Blame Culture 47

[ScottyUK]

zdas04 rightly suggested that this belonged in a separate thread to where it was initially posted.

"I personally don't like some of the culture developing in the UK where everything is someone else's fault. No-one accepts responsibility for their own actions any more, however stupid those actions are. It is leading to increasingly restrictive legislation and in some instances corporate and state 'nannying', and an ever-growing level of paperwork designed to keep the ambulance-chaser lawyers at bay. How is it in the rest of the world?"

So - is it just the UK afflicted with this blame culture? Is it right? Or should Darwin's Theory of Evolution be allowed to take effect and reduce the number of stupid people in the world?



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[ivymike]

So whereas the theory of evolution allows almost anything that can be thought of to be rationalized, this alone does not make the theory viable.

Um, no it doesn't. It would be convenient for your argument if it did, though, wouldn't it?

My original questions are ignored in litigious society much as they are in this thread.
Well, why not step up and answer them yourself, then? It's not as much fun that way, is it? As long as you only ask questions, you can never be wrong...

 

[Theophilus]

ivymike,

An example would be a frog turning into a princess (as a species anyway). If that's not the true vein up which the tree branches, the true vein is even less plausible--that life spontaneously erupted from a protein-rich soup into something much more "simple" than a frog. That's a strange thing to which to lend credence, and qualifies as "almost anything that can be thought of" being rationalized.

The reason I don't answer those questions is because I am not asserting a construct of understanding under which everything can be explained. That is a bold statement to make. That is a statement that you have made repeatedly, but which seems to fail in answering my questions. I do not believe the theory of evolution has accounted for such grave philosophy (nor does it attempt to--which is why it seems to be a limited philosophy).


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[Maui]

Gentlemen, if there is nothing more to contribute to answering ScottyUK's original post, and you prefer to continue this discussion regarding the validity of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, please do so by starting a separate thread. Thank you.

Maui

 

[ewh]

How did the topic change from the culture of blame to evolution to spontaneous generation? I can accept the logic of evolution perhaps being involved in the initial topic, but spontaneous generation is a bit out there. I agree with Maui that this topic should be continued elsewhere (maybe ethics?).

 

[SacreBleu]

It doesn't do any good to argue about religion. Nothing you say will change my religion, and nothing I say will change any of your's religion.

 

[ivymike]

An example would be a frog turning into a princess (as a species anyway). If that's not the true vein up which the tree branches, the true vein is even less plausible--that life spontaneously erupted from a protein-rich soup into something much more "simple" than a frog. That's a strange thing to which to lend credence, and qualifies as "almost anything that can be thought of" being rationalized.

That's a straw man, and not worth responding to. If you went to almost any high school biology class you could probably learn quite a bit more about the theory than you currently seem to understand.

I do not believe the theory of evolution has accounted for such grave philosophy (nor does it attempt to--which is why it seems to be a limited philosophy).
It's not a philosophy at all. It's a scientific theory based on observations and measurement. The "philosophy" of gravity doesn't address any of the above either - but that won't save you if you stumble out of a window.

 

[ivymike]

I am not asserting a construct of understanding under which everything can be explained. That is a bold statement to make. That is a statement that you have made repeatedly, but which seems to fail in answering my questions.

The cumulative text of all of my statements on the subject is currently above this line on this web page - I can't seem to find the comments which you attribute to me. Perhaps you could point them out specifically?

 

[SacreBleu]

ewh,
I can it explain it this way:
Somehow, lawyers are being spontaneously generated.
Sorry, couldn't resist!

 

[IRstuff]

That's because they're equivalent to primordial slim. ;-)

TTFN

 

[Theophilus]

ivymike,

The prime statement I alluded to is:
"Darwinian evolution didn't invalidate religion - any religion contradictory to it was invalid already."
That's the bold statement of faith in the theory. On what grounds does the theory of evolution trump any religion? Is this theory truly infallible?

Given the inherent inability to empirically test any event that occurred in the past, this theory is far from the stability of veracity given to laws (such as in Newtonian physics). There appears to be plenty of room for improvement.

Maui,

I agree. I've gotten to busy with a new project to post anyway, so I need to drop it.

ajack1, SacreBleu, IRstuff,

Thanks for the levity.


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[zdas04]

As George Carlin said about religous arguments "they are all about the contention that my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend"

If I can summarize my limited understanding of the discussion above: "the 'blame culture' can be blamed on equal parts religion, evolution, and lawyers"? Interesting how strident many of us get about these things.

David

 

[ivymike]

The prime statement I alluded to is:
"Darwinian evolution didn't invalidate religion - any religion contradictory to it was invalid already."
That's the bold statement of faith in the theory. On what grounds does the theory of evolution trump any religion? Is this theory truly infallible?

