Ain't Necessarily So

Scott Klusendorf at Life Training Institute responds to a comment left on a post of mine Wednesday  To some extent, the commentator's response to my post are off point because I think he misunderstood the work the response is intended to do. 

In addition to Scott's argument, let me make this point about argumentation.  There's a difference between rebuttals and refutations, or undercutters and defeaters.  A rebuttal has a lower burden of proof than a refutation because all it does is show that "it ain't necessarily so."  A refutation shows it can't be so.  They both are responses to an argument offered - neither is a positive case.

The point about DNA that I quoted is an example of a rebuttal of sorts, not a refutation.. And it has nothing at all to do with what my views about abortion are because it isn't a positive case.  When someone else tries to prove something based on DNA similarity, all I have to do to block his conclusions is to show that "it ain't necessarily so."  In fact, I might even agree with his viewpoint but recognize the weakness in his argument.  (We try to do that here at STR.  We are anxious to get rid of bad arguments Christians use because they don't work and sometimes do damage.)

So when someone tries to make a case for something like animal rights because of the similarity they share with human DNA, all that's needed is a rebuttal that undercuts their case.  In this situation, bringing up the 100% similarity of the pro-born's DNA with the post-born's DNA shows that the argument proves more than the person is willing to concede.  So if he isn't willing to follow his argument through to its logical conclusions, I'm not obligated to follow it where he's like.  It's a rebuttal, not a refutation or an alternate case.  That's all that's necessary sometimes.

Comments

[Tony Montano]

It’s good to go checkout Scott’s comment section on this one cuz he makes a classic Linnaeus Fallacy again. I thought I would post my comments to Scott here too because Scott tends to erase my questions when I ask him stuff on his site. Oh well.

Scott says:

“Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings…Leading embryology textbooks affirm this. [See, for example, T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; …”

When biologist circle constructs of carbon nitrogen oxygen and hydrogen and decide to label them “whole human beings” what truth exactly are they appealing too?

They are simply appealing to convention. It is convenient and useful to say that “lifeness” starts at totipotent_1. But there is no unearthed law here that they are referencing. Science cannot tell you when any hunk of material in the universe contains the properties of “distinction”, “life”, or “humanness.” This is a philosophical claim.

All biologists can do is jot down rules and agree upon them. But why ought there rules for the point at which matter is called “alive” necessarily be the ones God uses?

These quotes might help:

“What we observe are some unusual sets of objects separated from the rest of the world by certain peculiar ways of handling energy. These objects we elect to call 'living things'." - Robert Morison

“Attempts have been made again and again to define "life." These endeavors are rather futile since it is now quite clear that there is no special substance, object, or force that can be identified with life.” - Ernst Mayr

[Robert Casteline]

Tony, I just don't get it. Do you not believe with certainty that you are alive? If I were to blow you up with dynamite, would that be the same morally as blowing up a building? I mean, both of you have carbon and nitrogen other stuff and you both format energy in certain ways. I guess your point of view on this, which I have seen repeatedly, just seems silly. Yes, it is very particular, but it seems to miss the point of intuition and a basic grasp of the fact that the obvious does not need to be defended. There are certain points at which things are just "known" and to have to say that these things are just energy moving and not, in fact, alive seems to be the height of willful ignorance.

[Justin]

Tony, I think you might be appealing to convention when you use the term "fallacy." Who's to say that a fallacy is actually a fallacy?

You may also be appealing to convention when you use the word Scott to refer to Scott. I mean, it is a matter of convention to call people by the name they claim as their own, but wh is to say that Scott is not, in fact, Burt? ;)

[Henry]

Tony,

I think it is true that common sense tells us a lot about what is alive and what isn't. But I am not necessarily opposed to what you’ve said. I too tend to think the issue of "life" is somewhat philosophical, but this doesn’t exclude the biological explanations.

But again, we do not need Einstein or Socrates to give us the necessary and sufficient conditions for life to tell that some things are alive and others aren't (though it isn’t always clear). We can begin by taking cases of things that are clearly alive, and then reason from them to cases that are less clear. I think this is the only reasonable way to go about it. But this how biologists have proceeded (if I understand correctly).

As far as whether the fetus is alive or not, I feel pretty confident that it is. Do you think the fetus is not alive? It's hard for me to take that seriously. I mean, at a point at least, it can dream, feel pain, has brainwaves and a heartbeat, etc. If that isn’t good evidence that something is alive, well, then I don’t know what is.

[Tony Montano]

Robert,

> Do you not believe with certainty that you are alive?

Asking this question is the same as asking, “Do you believe with certainty that pluto is a planet and NOT just another rock.” It’s just an appeal to a material labeling convention.

