how you twist the words of Genesis 1, there were only two midwives for the Israelites. You do not get to hand us your personal interpretation and tells us the very easy to understand words of Genesis 1 means something than what they actually say. Key words here are "one of whom" and "the other".

The Bible often exaggerates! No! Tell us it ain't so! yes, it does. And sometimes just out and out lies. such as the exact numbers given to us in Numbers. Or for that matter, the entire Exodus tall tale from the captivity in Egypt to the bloody genocides of Joshua. The two contradictory tall tales of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

I have several books by various apologists who try to explain this all away and they are a laugh riot. Maybe you can write another such book explaining all of this away to add to the pile?