For those who are interested there is going to be a show on the science channel on this event. Since the discovery channel has a tendency to run science channel shows those who dont get the science channel will probably see it come up soon.

An "organic" carrott is one produced under certain environmental conditions. This is generally accepted as true. But it is false and misleading.

Is a carrott produced without these environmental conditions not organic? Inorganic in other words? By ever conceivable definition of organic both carrotts are organic. But the consensus says otherwise because of a silly misappropriation of an innapropriate word. Amd now the new definition of the misuse of the word appears in dictionaries and in online reference sites.

Does it make the term correct? For me, no. I loathe the new use for the word cause i am stickler for precision and meaning in language. But most would say i am wrong.

I maintain that the word natural is and always has been fundamentally meaningless and misleading. And has contributed to helping seperate us from the rest of the animal kingdom and the rest of the "Natural" world. Which arguably has been partially responsible for the mess we are in now.

Which, ironically i realize, is a natural mess .

So yes, a car is natural. It may destroy our environment, but so do countless "natural" things. A car is no less natural than a spiders web, which is a tool the spider synthesizes to navigate its environment and trap food.

Anyway, i sincerely hope people are enjoying this debate. I certainly am! If this is angering anyone, please just dont repond. I engage in this discussion to learn about you and about myself. Its really not worth getting upset about.

As i always say, anger is where wisdom ends.

JBArk

I'm not insulting. I'm sorry, I honestly didn't even try to type she.
Could you please answer the question I proposed then?

I'm assuming the question was the one dealing with synthetic stuff being man-made compounds?

Again, just because here on earth men have to put together these compounds doesn't not mean they don't exist "naturally" (by your definition) elsewhere in the universe, I can no more prove this than you can disprove this.

Also, I maintain that just because man sticks two or more things together to create something new, their resulting products are not unnatural. Honestly I agree with jbark...I think natural is a flawed word representing an ethnocentric concept that is of little use beyond determining our own specialness. Is a wasp's nest unnatural? We are natural, we take other natural things and stick them together, you are calling this result unnatural, no? How does this make sense? If we are natural beings in a natural system, how could the results of our actions ever be anything other than natural?

To quote from my favorite movie:

"Inconcieveable!"...I do not think that word means what you think it means.

"Natural"...I do not think that word means what you think it means.

If the basis of your argument is that what we term as natural is actually a grossly misunderstood meaning of the "true" word, then we can go nowhere from here, as nothing I can say will be of any value if we cannot agree on a common definition for the discussion at hand.

I say natural means natural.
You say natural does not mean natural.

We are at a dead end.

Thank you for answering the question. Ironically I agree with you on the origins of the word natural. If you strip away the common use and current definition of the word I agree with you. My point is NOW the word is used to make a distinction between man-made and not man made. Wether or not we agree it is accurate is moot.

Now come on, this is not only an oversimplification, but a completely biased one and really not the essence of what anyone was saying (thirdeye approached that much more diplomatically anyways)...what about the point that i raised?


How can natural beings in a natural environment, using natural materials, make something unnatural?

It is in no way an oversimplification. It is what he said. He said natural does not mean what I think it means. The defintion has changed from its original meaning. A point I don't necessairly agree with anyway, and in my mind irrelevant as definitions always change over time as we learn more. We are disagreeing on the current common definition of natural, and if we cannot agree on it, there is no point in arguing as we will have extreme difficulty finding common ground working from two incompatible understandings.

Because natural beings are using natural materials in an artificial or unnatural environment. This makes them synthetic, and therefore not natural.



Because the burden is upon you to provide proof. You have to prove this is a natural occurance in the universe. I don't need to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, then I am correct.

Of course absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, but we don't want to go there now do we?

Please explain...i assume you mean a lab...yet all aspects of said lab were created by natural components, were they not? Everything in the lab you claim is "unnatural" falls into my earlier question. Everything in this "unnatural" environment that you call "unnatural" and have been put together to create an "artificial" environment came from natural sources. They only became "unnatural" when humans combined them. The environment you call unnatural is merely a composite of natural things that have been arranged in such a way that you have decided to call the sum total fake.


What it seems to me you are saying is that human beings contain some sort of unnaturalness in them and when they combine heretofore natural materials, this inherent unnaturalness rises up and zaps the previously natural components into an unnatural whole. Is this an accurate portrayal of what you are saying?

no offense to anyone.... (cue the twilight zone theme music)

Wikipedia



Websters


yourdictionary.com


Answers.com

No this one:

Tree - nothing to say as there's no debate

Car - All of the components come from natural materials...at what point do these natural materials cease to be natural and why?

Ladybug - nothing to say as there's no debate

Robot - All of the components come from natural materials...at what point do these natural materials cease to be natural and why?

Water - nothing to say as there's no debate

Pepsi - All of the components come from natural materials...at what point do these natural materials cease to be natural and why?

Nuclear Power Plant - Is natural as stars are Nuclear Power Plants, using accepted definitions of "plants", but even if you want to call it "Man made nuclear power plants", then, all of the components come from natural materials...at what point do these natural materials cease to be natural and why?

EDIT: My definition of nature follows along the scientific lines laid out below, not the casual one (as that one contains what I believe to be false, meaningless distinctions betweens humans and nature).

saidin wrote:
"I say natural means natural.
You say natural does not mean natural.

We are at a dead end."

Not exactly. you say natural means natural, which is logically and linguistically self-evident. And meaningless to boot.

