RuneScape Forum Archive | Zamorak vs. Zamorakianism

Ascertes

Posts: 5,461 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

*reads thread*
This is a great thread. The vitriol reaction is lovely.

OT:
I'd have to agree with the OP. As others have said there is no true freedom and Zamorak's way of doing things is never the less imposing his world view on those who may not agree with it. And this new hierarchy and system? It's order. Not Saradomin's order, not Zaros's order, but order none the less. A set way of doing things. Societal expectation.

And Zamorak himself? The Elders would be pacified and the Kin dealt with before he would move to finish off the other young gods. He would have all the artifacts, and who in their right mind would leave them lying around? He would either wear them or lock them away, preventing others from their use. This is inherent suppression of the power others could attain. It leads to others' stagnation. If he didn't do this he would violate his own ideology for refusing to get more power.

Yeah. He's screwed no matter what he does. -Ascertes, King of all the Hallowlands and the Everchosen of Saradomin.

23-Mar-2017 02:02:25

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Rifleavenger said :
Also, if this infinite variation prevents classification of things, why did you previously say physics was any better? How is the statement "oxygen is an atom with 8 protons" any different than "Mammalia is a taxonomic group of organisms w/ a common ancestor and the following derived traits: endothermy, hair, produce milk, have a single lower jaw bone, and have three internal ear bones"?

If physics is no better, are you arguing that we can never draw similarities between things?
Like I said, I overstepped my bounds with that claim. I wasn't trying to make a claim, but simply echoing a phrase I so often hear in relation to social sciences lol. For the record, I don't have suspended my judgement in trying to measure sciences by "realness".

My point is that we can never classify any two things as the same. We can never say two things share any objective traits, or that they have objectively similar forms. There are only individuals in the universe.

That being said, we can subjectivly form similarities between individuals. However, doing so means that any knowledge developed around using these similarities has a subjective component, and thus we must always be somewhat skeptical of its accuracy. Taxonomy is the science of classification, and thus must be quite subjective. This is why I knock it

but that being said, I recognize it's usefulness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a post on the page before in case you missed it.

23-Mar-2017 02:11:02 - Last edited on 23-Mar-2017 02:46:07 by Cthris

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Rifleavenger said :
And if it is just words

It's not just words. There is no objective similarity between any particular. Our mental process of identifying similarities is subjective and undermines our ability to gain objective knowledge.

Rifleavenger said :

Not all the variations are relevant to a given classification. Ral, you, and I all have a similar morphology, are part of a population that could theoretically interbreed under normal circumstances, have genetic codes that are significantly similar (would not reject null hypothesis for significant deviation from the average sequence), and share derived traits and a common ancestor (those were examples from 4 different species concepts). For the purpose of macroevolutionary study that is sufficient to place us in the same group.

All those perceived similarities that you see in our morphology, genetic code, traits etc. are all subjective. They don't exist in reality due to all things having infinite variation. For the purpose of macroevolutionary study you absolutely could put things in the same group but you have to recognize that doing so makes macroevolutionary studies partly subjective and arbitrary.

23-Mar-2017 02:21:41 - Last edited on 23-Mar-2017 02:48:13 by Cthris

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

The overall problem is that society tends to only see science as objective, which the nominalist perspective disproves. All science if it involves the classification of things is subjective.

Now normally we don't have a whole lot of problems with this misunderstanding. For whatever reason the subjectivity has actually made the science more accurate than it would be without. (unless you are sociologist

) However, we are not completely free. Occasionally our misunderstanding of the nature of science brings problems.

For example, we tend to classify gender under only two categories despite nominalism showing us that there is actually as many different genders as there are individuals because all genders would have infinite variation between them. Now historically it was super convenient and useful to arbitrary classify all the kinds of genders down to 2 types but as you all know by now this has caused controversy.

Now a days, people are so strung up on the idea that there can even be objective classifications that they are unable to recognize that their point of view is not objectively true, and thereby are blocked off from seeing a potentially more convenient classification system to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly why you are likely correct Rali

"philosophy can be tremendously useful in interpreting that knowledge."

I'm inclined to believe that philosophy lets us negotiate with the assumed ideas of our times and enables us to use knowledge in a more convenient manner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Man there is a lot of typos in my work. I hope you guys give me a re-read before responding.

23-Mar-2017 02:35:22 - Last edited on 23-Mar-2017 02:51:14 by Cthris

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Hguoh said :

See the edited post.
Those are all perceived similarities, traits, etc. that only exist in the human mind. The mechanical means in which we perceive those similarities relies on bodies with infinite variance. Just the simple fact that you are using significance is a good hint that we are dealing with subjectivity.

23-Mar-2017 02:39:58

May

2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Cthris said :

A) I'm glad the two are not distinct. That would have been my next critique.

B)Why must I wait several generations? If I forced a huge amount of wolves to breed with dogs extensively for 7 years, wouldn't that be enough time for it to be considered a regular occurrence.

Only the original parent generation would be wolves. After the first, there are only hybrids until breeding hybrids w/ hybrids produces a lineage w/ a common ancestor and shared derived traits distinct from wolves and dogs. Unless you breed the hybrids with wolves or dogs. Those would simply still be more hybrids, not a distinct lineage with a common ancestor and shared derived traits.

