IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags biology , categories , gametes , lexicography , pedantry , taxonomy

Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:24 PM   #841
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,222
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Still running off to stick your head in the sand. And I don't see that you've linked to or quoted any reputable biological journal, dictionary, or encyclopedia that endorse Hilton's claptrap. No jam? Blowing smoke?
You seem to think that publication in scientific journals and publications of scientific theses is somehow the be-all-and-end-all of qualifications to pontificate on a scientific subject. Well, I have news for you. It is not.

I have a degree in what was my chosen profession - a BEng (Hons) Aeronautical Engineering. I have never published a paper, written an article for an aviation journal, or published my thesis. But I do have that degree, one that was achieved through years of hard work, dedication, long hours of study and practical application, and close scrutiny of my work. That degree makes me qualified to both work in the field of Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering, and to speak about it from a position of qualification and authority. In this capacity, I have served on three aviation accident boards of inquiry, and I have taught theory and practice at two different educational institutes. However, my degree does not qualify me to speak about biology. For that, I rely on those who do have qualifications to do so.... in biology.

The fact that Hilton, Wright and Heying are doctors and professors of biology pretty much supports the fact they ARE qualified to speak on the topic of biology. On the other hand, the people you put your store in are animal behaviorists and ecologists. This qualifies them well to speak on animal behaviour and ecology, but on hard science subject of biology, they are little better than me.... laymen.

I'd be interested to know what qualifications (if any) you have in biology, or in any subject? I have asked you about this before, but you seem to dodge the question every time, so I suspect you have none - you're just a layman like most of the rest of us here.

However, if its just published works you are wanting...

Wright & Hilton
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapte...n-colin-wright

Wright
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/...-denial-of-sex

Hilton
https://emmahilton.substack.com/p/se...-men-and-women

Hilton
https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/...s-to-asparagus
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:29 PM   #842
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,524
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You seem to think that publication in scientific journals and publications of scientific theses is somehow the be-all-and-end-all of qualifications to pontificate on a scientific subject. Well, I have news for you. It is not.

I have a degree in what was my chosen profession - a BEng (Hons) Aeronautical Engineering. I have never published a paper, written an article for an aviation journal, or published my thesis. But I do have that degree, one that was achieved through years of hard work, dedication, long hours of study and practical application, and close scrutiny of my work. That degree makes me qualified to both work in the field of Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering, and to speak about it from a position of qualification and authority. In this capacity, I have served on three aviation accident boards of inquiry, and I have taught theory and practice at two different educational institutes. However, my degree does not qualify me to speak about biology. For that, I rely on those who do have qualifications to do so.... in biology.

The fact that Hilton, Wright and Heying are doctors and professors of biology pretty much supports the fact they ARE qualified to speak on the topic of biology. On the other hand, the people you put your store in are animal behaviorists and ecologists. This qualifies them well to speak on animal behaviour and ecology, but on hard science subject of biology, they are little better than me.... laymen.

I'd be interested to know what qualifications (if any) you have in biology, or in any subject? I have asked you about this before, but you seem to dodge the question every time, so I suspect you have none - you're just a layman like most of the rest of us here.

However, if its just published works you are wanting...

Wright & Hilton
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapte...n-colin-wright

Wright
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/...-denial-of-sex

Hilton
https://emmahilton.substack.com/p/se...-men-and-women

Hilton
https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/...s-to-asparagus
I see your mistake: You're not a Doctor of Philosophy of Science, so you lack the credentials to say what other scientists are and are not qualified to talk about.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:41 PM   #843
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,222
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I see your mistake: You're not a Doctor of Philosophy of Science, so you lack the credentials to say what other scientists are and are not qualified to talk about.
Sarcasm gold!
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:53 PM   #844
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Here are a few simple scenarios to test the usefulness of strict biological definitions of sex that are constructed and interpreted so as to place humans whose bodies are not presently producing viable gametes into a "sexless" category, when it comes to social interactions and policies. Steersman, please state your answers to each question.

1. There is a combat sport league whose current participating athletes are all females of a certain age range, further divided into weight classes. A sexless person of the required age and of a weight within one of the existing weight classes wishes to compete in the league and fight the current participants. Should the league allow this? Should the league be legally required to allow it?

2. A general practitioners' medical office plans to mail out a reminder to each of its male patients, age 50 and over, who has not had a routine recommended prostate exam within the past year, to make an appointment for one. Should the same reminder also be mailed to the sexless patients 50 and over who haven't had a prostate exam within the past year?

