Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers. We infer effects
from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
necessary connection between cause and effect. We often admire the
innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
instinct.

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy...section9.rhtml

"Immortalist" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.

Kam:
Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.

We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
chain).

> We infer effects
> from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
> belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
> necessary connection between cause and effect.

Kam:
Of course, we do that as well and far more often.

> We often admire the
> innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
> that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
> instinct.
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy...section9.rhtml
>

"Kamerynn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Immortalist" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
>> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
>> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
>> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>
> Kam:
> Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
> suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
> results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
> results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
> like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
> of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
> portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>
> We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
> cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
> to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
> chain).
>

That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study" of
statistics can not know.

Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans destined
for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have a
higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
control group who are not destined for the same experience.

A further study would also show that those who were destined to the cancer
expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either smoked
or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.

The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way that
the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it & define
it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such that
is how they design the study.

Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and expectations.

Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms that
physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have mental
causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual problems
have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to where the
wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.

That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))

Trust your own instincts!!!




>> We infer effects
>> from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
>> belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
>> necessary connection between cause and effect.
>
> Kam:
> Of course, we do that as well and far more often.
>
>> We often admire the
>> innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
>> that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
>> instinct.
>>
>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy...section9.rhtml
>>
>
>
>

"Sean" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>
> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
> mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
> problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back
> to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>
> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))
>

Problems? What problems? :-)

BOfL

"Sean" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Immortalist" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
> >
> > Kam:
> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
> >
> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
> > chain).
> >
>
> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study"
of
> statistics can not know.
>
> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
destined
> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have a
> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
>
> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the cancer
> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
smoked
> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
>
> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
that
> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it & define
> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such
that
> is how they design the study.
>
> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and expectations.
>
> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
that
> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
mental
> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual problems
> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to where
the
> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.

So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?

regards
Milan

"Brian Fletcher" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sean" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>
>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
>> mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
>> problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back
>> to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>>
>> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
>> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))
>>
>
> Problems? What problems? :-)
>
> BOfL
>

sorry B an audience orientated text, opportunities wake up calls attention
getters co-incidences synchronisities taps on the shoulder lessons choices
karmic agreements etc etc

<smile>

"Sean" > wrote in message
.au...
>
> "Brian Fletcher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Sean" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>>> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems
>>> have mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and
>>> spiritual problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might
>>> actually get back to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about
>>> 20,000 years ago.
>>>
>>> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
>>> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))
>>>
>>
>> Problems? What problems? :-)
>>
>> BOfL
>>
>
> sorry B an audience orientated text, opportunities wake up calls attention
> getters co-incidences synchronisities taps on the shoulder lessons choices
> karmic agreements etc etc
>
> <smile>
Ohhh...THOSE problems ;-))

BOfL

"Milan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sean" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason
>> >> of
>> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
>> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
>> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>> >
>> > Kam:
>> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
>> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
>> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
>> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
>> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
>> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
>> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>> >
>> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
>> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
>> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
>> > chain).
>> >
>>
>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study"
> of
>> statistics can not know.
>>
>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
> destined
>> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have a
>> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
>> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
>>
>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
>> cancer
>> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
> smoked
>> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
>>
>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
> that
>> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
>> define
>> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such
> that
>> is how they design the study.
>>
>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
>> expectations.
>>
>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
> that
>> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
> mental
>> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual problems
>> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to where
> the
>> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>
> So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?
>
> regards
> Milan
>
Dont know about Sean, but I dated a girl called Carbon. She taught me
everything I know.