I didn't say that evolution actually invalidates any religions. What I said was that if any religion directly contradicts the theory, it is invalid. If your hypothetical religion is contradicted by the real, measurable phenomena described by the theory of evolution, your religion is measurably in conflict with reality, and is thus invalid by your own standard.

It sounds to me like you may be fond of a religion that you believe to be directly contradicted by the theory of evolution. Maybe you just don't understand as much as you think you do about your religion - perhaps some reflection on what it actually says would be in order. Then again, it's possible that you're right, in which case your well-meaning parents set you off on an unfortunate path. Your religion must not be Catholocism - it is not contradictory to the theory of evolution, per the Pope. No wonder you're so averse to the possibility that biologists have been getting it right all these years...

Given the inherent inability to empirically test any event that occurred in the past, this theory is far from the stability of veracity given to laws (such as in Newtonian physics). There appears to be plenty of room for improvement.

You don't have to be able to see into the past to witness evolution in action. It is happening all around you, little by little, at this very moment. You have only to select a group of living organisms and watch carefully for long enough. If you want to speed things up, pick some organisms that reproduce quickly, and provide them with some difficult environmental challenges to overcome. Just do us all a favor, and don't make the challenge "overcome this popular antibiotic and successfully invade the medicated human body."

 

[debodine]

Ivymike, et.al.:

I think you have convincingly (to my mind) asserted and supported microevolution (deviations within a species). Scientific experiments have already documented this. Now assert and support macroevolution (changing from one species to another or developing a body part such as an eye out of a body part that is not an eye), with scientific experiments please. (NOTE: Requires billions of years. Forgive me if I don't wait around).

And to stay on this thread topic (blame culture), the logical final result if macroevolution is the source of life would be that no one is responsible for any actions, as there is no such thing as responsibility and therefore no blame. This is the lifestyle of the animal kingdom. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.

If the reason for my existence is an accident of evolution, not creation, and my final destination is nothingness, not heaven or hell...then if I am bigger, stronger, meaner and happen to be hungry you are doomed. Vice versa if you are bigger, stronger, meaner and hungrier than I am.

To me, the fact that you espouse ideas, and those ideas cause me to think, and have the potential to cause me to alter my behavior, means I have a responsibility to think and possibly alter my behavior. And if I have responsibility to my fellow humans, then I am the product of something more than accidental combinations of chemical and biological processes. And if I have responsibility, then I have a requirement to stand up for my own actions and accept the credit or the blame for them.

So for the poster who asked how we got to evolution from blame, I believe that is how we got there. )

Every one of you challenges my mind. Every one of you teaches me and helps me grow. Thanks!

 

[debodine]

Having reviewed my last post, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that my input to this topic is not engieering related. Therefore I must recognize my responsibility to alter my behavior, and stop contributing to this topic.

Except of course that my behavior alteration posits I have responsiblity, which supports my point about accepting blame for own actions, which.........(sounds of gurgling as hands tighten around my throat) and a scream escapes, "GET BACK TO ENGINEERING!"

Oh wait, that was my boss screaming! Ciao to all!

 

[SacreBleu]

I think we need to somehow give the purple star to George Carlin.

 

[ivymike]

the logical final result if macroevolution is the source of life would be that no one is responsible for any actions, as there is no such thing as responsibility and therefore no blame. This is the lifestyle of the animal kingdom. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.

That's not logical at all. It just doesn't add up, unless you make some really crass and unfounded assumptions about the limits of human reasoning. Why wouldn't anyone be responsible for their actions? What definiton of responsibility is precluded by the idea that a person is derived from biological processes? We still have to interact successfully with other humans to get what we want, as they have to interact with us. We are still rewarded for conducting mutually beneficial interactions, and we are ostracized or punished if our behavior is unacceptable. We have the ability to remember past perceived injustices (even house cats can do this), and we currently have the ability to verbally communicate our likes and dislikes to others. Even without verbal and written communication, body language and reinforcement should be sufficient to train new people how to behave properly in a group. I don't see why one would assume that human social skills would have remained static for the 5000 generations (or more) that modern humans have been on the earth, even if one makes the unfounded assumption that early humans had less ability to live in groups than some of the furrier modern primates.

 

[imagitec]

I, frankly, am sick of greedy lawyers. They should know their place and leave being greedy up to big business.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[smwpe]

Wonderful. It's Ok to knock the legal profession, and we all do it.

It is OK until we get into a situation where a client will not pay his bill, a drug endorsed by the FDA damages our heart, or a weirdo down the street cuts our tires for no reason.

Then we can turn to:

The engineering profession

The politicians in our state capital

The federal government

The local mayor

Or ?

Give the lawyers a break. They are professional, ethical people just like us..









fd

 

[SacreBleu]

Ethical? Surely you jest.

 

[Heckler]

It's called situational ethics