> If I were to blow you up with dynamite, would that be the same morally as blowing up a building?

In a godless universe? Of course.

> Yes, it is very particular, but it seems to miss the point of intuition and a basic grasp of the fact that the obvious does not need to be defended.

You would have to come up with reasons as to why you think that Ernst Mayr is wrong and you are right. By the way, before his death last year, Mayr was arguably the most respected living biologist in the world.

> There are certain points at which things are just "known" and to have to say that these things are just energy moving and not, in fact, alive seems to be the height of willful ignorance.

You might try arguing this route with a prochoicer. But this is NOT the route that scott uses nor is it encouraged in the prolife literature. If you want to try going up to an abortion potential and screaming, “I JUST KNOW THEY ZYGOTE IS ALIVE BECAUSE I JUST KNOW” then ok by me.

[Tony Montano]

> Tony, I think you might be appealing to convention when you use the term "fallacy."

Yes I am. As with all words, someday the definition of fallacy will probably change. But today we are in agreement on what it means. If you disagree with my use of the word, then that’s a separate argument.

> You may also be appealing to convention when you use the word Scott to refer to Scott.

Yes I am. Currently, as far as I am aware, we are both in agreement of what the token SCOTT refers to. There will be a time, however, when this token is disputed. This happens at the beginning of Scott’s ‘life’, (when he moved from his mom's dinner, to ovum to totipotent_1 to zygote to embryo) and at the end of Scott’s life, (when he moves form old man, to brain dead, to host for bacteria, to bone matter, to dust).

[Tony Montano]

Henry,

When Henry makes the claim:

this circle of carbon nitrogen oxygen and hydrogen in this circle has the property of ‘lifeness’. but this other pile does not.

ask yourself what exercise is Henry engaged in?

Sometimes this picture helps:

http://www.gregiswrong.com/site-gregiswrong/thought_experiments/world.htm

[Henry]

Tony,

Maybe you mistook my post for someone elses. Or maybe you're making a joke I don't have the wit to understand. But I never said anything about carbon in my post.

[Tony Montano]

Henry,

what do you think henry is made of?

[Sukov]

Tony, stop arguing with yourself. Any distinction between you and Scott is just a convention. ;)

[Tony Montano]

Sukov,

Are you arguing that of all the construct arrangements of C, N, O, H in the universe, you have successfully identified those constructs in the shape of totipotent_1 to be the construct in which God has vested “lifeness”?

Can you provide me with a method by which I may verify your claim?

[Sukov]

No, I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that your position lacks common sense. I think we had a similar discussion before and concluded that your concerns are practically irrelevant. But we can all recognize an individual human infant, child, adolescent, or adult when we see one. Are you proposing there is a more biologically significant marker than fertilization for when those recognizable, individual humans began to exist?

[Tony Montano]

Sukov,

“…but we can all recognize an individual human infant, child, adolescent, or adult when we see one.”

And zygote? Is this construct in your personal human categorization schema too?

If yes, then is the ovum also in your this_is_human_cuz_i_say_so circle?

[Sukov]

No, I don't think many people would recognize a human zygote if they saw one. ;) So...how about that biological marker that is more significant than fertilization?

[Tony Montano]

u need to stop responding with jokes. if you dont want to play dont play. but you gotta try a little harder.

k i'll submit another marker - creation of ovum_1

[Tony Montano]

DAMNIT

SCOTT ERASED MY QUESTION ON HIS SITE AGAIN.

GEEZ I FEEL LIKE MARTIN LUTHER OR SOMETHIN OVER HERE.

ANYONE KNOW WHY HE DOES THAT?

[Scott Klusendorf]

Just for the record, two months ago Tony threatened to spam my website if I don't drop what I'm doing and reply to his questions. Call me unreasonable if you want, but I ignore people who make those kinds of threats.

[Tony Montano]

actually i threatened to spam you AFTER you deleted my question a dozen times.

WHY Scott? WHYYYYYYY? Dude i didn't care if you responded or not. Greg hasnt responded to me in 4 years! - no skin off my nose.

But why erase the question?????????????????

What is it about the question that scares you so?

something more to the story here...

[Sam]

I wonder if "before" and "after" are conventions.

[Sukov]

Tony, please explain how the creation of the ovum is a more biologically signficant marker of where the individual human organism begins.

Actually, Tony, you should be honest and tell the whole story. I earased your questions and chose to ignore you because you threatened to spam me when I didn't immediately respond to a lengthy post you had written on your own site. When I didn't drop everything I was doing that very day to reply, you sent the threat. Sorry, I don't deal with blackmailers.

[Tony Montano]

Scott scott scott,

now you're just being silly.

I asked a question on your blog. You erased it. At first i thought it was a bug on the server. So i posted it again. But it kept disappeaering again and again.

