Dear Warm Harv,
I don’t think Newton was evil. Why didn’t someone just say, “No.”
The reason I don't send longer posts is that I edit out some of the mush.
Agree with some, disagree with some you said. I have a head cold now
And don’t know why I’ve posted so many more this week. Maybe history’s God will
judge us gently.
Harv says,"Define What You Mean By 'evil' This where a discussion should always begin."
Yet you started this thread about evil and
the ONLY definition I saw you give for evil
WAS BURIED under a ton of words...and consisted only of "terrorism etc."
Are you teasing me?
Elsewhere today, Harv also said:
Some words have historic and religious implications (e.g., God), and those words generally have a wide application to many different meanings. I don't think we should (or can) avoid using such general terms given the fact that our language is not a formal system (like mathematics) and is in no way used so formally in any case.
Mike: We can try to have a formal system. It is wrong to say “in no way used so formally in any case.”
At least, I know no any support for your absolute denial of “so formal” use. Please explain in 25 words or less? Just the gist?
Similarly, you give me a range of behavior that you call 'evil', and I can measure (sociologically?) to see if those behaviors exist that fall within a range of behaviors you call evil.
That was good, if your measure is scientific and not biased.
Now, the crucial issue is convincing others that our definition is justified given the general meaning of the term. The more people you convince the more we can say that those behaviors have been properly labelled.
Persuasion of enough persons? That alone cannot be valid -- not usually even in law. Mainly useful
in demagoguery. Is that what you want to justify?
And certainly never in science…It is either physically a valid representation and internally logical or it is wrong, no matter how many agree with you.
I went to the dictionary and obtained definitions for evil. They pertinent ones refer to degrees of causing pain and trouble. We know it is true that religion and science can both be guilty of causing trouble while
seeming to oppose trouble. In this, your gist, as I think it was intended, seems true to me.