I say it is a meaningless word by virtue of it encompassing everything conceivable. So we seem to agree.

However, by definition:

"Nature is a word used in two major sets of ways, which are inter-connected in a complex way, for reasons related to the history of science, epistemology and metaphysics, particularly in Western Civilization.

1. In modern scientific writing "nature" refers to all directly observable phenomena of the "physical" or material universe, and it is contrasted only with any other sort of existence, such as spiritual or supernatural existence. In a scientific text, the unqualified term “nature” normally means the same as “the cosmos” or “the universe”.

2. Historically, and also in casual speech, “nature” does not include all things, because it excludes the artificial or man-made. For example it generally does not include manufactured objects, and also generally does not include human interaction. In this case, the unqualified term “nature” generally means the same as “wilderness” or “the Natural environment”.."
[url=http://]
http://en.wikipedia.org/...Nature_%28philosophy%29[/url]

So in historical casual speech you are correct. By scientific and philosophical definition i am correct. Dead end averted!

JBArk

No, that is not an accurate portrayal of what I am saying. I never said, nor implied that humans were unnatural in anyway. What I am saying is that humans can create un-natural things, ie: that which we do not see to exist in nature. I never said fake, which is not the same as unnatural.

Provide evidence of 2C-B anywhere in the universe, outside of a lab. Provide evidence of this particular bacterial genetic makeup occuring in the universe anywhere besides this lab, and I will condede that they are natural.

What is the purpose of this bacteria? How did it evolve to fit a particular niche or need?

Are test tubes a natural environment? Centerfuges? Petri-dishes? Whatever those things are called where you take a "baster" and squirt stuff into it. What about sterile environments? Are these things natural enviroments, or are they artificially created (by natural beings) for specific purposes which we do not find in nature?

From your pespective, they are natural becasue they exist. From that perspective I agree, I have said so on more than one occasion in this thread.

Where I diagree though, is that these "environments" have never been seen outside of a "lab". Therefore they are artifical and not natural. Thus anything to come out of them is not natural if we cannot find its likeness in the world outside the lab. To say they might exist "naturally" out in the universe somewhere is not the basis for a logical position. In this case the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence for this.

"Provide evidence of 2C-B anywhere in the universe, outside of a lab. Provide evidence of this particular bacterial genetic makeup occuring in the universe anywhere besides this lab, and I will condede that they are natural."

OR:

Provide evidence of a spiderweb anywhere in the universe, outside of a spiders ass. Provide evidence of this particular bacterial genetic makeup occuring in the universe anywhere besides this spiders ass, and I will condede that they are natural.

OR:

Provide evidence of curry anywhere in the universe, outside of a kitchen. Provide evidence of this particular bacterial genetic makeup occuring in the universe anywhere besides this kitchen, and I will condede that they are natural.

OR:

Provide evidence of a beaverdam anywhere in the universe, outside of a lake. Provide evidence of this particular bacterial genetic makeup occuring in the universe anywhere besides these lake, and I will condede that they are natural.

OR:

Provide evidence of this new cell anywhere in the universe, outside of a lab. Provide evidence of this particular bacterial genetic makeup occuring in the universe anywhere besides this lab, and I will condede that they are natural.

We're all talking about the same things. there are no differences. the definition is meaningless!!

JBArk

Ahh, now I see the basis. You believe that the sum is no greater than its parts. A valid perspective, but not one I personally adhere to.

To my mind any derivative of a natural anything is natural, be it a lab environment or a synthetic phenethylamine. Things don't go from natural to unnatural just because they undergo a process. Everything you mentioned from lab equipment to sterile labs are derived from materials we would all agree are natural. If you can't provide a specific reason why and time at which they stop being natural, I can't accept your view as having merit. I understand that we are in agreement on the perspective of that which exists being natural, but I don't see how anything you presented is unnatural. I can accept man-made or modified/manipulated by man, but I would claim that things in this category are still natural.

There are enormous differences.

What about my point on envrionments. That was the main thrust of the response and you have conviently ignored it, and therefore your response are out of context.

They have been making spider silk from goats milk for around a decade.

I think the definition here kinda speaks for itself..again. It's like putting 2 and 2 together to get 4. Not that hard to come to the conclusion there that 1)we are nature 2)we are speaking about things we produce.."PRODUCED BY NATURE"..

sorry 2+2 dont equal 3..

I alsmot think that by trying to make this distinction of human produced things as not natural is unprogressive. Sounds alsmot a reminant of christian monotheism really..where god is above humans, and somehow humans are seperate and above the rest of nature. Well..im a pagan animist and that makes no sense to me. Its a useless distinction at this point in human understanding..maybe it served a purpose once..but there is something called evolution of understanding.

Everything is natural..yes thats right..there is NO thing that is not natural..so in that sense term becomes meaningless in the context its trying to be used in here. It makes alot more sense to acknowledge this fact, and be able to make the distinction between something that fits into the surrounding ecology in a sustainable, compatable manner, and something that doesnt fit so well in a sustainable manner.

A rattle snake doesnt fit so well in a compatable manner with the personal ecology of my body while its biting me. Its poisonous and will kill me, yet it is still natural.

I dont see this as just swapping semantics..to say that one thing is natural, yet another is not, is like an ideological cop out..I think that making the distinction of what is compatable vs what isnt, while all is still natural makes more sense, and is a much more useful outlook on the whole thing.