3. A large group of sexless fourth grade students in a public school are changing clothes for gym class. Is a male teacher an acceptable choice to supervise the changing room? How about a sexless teacher?
Think you're barking up the wrong tree. Those are simply a bunch of red herrings.

IF you want to subscribe to Hilton's claptrap then it AIN'T biology. And IF you reject that in favour of the actual biological definitions then "male" and "female" are simply the RONG tools for the jobs you expect of the category.

You might actually try reading -- and thinking about -- Griffiths' article on the point:

Quote:
Sex is real
Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other

The definition of biological sex is designed to classify the human reproductive system and all the others in a way that helps us to understand and explain the diversity of life. It’s not designed to exhaustively classify every human being, or every living thing. Trying to do so quickly leads to questions that have no biological meaning.

Human societies can’t delegate to biology the job of defining sex as a social institution. The biological definition of sex wasn’t designed to ensure fair sporting competition, or to settle disputes about access to healthcare.
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity

To follow suit and to take a general kick at your questions, access to toilets and the like should be by genitalia: one set of loos for the vagina-havers, and one set for the penis-havers -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Similarly for sports which might be segregated by karyotype: for women's, no XY need apply.

You might also reflect on the monkey trap:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...liver-burkeman
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:25 PM   #845
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
Here I am again: Lordy, the flesh AND the spirit is weak . . . .
"I can resist everything but temptation" ....

Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
My highlight.
Quote:
The issue -- see the first comment in case you've forgotten -- is "specifying the properties that an object [organism] needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the" terms "male" and "female":
What needs to have the property - per your own definition - is not the organism per se but its phenotype.
Kinda think you're suffering under a "cognitive distortion", though it's a common one, and one that has, maybe arguably, bedeviled much of philosophy for the last 2500 years. Basically, there's a common confusion about the difference between members of a category and the category itself -- particularly when the name for both is the same as in the case of "male" and "female":



"male" and "female" are BOTH names for categories AND for the members of them. Causes no end of confusion; see my "What is a woman?" for some elaborations on the theme:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...hat-is-a-woman

Although it might be emphasized that "phenotype" is basically the same as a category, something of an abstraction -- as Emily usefully acknowledged -- since "type" and "category" are more or less synonymous. But categories, as abstractions, exist only in our minds as names for a collection of individuals that have a particular property or set of properties in common that qualify them as members of that category:



Note the "regarded as" -- i.e., "perceived as" -- having traits in common. But the perception isn't tangible, doesn't exist anywhere outside of our minds, much less in each member of the category. The only thing that might be said to exist, to have tangible aspects, are the properties in question -- in this case, "produces gametes".

You might want to take a gander at this article on universals which might be a useful entry point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
So the issue then becomes, when an organism goes through its developmental processes - gestating, puberty, menopause, etc. - does a new stage mean it has a different phenotype, or merely the same phenotype that encompasses those developmental stages?
Think that's a case of reification, one of the side effects, or maybe cause of the aforementioned confusion between categories -- i.e., abstractions -- and the members of them -- generally solid entities:

Quote:
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

"female" and "male" are not real things with weight and volume. As categories, turning them into those real things is that logical fallacy, the "sin" of reification. As labels for members of the categories, the only things that exist are the qualifying properties.

Because phenotypes are a range of properties that exist to different degrees over wide spans of time, it's too vague and imprecise to be of much use. Only by naming different sets of traits and specifying criteria for category membership -- female phenotype, male phenotype, tadpole phenotype, etc. -- is there going to be much use to them.

Though, there again, it's important to differentiate between the category which is defined on the basis of some of those traits, and the individuals which exhibit them and are therefore members.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:12 PM   #846
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You seem to think that publication in scientific journals and publications of scientific theses is somehow the be-all-and-end-all of qualifications to pontificate on a scientific subject. Well, I have news for you. It is not.
So you don't accept any authorities at all?

Kinda think an article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, one of whose authors has an FRS to his name, carries a bit more weight that a letter to UK Times by Hilton and Company. Or would you say otherwise? ...

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I have a degree in what was my chosen profession - a BEng (Hons) Aeronautical Engineering.
Good for you.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'd be interested to know what qualifications (if any) you have in biology, or in any subject? I have asked you about this before, but you seem to dodge the question every time, so I suspect you have none - you're just a layman like most of the rest of us here.
Posted my CV here several weeks ago:
https://www.internationalskeptics.co...&postcount=380

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
That Taylor and Francis link is only to a chapter in a book that Hilton & Wright had written, not the whole book itself. Much of which looks like a pile of feminist claptrap.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/...06&context=ubx

And big deal that Hilton and Wright are peddling their views on their Substacks -- even I have one of those. But still not a peer-reviewed biological journal anywhere to be seen.