BOfL

"Brian Fletcher" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Milan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Sean" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>>> > oups.com...
>>> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason
>>> >> of
>>> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>>> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>>> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>>> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
>>> >> He
>>> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>>> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>>> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>>> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do
>>> >> children,
>>> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>>> >
>>> > Kam:
>>> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
>>> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
>>> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
>>> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
>>> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
>>> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a
>>> > representative
>>> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>>> >
>>> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
>>> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
>>> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
>>> > chain).
>>> >
>>>
>>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple
>>> "study"
>> of
>>> statistics can not know.
>>>
>>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
>> destined
>>> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have a
>>> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
>>> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
>>>
>>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
>>> cancer
>>> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
>> smoked
>>> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
>>>
>>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
>> that
>>> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
>>> define
>>> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such
>> that
>>> is how they design the study.
>>>
>>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
>>> expectations.
>>>
>>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>> that
>>> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
>> mental
>>> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
>>> problems
>>> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to where
>> the
>>> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>>
>> So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?
>>
>> regards
>> Milan


HUH? who said karma was invented? gee u ask odd questions Milan.

>>
> Dont know about Sean, but I dated a girl called Carbon. She taught me
> everything I know.
>
> BOfL
>

I embraced her mother, Earth, who held me close to her breast! Rocking me
gently with her song ..... <smile>

"Sean" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian Fletcher" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Milan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Sean" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >
> >>> > "Immortalist" > wrote in message
> >>> > oups.com...
> >>> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the
Reason
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
> >>> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
> >>> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
> >>> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
> >>> >> He
> >>> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First,
animals,
> >>> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
> >>> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn
to
> >>> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do
> >>> >> children,
> >>> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
> >>> >
> >>> > Kam:
> >>> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
> >>> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
> >>> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
> >>> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
> >>> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
> >>> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a
> >>> > representative
> >>> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
> >>> >
> >>> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
> >>> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use
reason
> >>> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the
causal
> >>> > chain).
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple
> >>> "study"
> >> of
> >>> statistics can not know.
> >>>
> >>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
> >> destined
> >>> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have
a
> >>> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
> >>> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
> >>>
> >>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
> >>> cancer
> >>> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
> >> smoked
> >>> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
> >>>
> >>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the
way
> >> that
> >>> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
> >>> define
> >>> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as
such
> >> that
> >>> is how they design the study.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
> >>> expectations.
> >>>
> >>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that
confirms
> >> that
> >>> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
> >> mental
> >>> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
> >>> problems
> >>> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to
where
> >> the
> >>> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
> >>
> >> So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?
> >>
> >> regards
> >> Milan
>
>
> HUH? who said karma was invented? gee u ask odd questions Milan.
>

LOL. I guess it was "discovered", then? But please answer my question.
20,000 years ago, in your opinion, humankind had the concept of karma. Would
you care to provide some sources for this daring statement? I'm sure many
anthropologists out there would be thrilled to know.

regards
Milan

"Sean" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian Fletcher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Milan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Sean" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >
>>>> > "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>>>> > oups.com...
>>>> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason
>>>> >> of
>>>> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>>>> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>>>> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>>>> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
>>>> >> He
>>>> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>>>> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>>>> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do
>>>> >> children,
>>>> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>>>> >
>>>> > Kam:
>>>> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
>>>> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
>>>> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
>>>> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
>>>> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
>>>> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a
>>>> > representative
>>>> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>>>> >
>>>> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
>>>> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use
>>>> > reason
>>>> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the
>>>> > causal
>>>> > chain).
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple
>>>> "study"
>>> of
>>>> statistics can not know.
>>>>
>>>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
>>> destined
>>>> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have
>>>> a
>>>> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
>>>> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
>>>>
>>>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
>>>> cancer
>>>> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
>>> smoked
>>>> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
>>>>
>>>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
>>> that
>>>> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
>>>> define
>>>> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such
>>> that
>>>> is how they design the study.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
>>>> expectations.
>>>>
>>>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>>> that
>>>> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
>>> mental
>>>> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
>>>> problems
>>>> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to
>>>> where
>>> the
>>>> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>>>
>>> So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Milan
>
>
> HUH? who said karma was invented? gee u ask odd questions Milan.
>
>>>
>> Dont know about Sean, but I dated a girl called Carbon. She taught me
>> everything I know.
>>
>> BOfL
>>
>
> I embraced her mother, Earth, who held me close to her breast! Rocking me
> gently with her song ..... <smile>
>
Carbon dating was much more retropredictable.

