You're going to have to supply a quote. I seriously doubt you'll find a credible authority on logic or debate agree the onus on discussions of the existence of unicorns lies with those disbelieving unicorns exist. Paging Bertrand Russell!
I actually think we've misunderstood each other here. It's my fault as I've spent so much time entrenched in the study of law lately that I think exclusively in the logical terminology of US courts (feel free to call that an oxymoron).
"The burden of proof necessitates that the individual refuting a phenomenon provides incontrovertible proof for the non-existence of the phenomenon. The fallacious shift of the burden occurs in assuming that a given statement is true unless proven false..." "...The burden itself keeps possibility open, not definitively confirming nor disconfirming until the denying party presents evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is often utilized in courts of law, when individuals in dispute who deny existence of the phenomenon are asked to supply proof for their claim. Those lacking the burden of proof possess the benefit of assumption."
The aforementioned Hurley text, page 161.
It's a subtle distinction between arguing that something is true, finding beyond dispute that it is false, and allowing for the possibility of truth. It's nitpicking, I know. In traditional logic, to make the claim that it is true unless proven false is fallacious; to allow for existence with the benefit of assumption is another thing. Saying, "this isn't true unless you could prove it false" would mean that the party denying existence is given a task he can't possibly fulfill unless he's omniscient. The point burden isn't for outlandish claims, but rather for more concrete ones such as, "In WATCHMEN, Dr. Manhattan laughs heartily while jumping on a trampoline with a thousand kittens." If I say that, I enjoy the benefit of assumption unless you, now having the burden of proof, search that out and see that, throughout the entire graphic novel, Dr. Manhattan never does such a thing. Then the matter is resolved. We were both embellishing a little with leprechauns and yetis, but you get the point. Whew! There, that clears that up as best as I think we can. (The discussion goes back so far now I'm finding it difficult to keep track
).
Interesting that you would mention Russell, given his activism in the Cold War era and the setting of the GN... just a random fleeting thought that I find amusing.
. We're just disagreeing about your arbitrary demarcation of what constitutes "other" here.
Heidegger would disagree; it's actually extremely important for the matter at hand, and it appears the reason for our disagreement. Perfectly acceptable. We'll have to agree to disagree.
It's doubtful in the sense that Moore himself appears to be hedging his bets. But his arguments aren't given equal weight. The "peace is temporary" niggles play out in whispers in the wings while the "this is our one chance" is right there with the volume turned to 11. It's the only way the moral checkmate carries any weight at all; otherwise there's just no point in any of the characters' actions at the end of the book. Although now that we're getting into it I wonder if Moore was deliberately playing down these thoughts to make the story work. Now I can't decide whether
Watchmen is brilliant but naive or deeply and fundamentally flawed!
It's the unraveling of the moral checkmate in the thoughts and nagging wonderment following the act that is perhaps more powerful than the checkmate itself. Often that which is unspoken carries as much or more weight than the explicit. A period of a peace, or an even longer period of war and the possible destruction of mankind in the imminent future. Even with the options weighed, when someone has their hands on the nuclear football, toss them a shiny red ball and they may loose their train of thought, grab onto that brief distraction, and it could be just enough to circumvent armageddon. Wouldas, couldas, and shouldas. We'll never know what these characters have nagging in their heads for years to come, nor what their world transformed into.
This is one of those places where your logic trips you up. Presumably (as per the squid) we'll never know until it happens. And even then we'd never know until the last person dies of old age. So I'm not sure I'm going to let you get away with claiming finite peace is "reality" if you're not going to let me run with the inevitability that no threat is ever going to unify the whole world based on history.
Well I hope we cleared up the logic, but moving on to ethology since all animal activity, including human activity, is predictable, we can find activities in human behavior that present themselves in regular patterns and that humans react similarly when placed under certain situations. It's just a matter of time until people get bored and start trying to bash their neighbor over the head to have a larger backyard. It's actually been found to have the exact same results with rats and and Bonobo chimps in isolated laboratory settings, as well as most derived vertebrates in the wild. Territorial organisms, when placed in gregarious settings, will always end up organizing hierarchically through territory disputes, and with most derived mammals, including higher primates, those disputes are resolved through violence. We can make logical predictions for human behavior based on these results from trials and human history. We don't have anything in human history to demonstrate reaction to a sentient threat external to our species... but now I feel like we're both starting to repeat ourselves.