As for the Paradox Institute, the "proprietor" Zach Elliott is no more than an architectural student, though generally knowledgeable about biology. Even if he does have his thumbs, to the elbows on the scales:



Since when do "morally problematic claims" trump scientific theories and facts? Galileo, Darwin, and his "bulldog" T.H. Huxley are rolling over in their graves.

Though you might take a close look at that video of Zach's yourself, particularly from about the midpoint on which apparently features a chain of Hilton's tweets where she emphasizes the distinguishing and defining trait for "female": "she produces large gametes".
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:39 PM   #847
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,863
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
You might try quoting exactly what you're referring to since the only use of "immature" in that first one is this
You might try clicking on the wikipedia link I provided.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Similarly, "immature ova" only means, at best, "the immature stage in the development OF an ovum".
Development of an ovum (at all stages of maturity) is literally the process of "production of gametes" mentioned here.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:59 PM   #848
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Think you're barking up the wrong tree. Those are simply a bunch of red herrings.

IF you want to subscribe to Hilton's claptrap then it AIN'T biology. And IF you reject that in favour of the actual biological definitions then "male" and "female" are simply the RONG tools for the jobs you expect of the category.

You might actually try reading -- and thinking about -- Griffiths' article on the point:


https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity

To follow suit and to take a general kick at your questions, access to toilets and the like should be by genitalia: one set of loos for the vagina-havers, and one set for the penis-havers -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Similarly for sports which might be segregated by karyotype: for women's, no XY need apply.

You might also reflect on the monkey trap:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...liver-burkeman

I don't care about Griffiths answers, I was asking about yours.

I didn't ask about toilets. Please answer the questions I posed.
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote

Last edited by Myriad; Yesterday at 09:00 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:24 PM   #849
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,222
The problem you have Steersman is the there is no such word as "context" in your vocabulary... or if there is, your either do not understand what it means, or you do not accept that it is relevant.

Let's grant for a moment, without prejudice, that your definitions are correct. I disagree, but for the sake of a thought experiment, I can pretend that I agree that your definitions of male and female applies to all mammals. In this thought experiment world, "produces" means exactly what you say it does, and that only your definitions can be used. Any mammal that is not actually producing gametes in the here and now is sexless and is indistinguishable in any way from any other mammal in of the same species. Context is not allowed, so you cannot use any other clues such as physical attributes or biological phenomena to determine sex other than your definitions. The ONLY way to determine sex is production of gametes, and if you are unable to determine this, you cannot determine the sex of the individual.

(Oh, and keep in mind this is MY thought experiment and mine alone. You do not get to change any conditions to make your opinions or comments or conclusions fit, or fit better. So, you don't get to use terms like boys, girls, men, women or gender etc, because they have been explicitly ruled out by you definitions. You also don't get to use context, because your definitions also rule context out).

Now please explain the following

Since all prepubescent mammals are sexless, then in your world...

1. How does a grade school segregate toilet facilities?

2. How does that grade school decide who wear which uniform?

3. What criteria would a junior sports club use to qualify children for segregation into teams?

4. How would a veterinarian determine which procedure to use to neuter a dog or a cat or other animal?

5. What criteria would a farmer use to decide which calves to cull from a group of new calves?


Since all post-menopausal women are sexless

6. What criteria does the LPGA Senior Tour use to define who can compete. (repeat for all other seniors/veterans sports)?

7. What criteria are used to determine which public toilets this person will use?
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!

Last edited by smartcooky; Yesterday at 09:25 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:59 PM   #850
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You might try clicking on the wikipedia link I provided.
I did. Still obliged me to search to find what you were getting at.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Development of an ovum (at all stages of maturity) is literally the process of "production of gametes" mentioned [here.
Still not an ovum until it comes off the end of the production line. As a "car" along the production line doesn't qualify as one until it comes off the end of it.

I linked to this before in, I think, another comment to you and even listed all of the different names given in the process: oogonium to primary and secondary oocytes to ootids to ova:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogene...-human_mammals

You might actually try looking at and thinking about the table shown.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:01 PM   #851
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
I don't care about Griffiths answers, I was asking about yours.

I didn't ask about toilets. Please answer the questions I posed.
I did. You just don't like the answers given. Tough.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:03 PM   #852
8enotto
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 3,304
Prediction of results of this.

The goalposts will slide back to looser definitions.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:19 PM   #853
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,222
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
I did. You just don't like the answers given. Tough.
This is a lie. You did not answer Myriad's questions, you just spouted someone else's dogma.