BOfL

"Sean" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
>>> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>>> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>>> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>>> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
>>> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>>> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>>> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>>> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
>>> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>>
>> Kam:
>> Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
>> suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
>> results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
>> results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
>> like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
>> of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
>> portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>>
>> We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
>> cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
>> to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
>> chain).
>>
>
> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study"
> of statistics can not know.
>
> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
> destined for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death,
> have a higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than
> the control group who are not destined for the same experience.

Kam:
Fair enough, and in such a case, we would still say that "smoking is
somehow causally related to cancer." In the above case, you speculate
that perhaps people who are destined to experience cancer are more
likely to take up smoking - which still implies a causal connection.
In such a case, there is a common cause - something that disposes one
to both cancer and smoking.

>
> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the cancer
> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
> smoked or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.

Kam:
That would strengthen our confidence in the connection between smoking
and cancer, wouldn't it?

>
> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
> that the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
> define it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as
> such that is how they design the study.
>
> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and expectations.

Kam:
And, that's how studies go. I suppose we should be skeptical of
studies
and researchers... but that doesn't significantly touch on the substantive
point,
here - whether or not reason *can* be used to justify a belief in a causal
connection,
or whether all causal connections are infered ala Hume. Unless you're
saying
that it isn't possible to be objective... that there is too much researcher
bias,
even in double blind studies, for any stong conclusions to be drawn.

In any case - that some researchers fail is to be expected, in my opinion.
But that
doesn't mean that we cannot, in principle, justify a causal connection using
reason
instead of inference.

>
> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
> mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
> problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back
> to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.

Kam:
Lol - my skepticism kicks in at the "mental problems have spiritual
causes"
stage. Everything up to that point seems to be well documented. For
example,
that physicality is affected by mentality is documented as the placebo
effect,
among other things.

>
> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))

Kam:
Of course. I'm not here to accept or dismiss what others claim,
really,
but to do some mental gymnastics (aside from my Hammond bashing
sessions - those are for the purpose of dismissing Hammond).
On that note, thanks for the response. : D

>
> Trust your own instincts!!!
>
>
>
>
>>> We infer effects
>>> from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
>>> belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
>>> necessary connection between cause and effect.
>>
>> Kam:
>> Of course, we do that as well and far more often.
>>
>>> We often admire the
>>> innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
>>> that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
>>> instinct.
>>>
>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy...section9.rhtml
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Kamerynn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sean" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
>>>> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>>>> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>>>> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>>>> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
>>>> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>>>> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>>>> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>>>> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
>>>> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>>>
>>> Kam:
>>> Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
>>> suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
>>> results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
>>> results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
>>> like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
>>> of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
>>> portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>>>
>>> We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
>>> cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
>>> to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
>>> chain).
>>>
>>
>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study"
>> of statistics can not know.
>>
>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
>> destined for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature
>> death, have a higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when
>> younger than the control group who are not destined for the same
>> experience.
>
> Kam:
> Fair enough, and in such a case, we would still say that "smoking is
> somehow causally related to cancer." In the above case, you speculate
> that perhaps people who are destined to experience cancer are more
> likely to take up smoking - which still implies a causal connection.
> In such a case, there is a common cause - something that disposes one
> to both cancer and smoking.
>
>>
>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
>> cancer expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents
>> either smoked or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as
>> parents.
>
> Kam:
> That would strengthen our confidence in the connection between smoking
> and cancer, wouldn't it?

BOfL kicks in.

Not necessarily. My dad was a "second world war" chain smoker, and I grew up
in a very 'smokey' environment.Both sisters and brother smoked (they were
'adult' when I was still a kid), small house.Get the picture :-)...cough
cough....

