demonic hypothetical

[markprice]

Ah, well, in that case, it was just wrong. My mistake.

We obviously need a working definition for reductionism (I'll use /quote] to make it easier for you, not me): the process of incorporating information with an increasingly narrow focus. Extreme reductionism can be dysfunctional while deductive thinking becomes primary...for example: taking a broad definition and trying to reduce that to non-existent specifics is dysfunctional. This is your inclination when you cannot grasp the given concept. Try that with these: God, Love, Hate etc. and you will get nowhere IMO. Evil must be defined in context like: the source of the demonic realm. If you want to narrow the focus you are a reductionist.

I'm not saying the theoretical reality of the OP has changed. I'm saying that it is so vague that any time someone comes up with some sort of statement, suddenly we get another parameter.

Nothing "vague" about the stark reality.

Immensily useful. Without parameters, what differentiates a good anwer from a bad one? A relevant one from an irrelevant one?

There is no such thing as an "open question" when the subject being discussed is being defined on the fly (or not defined at all).

That's a pretty good description of the method for an open question.

But what functional difference is there between it and any other affliction, condition, Rage virus, or what have you?

This is a good question. None. Use the machine to determine if the cause is natural or unnatural...

Historical, justifying referring to something or some people as evil has been fairly easy to justify, regardless of evidence (there is yet another psychological experiment that showed something directly related to this that I won't derail this thread more on). But again, one of the questions was "What are you going to do about the "evil" countries?

Just wait until they cross some unacceptable red-line.

We are acting under the assumption that the scientific discovery of evidence for evil will actually convince people that evil exists and should be unilaterally opposed, no questions asked.

Unless you are one of the 5% that thinks the sun revolves around the moon or whatever [see OH (original hypothetical)]

How would we deal directly with the evil behind the...evil...Is there some sort of innoculation? And would the "Destroy the evil!" people necessarily be wrong? It may not deal with the evil behind whatever, but it is a pretty direct method of stopping the evil you can deal with.

Now we get to the big question. The answer: exorcism with no destruction required.

But, okay, evil, whatever that is, is the source of the demonic realm (?). Demons make people act evil (some so well they should be on Broadway).

So...what has changed? Functionally? What can we do now that we couldn't do before? Without any added ability to act, how is the knowledge that demons exist any different from assuming right now that demons exist?

I'm saying that nothing will happen other than the bell curve for the religious folk getting a bit thinner.

The point being that action could then be taken after all doubt is removed.

Isn't that what they did, by helping an evil person?

What if they didn't have an evil detector? Would they still be evil helping a person they didn't know was evil?

Helping people is not evil unless you are consciously helping them do evil.

[aquatus1]

We obviously need a working definition for reductionism

Why? I thought you didn't want to talk about it. Instead of making definitions for what you don't want to talk about, try clarifying what you do want to talk about.

(I'll use /quote] to make it easier for you, not me):

Yeah, that's the thing about etiquette: it's not all about you.

the process of incorporating information with an increasingly narrow focus.

How is that a synonym for "definition"?

Extreme reductionism can be dysfunctional while deductive thinking becomes primary...

Extreme anything can be dysfunctional. I can't even agree that this is reductionism and here you are talking about extremes.

for example: taking a broad definition and trying to reduce that to non-existent specifics is dysfunctional.

What broad definition?

"We have a demon detector, which senses demons, which are evil."

"How do we know demons are evil?"

"Because we feel it."

"What do we feel?"

"Evil."

"Then why did we need the detectors?"

"To sense demons."

This is your inclination when you cannot grasp the given concept. Try that with these: God, Love, Hate etc. and you will get nowhere IMO.

It doesn't sound like you've tried very hard.

Evil must be defined in context like: the source of the demonic realm. If you want to narrow the focus you are a reductionist.

Ahh...so you are saying that you can't think of an objective definition of "evil", is that it?

Nothing "vague" about the stark reality.

Except the reality bit. And the starkness bit.

That's a pretty good description of the method for an open question.

...

Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. What is the modus tollens of your open-question argument?

This is a good question. None. Use the machine to determine if the cause is natural or unnatural...

And if it is unnatural, it is automatically a demon, and automatically evil.

Notice the slippery slope yet?

Just wait until they cross some unacceptable red-line.

Okay...so, we'll just sit around and wait for the next MDK, and then we'll know exactly who the bad guy is.

Good plan. Worked great for Poland.

Unless you are one of the 5% that thinks the sun revolves around the moon or whatever [see OH (original hypothetical)]

I didn't say that people would deny that demons exist. I said that people would not agree that demons were automatically evil, or that they should be automatically opposed.

Now we get to the big question. The answer: exorcism with no destruction required.

I think the demon would disagree with you. In all cases, I'm afraid exorcism wouldn't work, because demons wear anti-exorcism cover-alls.

I don't find your form of open-ended arguments particularly challenging.

The point being that action could then be taken after all doubt is removed.

These "actions" being exorcism? So, we are adding...or rather, assuming...or...geez...So, exorcisms are also a viable option now, in this thought exercise...

I thought my cover-alls example would emphasize the pointless aspect of a lack of parameters, but, apparently not. We can just make stuff up on the fly.

Helping people is not evil unless you are consciously helping them do evil.

All right. Helping a demon is okay, as long as it isn't helping the demon commit an evil act.

Which, if Hollywood hasn't lied to me, is the preferred method of demons and such to make people do things, by getting them to do small, non-evil things, until suddenly everything comes together into an huge evil plot.

Maybe killing evil on the spot isn't a bad answer.

Edited April 14, 2013 by aquatus1

[markprice]

Why? I thought you didn't want to talk about it. Instead of making definitions for what you don't want to talk about, try clarifying what you do want to talk about.

Are you just dodging or trolling now?

Except the reality bit. And the starkness bit.

You can't really be this dense, right?

And if it is unnatural, it is automatically a demon, and automatically evil.

Notice the slippery slope yet?

No, that would be the stark reality:no doubt about it.

Okay...so, we'll just sit around and wait for the next MDK, and then we'll know exactly who the bad guy is.

Good plan. Worked great for Poland.

So you would rather just nuke everything and all the innocent...

I didn't say that people would deny that demons exist. I said that people would not agree that demons were automatically evil, or that they should be automatically opposed.

Sorry but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you think demons are good then you are not thinking about demons.

I think the demon would disagree with you. In all cases, I'm afraid exorcism wouldn't work, because demons wear anti-exorcism cover-alls.

I don't find your form of open-ended arguments particularly challenging.

Of course they would and yes you must be a troll.

[aquatus1]

Are you just dodging or trolling now?

Useless.

You can't really be this dense, right?

Useless.

No, that would be the stark reality:no doubt about it.

Useless.

So you would rather just nuke everything and all the innocent...

Disagreement with you equates to nuclear genocide.

Sorry but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

The bar hasn't been set very high.

If you think demons are good then you are not thinking about demons.

Disagreement with you equates to thinking demons are automatically good.

Of course they would and yes you must be a troll.

You wouldn't have a problem detonating a demonic version of a nuke in whatever demonic realm the demons inhabit, would you?

Well, I'm done here. Considering that the only answers you have gotten in response to the scenario as originally presented all agree that not much would happen, and there is really nothing further that can be said with the information available, not sure where else you expect this to go.

[markprice]

Useless.

Useless.

Useless.

exactly.