Then I wrote:

"p.s. uhmmm i know a lot about computers and i could write a spider to keep pasting the same thing until the second coming of Christ. If you just tell me why you don’t want to comment then that’s cool."

ok ok not the nicest thing to say but hey, erasing questions wasnt nice either.

Anyway, peeps can read the whole sequence of events AS THEY REALLY HAPENNED on my website.

They've been posted there since 2006 / 02 / 03 - Friday - 10:45 PM

[Tony Montano]

Sukov,

To apply “significance” to any given chemical reaction in the universe is just another labeling affair. How many chemical reactions does it take for a pond to be called a glacier? There is no unearthed platonic answer to this question that science can reveal. God might know the answer (if he exists). But how might we come to access his knowledge? Why do you think that God has selected the formation of totipotent_1 as THE Significant reaction we should worry about? Who told you that of all the grand story of dancing matter that went on for billions of years before the birth of Sukov, the ONE event at which god deems special is the formation of totipotent_1?

p.s. it would be nice if the bible (at least) said that. But it don’t.

[Sukov]

You didn't answer my question. I think we're already agreed on "labeling" humans valuable. The question is where do they begin. If we're looking to biology we're only going to get a biological answer. So if you have a clearer marker than fertilization, please elaborate.

[Tony Montano]

Sukov,

Well first off “fertilization” would not be the significant event that you want to cite if you’re a Christian - because an identical twin is not created via fertilization yet you think an identical twin is a human.

Second, you would have to submit Sukov’s scale as to what makes a marker “clear” or not. I assume to you, it is not “clear” that the ovum is human – though it’s classically alive, comes from the mother, and makes up the majority of the zygote matter. So I don’t know why I can’t pick ovum_1, but you’re allowed to pick totipotent_1 as your starting line of humanness.

[Sukov]

Those three details of an ovum do not trump the zygote. The zygote either shares the detail or surpasses it.

[Tony Montano]

Sukov,

Ya.

And the morula either shares the details of (or surpasses) the zygote.

And the blastocyst either shares the details of (or surpasses) the morula.

And the embryo either shares the details of (or surpasses) the blastocyst.

So does this mean that I can pick any one of those stages as the starting line of life? After all, each stage trumps the one before it.

[William Tanksley]

Tony, you said in response to a post asking whether you saw no difference between blowing up a building and blowing up yourself, "In a godless universe? Of course."

I think this reduces your problem very cleanly. You're right that there can be no moral law without God, and you're right that without moral law there's no way to draw distinctions between actions. BUT: you're wrong to claim that these truths mean that we don't have to make distinctions between actions!

The first reason you're wrong: we observe distinctions between actions, and therefore we conclude that there is a moral law (regardless of whether we go on to conclude that God must exist).

The second: we can use reason to figure out the details of the moral law. If we can rely on our reason (and we MUST), we can rely on what we know of the moral law.

You seem to want to disregard the moral law (a truth you know) because you don't want to believe in God. That's _really_ bad logic.

-Billy

[Tony Montano]

>> The first reason you're wrong: we observe distinctions between actions, and therefore we conclude that there is a moral law (regardless of whether we go on to conclude that God must exist).

Well this thread is not really about whether or not an objective moral code exists. My claim is about the nature of biology and the mistake Christians make when appealing to it.

But ok, I’m waiting for a movie to start so, we gots some time.

So we observe “distinctions” between moral actions. What does this entail? Does it mean that, scribed in the fabric of the cosmos exists a string of sentences which state, for example, “one human may not place another human in boiling water”.

Or does it mean that a herd of animals benefits when they cooperate according to a hard wired set of rules of behavior.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonhuman_animals_ethics

I think it means the latter.

Additionally, my above claims as to why Scott (and almost every prolifer) commit a fallacy when they appeal to classical biological convention when citing their starting line of humanness, is not altered by my agnosticism.

I would argue the exact same way even if I was still Christian.

Science can’t tell you when “humanness” and “lifeness” begin or end.

Only God can.

[Sukov]

Tony, I don't think any change after fertilization (except maybe twinning) stands as a clearer marker of our biological beginning. Are you going to present one though?

Look, I have a distinct body from my parents. I know my parents have distinct bodies. So when did my body come into existence as a distinct organism and not just material belonging to my mother and father? How about when material belonging to my mother and father combined into a new, distinct organism? Who would have guessed it, eh? ;)

[Tony Montano]

ok

i think the ovum is a "distinct organism".

So Sukov says Sukov is right in his identification of which constructs of C N O H are "human", and Tony is wrong in his labeling of the C N O H in the ovum as the starting line of humaness because ______.