Cinemas, public transport (buses) etc etc, plus leaded fuels and smog in
the 50's and sixties (coal fires). He died of lung cancer at 60. Mum, a non
smoker (but a class 'a' secondary smoker, (close to dad) never had any
symptoms whatever.

He was 42 when I was born, so he gave me a strong potential genetic start!

He was very introverted, mum was the opposite.

I'm convinced we are only just opening the book on psychosomatic causes,
although there isnt much financial reward for researcher in that arena.

This is a hobby horse of mine regarding jumping to conclusions regarding
smoking. Ironic considering I have spent most of my adult life (so far) in
the fitness industry.

No doubt there is a health hazard potential, but cancer, not necessaarily.

Some people who give up are creating greater stress on themselves, because
of their personality types. I believe that increaces their predisposition to
the 'big c'.

BOfL







>
>>
>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
>> that the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
>> define it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as
>> such that is how they design the study.
>>
>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
>> expectations.
>
> Kam:
> And, that's how studies go. I suppose we should be skeptical of
> studies
> and researchers... but that doesn't significantly touch on the substantive
> point,
> here - whether or not reason *can* be used to justify a belief in a causal
> connection,
> or whether all causal connections are infered ala Hume. Unless you're
> saying
> that it isn't possible to be objective... that there is too much
> researcher bias,
> even in double blind studies, for any stong conclusions to be drawn.
>
> In any case - that some researchers fail is to be expected, in my opinion.
> But that
> doesn't mean that we cannot, in principle, justify a causal connection
> using reason
> instead of inference.
>
>>
>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
>> mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
>> problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back
>> to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>
> Kam:
> Lol - my skepticism kicks in at the "mental problems have spiritual
> causes"
> stage. Everything up to that point seems to be well documented. For
> example,
> that physicality is affected by mentality is documented as the placebo
> effect,
> among other things.
>
>>
>> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
>> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))
>
> Kam:
> Of course. I'm not here to accept or dismiss what others claim,
> really,
> but to do some mental gymnastics (aside from my Hammond bashing
> sessions - those are for the purpose of dismissing Hammond).
> On that note, thanks for the response. : D
>
>>
>> Trust your own instincts!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> We infer effects
>>>> from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
>>>> belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
>>>> necessary connection between cause and effect.
>>>
>>> Kam:
>>> Of course, we do that as well and far more often.
>>>
>>>> We often admire the
>>>> innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
>>>> that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
>>>> instinct.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy...section9.rhtml
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Kamerynn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sean" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kamerynn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Immortalist" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
>>>> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>>>> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>>>> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>>>> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
>>>> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>>>> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>>>> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>>>> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
>>>> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>>>
>>> Kam:
>>> Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
>>> suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
>>> results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
>>> results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
>>> like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
>>> of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
>>> portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>>>
>>> We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
>>> cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
>>> to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
>>> chain).
>>>
>>
>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study"
>> of statistics can not know.
>>
>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
>> destined for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature
>> death, have a higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when
>> younger than the control group who are not destined for the same
>> experience.
>
> Kam:
> Fair enough, and in such a case, we would still say that "smoking is
> somehow causally related to cancer." In the above case, you speculate
> that perhaps people who are destined to experience cancer are more
> likely to take up smoking - which still implies a causal connection.
> In such a case, there is a common cause - something that disposes one
> to both cancer and smoking.
>

Yes and no. Who decided that one study group would be smokers against the
control?

The actual "creation" of the smokers study group is what created the
"causal" connection. How one looks at it.

What if there is a common definitive causal link between people and cancer?

Obvious question ... don;t people who get lung cancer sometimes not smokers,
and not in high instances of second hand smoke as well? How they explain the
so called causal link of smoking to lung cancer [ and heart disease ]

If smoking was a causal link then ONLY those who smoked at X rate would end
up with lung cancer. This does not actually happpen, therefore, logically,
such studies are statistical bs or overly simplistic and not really
targetting the true underlying causal links.

Wouldn;t studying those who did not get cancer and finding a common link in
them, point to what is missing in the "control group" that is those who do
get cancer? maybe this reserach apporach is back to front .....???