C) Would you please quantify "regularly" for me? How many years is that or how many animal breeding scenarios is that?

I don't see where I used that term. Please quote it.

D) Rifleavenger said :
The wolves' breeding would never be considered normal for their species; if you caught every wolf in the world and forced this on them, never letting wolves breed with wolves again, C. lupus would be extinct as the last ones dies.
How do you define normal? If human interaction is not distinct from nature, and the pressures of nature is normal than capturing all wolves and forcing them to breed would be a normal occurrence no? What makes something not normal?
Normally means not extreme circumstances. Like a meteor strike, or an ocean acidification event, or a sudden capture of hundreds of wolves in order to forcibly interbreed them with dogs. In this event, human advancement of late could be regarded as an extraordinary event.

23-Mar-2017 03:09:08 - Last edited on 23-Mar-2017 03:31:23 by Rifleavenger

May

2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Rather waste time writing more long posts, I'm going to give you an example and ask you how it's a subjective classification. How exactly does infinite variation break this down to subjectivity?

The taxonomic group Mammalia is a taxon that shares a common ancestor with the following derived characteristics: endothermic (internal temperature maintained by own metabolic processes), hair, mammary glands, single bone in their lower jaw, three middle-ear bones.

Cthris said :

Those are all perceived similarities, traits, etc. that only exist in the human mind. The mechanical means in which we perceive those similarities relies on bodies with infinite variance. Just the simple fact that you are using significance is a good hint that we are dealing with subjectivity. What about statistical significance, often used in quantitative scientific studies?

23-Mar-2017 03:16:12 - Last edited on 23-Mar-2017 03:45:38 by Rifleavenger

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Cthris said :
Those are all perceived similarities, traits, etc. that only exist in the human mind.

Yeah, no. The physical properties of matter, chemical reactions under various circumstances, the similarities species share that enable them to breed, etc... existed prior to humans ever came into being, and they will continue longer after we cease to exist (if the species ever does). All humanity did was organize them for our own purposes.

Uranium did not suddenly become radioactive because humans observed it. Organisms did not decide that they can only possibly breed with certain other organisms because humans observed that they were similar. Stars do not coalesce from collapsing nebulas that ignite and perpetuate fusion reactions because humans observed that the evidence points to this happening.

And the fact that these similarities happen consistently despite the so-called 'infinite variance' tells you how insignificant your 'infinite variance' is.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than a rehashing of the paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles. And just as the flaw in logic within the paradox leads to the false conclusion that one would never be able to cross their own room, so too do the faults in your argument lead to the false conclusion that either no two organisms should ever be able to breed due to being so very different from one another or that any two organisms should be able to breed as all organisms are infinitely different from any other organism (heck, breeding with inorganic objects should also be possible as they are also infinitely different from the organism).

The fact of the matter is that just as you can infinitely add positive values to reach a finite value, so too can you sum up an infinite amount of differences to reach a finite total difference.

23-Mar-2017 03:23:06 - Last edited on 23-Mar-2017 03:26:10 by Hguoh

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Cthris said :
Just the simple fact that you are using significance is a good hint that we are dealing with subjectivity.

No, we aren't. Significance in this case refers to the actual effects the differences and similarities have.

So sure, any two of the 'same thing' might be infinitely different from one another. But if these 'differences' cause little to no effect on what actually happens, the logical conclusion is that they are less significant than the aspects the objects share.

And all a name does is act as a shorthand for what aspects a given type of object has and can very from very specific (Chuck Neil Lagosso who lives in the house down the street) to very unspecific (that person).

23-Mar-2017 03:33:54 - Last edited on 23-Mar-2017 03:42:47 by Hguoh

Raleirosen

Posts: 5,069 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Cthris said :
The overall problem is that society tends to only see science as objective, which the nominalist perspective disproves. All science if it involves the classification of things is subjective. Nominalism disproves nothing, it is a philosophical viewpoint and nothing more. Further, people do not view science as some supreme objective truth; it's simply a method of increasing our understanding of the universe, and because it works so tremendously well we frame our understanding in scientific terms.

Cthris said :
For example, we tend to classify gender under only two categories despite nominalism showing us that there is actually as many different genders as there are individuals because all genders would have infinite variation between them. Now historically it was super convenient and useful to arbitrary classify all the kinds of genders down to 2 types but as you all know by now this has caused controversy. This is opening up a whole different discussion, but crucially we do not classify gender under two categories because people have a misunderstanding about science being objective; it's because gender is derived in large part from biological sex, which is binary. Now without getting bogged down in the gender debate I'll just say that I view the 2< genders theory as unscientific, untrue, and not useful.

Cthris said :
Now a days, people are so strung up on the idea that there can even be objective classifications that they are unable to recognize that their point of view is not objectively true, and thereby are blocked off from seeing a potentially more convenient classification system to use. Ironically I think it is you who is hung up on the idea of objectivity. Very few would bother arguing that science is part of an objective truth, or that any given point of view is objectively true, because they don't need to be in order to be useful. Patrolling Lore FC almost makes you wish for a Great Revision.

23-Mar-2017 03:36:34

Forums

Zamorak vs. Zamorakianism