Are you even capable of original thinking, or is your go to reaction to just parrot what you've been told to think?
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:18 AM   #854
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The problem you have Steersman is the there is no such word as "context" in your vocabulary... or if there is, your either do not understand what it means, or you do not accept that it is relevant.

Quote:
context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
In this case, all of the literally millions of species which are characterized by many members producing large or small gametes.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
.... Any mammal that is not actually producing gametes in the here and now is sexless and is indistinguishable in any way from any other mammal in of the same species.
"indistinguishable in any way" is a rather clueless premise. For one thing, some 48% have vaginas and XX karyotypes while another 48% have penises and XY karyotypes.

In addition to which virtually all females -- those producing ova -- have vaginas and XX karyotypes, but probably only 66% of those with vaginas and XX karyotypes qualify as females. Pretty good bet -- 2 to 1 I figure -- that those with vaginas and XX karyotypes qualify as females.

For a supposed engineer you don't seem to have a clue about correlation. Or about biology and much else besides.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Context is not allowed, so you cannot use any other clues such as physical attributes or biological phenomena to determine sex other than your definitions. The ONLY way to determine sex is production of gametes, and if you are unable to determine this, you cannot determine the sex of the individual.

<snip>

Now please explain the following

Since all prepubescent mammals are sexless, then in your world...

1. How does a grade school segregate toilet facilities?

<snip>

7. What criteria are used to determine which public toilets this person will use?
Already explained above and in my previous comment. Most of you lot are just too clueless or intellectually dishonest to read and think about the answers given:

https://www.internationalskeptics.co...&postcount=844

Since you seem incapable or unwilling to read and think about what was posted, here's the Cole's Notes version:

Quote:
IF you want to subscribe to Hilton's claptrap then it AIN'T biology. And IF you reject that in favour of the actual biological definitions then "male" and "female" are simply the RONG tools for the jobs you expect of the category.

To follow suit and to take a general kick at your questions, access to toilets and the like should be by genitalia: one set of loos for the vagina-havers, and one set for the penis-havers -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Similarly for sports which might be segregated by karyotype: for women's, no XY need apply.
https://www.internationalskeptics.co...&postcount=844
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:46 AM   #855
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,222
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Yeah, as I expected, your stock answer when you've got nothing!

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
In this case, all of the literally millions of species which are characterized by many members producing large or small gametes.
Non sequitur. Irrelevant to what I am asking

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
"indistinguishable in any way" is a rather clueless premise. For one thing, some 48% have vaginas and XX karyotypes while another 48% have penises and XY karyotypes.

In addition to which virtually all females -- those producing ova -- have vaginas and XX karyotypes, but probably only 66% of those with vaginas and XX karyotypes qualify as females. Pretty good bet -- 2 to 1 I figure -- that those with vaginas and XX karyotypes qualify as females.
Of course, you are changing the conditions of my thought experiment. I told you that you cannot do that

But hey, here's some progress. You are admitting that there are TWO types of distinguishing characteristics or attributes, and that about half have one type, and the other half have the other type. Congratulations, you've just come up with the basis for definitions of male and female - one that has a better chance of working in the real world of humans and social interactions than that unworkable abstraction you believe in.

8enotto was right, you've moved the goalposts to loosen your definitions. Welcome to the social reality of humanity.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
For a supposed engineer you don't seem to have a clue about correlation. Or about biology and much else besides.
My apologies. I hadn't realized that you are unfamiliar with the concept of a thought experiment.

For a supposed Electronics technologist, you don't seem to have a clue about willingness to learn. Or about biology and much else besides.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Already explained above and in my previous comment. Most of you lot are just too clueless or intellectually dishonest to read and think about the answers given:

https://www.internationalskeptics.co...&postcount=844

Since you seem incapable or unwilling to read and think about what was posted, here's the Cole's Notes version:


https://www.internationalskeptics.co...&postcount=844
Yeah, confirmed. You really do not understand the concept of a thought experiment do you?
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!

Last edited by smartcooky; Today at 12:48 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:50 AM   #856
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
...
Of course, you are changing the conditions of my thought experiment. I told you that you cannot do that.
Idiotic thought experiment. Par for the course. "Can Gawd create something heavier than He can lift?"

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
... that unworkable abstraction you believe in.
Not a matter of belief but stipulation. Another fairly basic concept that you apparently also don't have a clue about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

But a fairly common definition that's more or less standard across many reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries as well as being replicated in many more popular sources:
Quote:
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
male
/māl/
adjective
of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.