>>
>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
>> cancer expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents
>> either smoked or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as
>> parents.
>
> Kam:
> That would strengthen our confidence in the connection between smoking
> and cancer, wouldn't it?
>

Only if studies in non-smoking communities showed the total absence of
cancer. Do they?
Only if all smokers contracted and died from cancer. Do they?

imho, such studies can really only be used to show that someojne is in a
higher incidecne risk group, and if appropriate should undertake more
regular testing for indicated diseases, as opposed to such activities being
declared definite causal linsk from behaviour to specific illnesses.

>>
>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
>> that the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
>> define it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as
>> such that is how they design the study.
>>
>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
>> expectations.
>
> Kam:
> And, that's how studies go. I suppose we should be skeptical of
> studies
> and researchers... but that doesn't significantly touch on the substantive
> point,
> here - whether or not reason *can* be used to justify a belief in a causal
> connection,
> or whether all causal connections are infered ala Hume. Unless you're
> saying
> that it isn't possible to be objective... that there is too much
> researcher bias,
> even in double blind studies, for any stong conclusions to be drawn.
>
> In any case - that some researchers fail is to be expected, in my opinion.
> But that
> doesn't mean that we cannot, in principle, justify a causal connection
> using reason
> instead of inference.
>

What is it you really seek? To be right in an argument or to find the truth
of a matter?

or, what difference does it make whether Hume, or Bugs Bunny were correct?
Seek the truth and it does not matter either way.

Following on from smoking. What if say, "guilt" and/or a "sense of not being
good enough" was found to be a causal link in children taking up cigarette
smoking? Let us say that dna and neuroligcal research also showed a causal
connection between the pleasure centre in the brain that was activated by
nicotine and one's parasympatheic nervous system/neurotransmitters, and ones
feelings of self-acceptance and degree of over-rioding external implications
of guilt feelings.

Would you undertake the study to show how the negative steroetyoping of
cigarette smokers by the medical profession, politicians, and society
do-gooders actually has led to higher numbers of deaths by cancer ...... ?

Can you again see what I mean by the beliefs and expectation sof the
researchers are a causal factor in the outcome of particualr research
studies, and are often self-fullfilling?

>>
>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
>> mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
>> problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back
>> to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>
> Kam:
> Lol - my skepticism kicks in at the "mental problems have spiritual
> causes"
> stage. Everything up to that point seems to be well documented. For
> example,
> that physicality is affected by mentality is documented as the placebo
> effect,
> among other things.
>

LOL I;m not surprised your skepticims kicked in .... that is how you have
been trained to think. ... or more accurately taught to stop thinking and
revert to primitive mode of fear of the unknown.

Stop for moment and simply consider what i just said ... and use the mental
powers you have without switching them off. There;s nothing to fear here. If
an idea is bunkum then its bunkum, and looking intelligently at all options
is the scientific method that has opened doors, it's the opposite that has
led to fallacy and the dark ages.

One thing to use as a thought provoker ... has science shown that nature
operates on identifiable patterns? Have observation sof patterns ever shown
light on new avenues of thought into areas previously not considered
observable by science at a particular point in time?

eg if A +1 = B, and B +1 = C, and C +1 = D, then even if E is as yet
unobservable, is it still not "possible" that D +1 = E ?

Did anyone ever describe the possibility of a "unobservable/mystical like"
DNA and the Human Genome, before physical science was able to identify
separate define such a thing?

>> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
>> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))
>
> Kam:
> Of course. I'm not here to accept or dismiss what others claim,
> really,
> but to do some mental gymnastics (aside from my Hammond bashing
> sessions - those are for the purpose of dismissing Hammond).
> On that note, thanks for the response. : D
>

Hammond is good for fitness <smile>

Your welcome, hope u liked the new response, not so much a claim as a
suggestion of potentiality, I also enjoyed ur posts, a pleasant change from
some. ...... cheers.