[Sukov]

I don't think the burden of proof is on me here. But a human without a father is certainly a "creative" idea.

[Tony Montano]

Sukov,

Ya its your burden cuz you claimed you knew which constructs get the human label. I didn't.

And ya, a lot of your humans have no father.

1 an identical twin has no father, since its just a totipotent cell that bounced off her sister.

2 then of course, humans cloned via nuclear transfer have no father either.

3 and human parthenogenesis (natural or artificial) also yields girls with no father

4 and chimeras (like the humouse at Stanford, or xenotransplantation cases like amanda davis) are a mix of human (cell line) cells and mice (or pigs) and hence, they only have half a father….I guess….. hahha

Kinda puts Ecclesiastes 1:9 in a new light.

Well whatevaaaaaaa

It's a brave new world.

[Sukov]

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed we can recognize a further developed human when we see one. But I think the burden of proof is on someone who claims an ovum is a human.

[Tony Montano]

same burden as a guy who claims a zygote is a human

[William Tanksley]

Tony, it's easy to show that a zygote is a human, while an ovum is merely human (one is an individual human, while the other is a part of a human).

Does this help, though, if you claim to not be able to tell the difference between a human and a building? Are you at all serious about that?

[Tony Montano]

William,

when you say that you know that a zygote is human but an ovum is not, what reference are you appealing to?

hint: it's not enough to appeal to contemporary biological convention

[Christopher Taylor]

Tony are you serious? You're incapable of recognizing the difference between a single cell and a complex group of cells? Or between a cell with one set of DNA and a group of cells with a unique, separate set of DNA? Are you unaware that humans are distinct from single cells, somehow?

[Tony Montano]

Chris,

Christians believe that a single totipotent cell is a human with a soul and is hence, one of God's children.

This is the construct currently in question.

[William Tanksley]

Tony, I didn't claim that the ovum is not human; I claimed that it is not an individual human. A fertilized ovum -- the single totipotent cell you cite -- is an individual distinct from others, and it is human, and it is alive. It is therefore a living human being. The fact that it consists only of a single cell is a result of its stage of development, not a measure of its "worth" or humanity.

[Tony Montano]

>> A fertilized ovum…is an individual distinct from others, and it is human, and it is alive.

Notice how you’re simply and merely stating what you believe. But what referent do you cite?

Why can’t I just say:

An UNfertilized ovum…is an individual distinct from others, and it is human, and it is alive.

If you don’t need to give a REASON as to why you believe this statement, nor do I. Try to think of WHY you believe your statement and the answer becomes clear.

HINT: You can’t say “I believe it because a biologist told me.” Ask yourself, ‘who told the biologist?’

[Sukov]

Are you saying the biological line that has been drawn where an individual organism begins is PURELY arbitrary rather than being drawn because it seems the most reasonable place given what is happening at the biological level?

[Tony Montano]

Ya its arbitrary.

It's not enough to simply argue:

"Of course 'humaness' and 'lifeness' start at the creation of totipotent_1. Afterall, it seems reasonable to me that this is the case."

Ask yourself, "what are my reasons for believing so?"

[Sukov]

I doubt that you don't know the reasons why biology has drawn the line there. And I'm not totally sure what you mean by "humaness" and "lifeness". What I'm talking about is the dividing line between the parents' and child's physical bodies (regardless of whether they are valuable or not, biology can't answer that).

[Tony Montano]

what constitutes this "dividing line"? Is it a certain number of millimeters?

Strictly speaking, most of the cells in your body aren't very close at all.

In fact, most of the cells in your body are not even human cells (by classical definition).

[William Tanksley]

Tony, why do you say that biology isn't useful in this case? It seems to have the exact tools we'd need: a deliniation (however crude) of life from non-life; a way to discover the difference between individual biological entities; and a way to identify categories of organisms.

All three schemas are admittedly blurry at the edges, but we're not anywhere near an edge.

Your scepticism in this particular case is frankly unwarranted, or at least you haven't explained what warrants it.

(I know you're also sceptical towards many of the other details that go into the case against abortion. Let's talk about this one, because it's at least clear who and what you're arguing against here.)

-Billy

[Sukov]

Tony, I'm not taking about the "dividing line" where a new child organism is created from the parent organisms.

[Sukov]

err...I mean I *am* talking about that. Sorry.

[Tony Montano]

William,

>> [biology]…seems to have the exact tools we'd need: a deliniation (however crude) of life from non-life; a way to discover the difference between individual biological entities; and a way to identify categories of organisms.

Ask yourself this question:

“Who wrote down these delineation tools and via what means did he stumble upon them, and why are they necessarily the RIGHT means of delineation?”

[Tony Montano]

Sukov,

I know.