And still an arbitrary demarcation. The plan only works if we suspend our disbelief for the sake of the story, the same way we pretend there's gravity in the Millennium Falcon even though we "know" there's not.
And we don't actually believe there are big blue men walking around out there who are shaping the course of human history through near-omnipotence.
To be quite honest I think the near ubiquity of religion and the historic scarcity of democracies (representative or otherwise) suggest precisely the opposite.
I'd argue the very same evidence purports the opposite. But again, we're going to have to leave that unresolved.
You can say it until you're blue in the face, but there's nothing in the book to indicate this is so. Indeed we're looking at a setting in which not only do people hate superheroes, but very few wanted to become one even when they were fashionable. Maybe this is a world where people just aren't very interested in becoming gods (and Dan alludes to this when they're entering Karnak). Who knows. It's an unfortunate omission in my opinion; it would have prevented these sort of chats!
There's nothing to indicate that it's not so either... as you say, it's a most unfortunate omission because it does lead to these sorts of arguments in perpetuity without resolution. I don't think there's any world where people wouldn't be lining up to have the power of a god; I can't even imagine how much that technology could potentially be auctioned for, particularly to individuals who would wish to exploit it for malicious purposes. As you say, an unfortunate omission. I like our chats, but now they are seeming a bit circuitous.
You may think yourself to be a brontosaurus, but that doesn't make it so. And I think Dr Manhattan talks about creating life in general - but even if he is referencing humans that doesn't make him not human. I don't see how humanity can be defined by perspectives or powers. That final look at Laurie says all that needs to be said as far as I'm concerned.
Again, we're just looking at this from different perspectives, you from an emotional one and I from a perspective of biological categorization and what constitutes a species. We're not going to come to an agreement, so again I'll leave it at that.
I'm not sure how you'd even go about determining that. He's still sleeping with Laurie and clearly has affection for her to the bitter end. And if he can no longer procreate with her, well, I suppose there are a few million Americans who are no longer human!
It's having the physical characteristics of a human as we know it and being able to procreate and produce viable offspring, meaning that there are comparable genetic codes, not accounting other factors that could inhibit such as infertility. That's the biological species concept for you, it often just leads to more confusion than it does resolution to discussion.
You have no idea. This stuff doesn't exist in the real world on this scale. I'm not really interested in having a Star Trek discussion about fictional technology. More power to you if you like that sort of thing.
It doesn't have anything to do with Star Trek, it's the study of particle physics and it's all theoretical through utilization of different alloys (I know there are more than titanium and aluminum... and I wager I would be flogged by a former professor or two for forgetting, but oh well). Again, it's speculative, but the fact that even such a reaction took place is miraculous, and based on speculative particle physics, repetition of the experiment can't happen. Again, I wish Alan would have clarified more, but we're left to wonderment.
Now you're shifting the goalposts. And there are literally tribes that have no record of real violence in their oral histories. North Dakota isn't at war with Bolivia. I've never been in a fight. Not even a shoving match. Peace is often achieved after bloodshed and occasionally there might even be a causal link. But it's by no means a universal truth across the board. I'm pretty sure you didn't land a wife and best friend by first beating the crap out of them.
No, not at all. To many, the squid was a goal post shift. I'm just trying to illustrate that that particular scenario would have roots within humanity but would be distanced from the human race. While I'll confess I'm no anthropologist, I've never heard of any civilization that didn't have intrasocietal conflict if not intersocietal. Many peoples are violent by nature and differ greatly from what does and does not constitute conflict. I'm sure you would agree that no relationship is peaceful; every single one, no matter how pleasant, has discord and unrest. It is through exercise of that upset that peace can be achieved. I applaud you for not having had a violent past. Personally, the martial arts are my sport of choice so I have always found the exercise liberating and have sought to understand that feeling.
We're dealing with unknowns. We don't know what would happen next. We don't know there would be a war. And hey, there wasn't! We're still here!
We are, but our past doesn't have a Dr. Manhattan or an Adrien Veidt. Again, it's dealing with unknowns, as you aptly say.
Anyway, maybe we should move on to arguing about that awesome Kool-Aid Man comic.
DONE, and gratefully so! I can't even remember what we started out discussing. I think it was Entertainment Weekly of all things. Seth MacFarlane was right, they are divisive.
