Signs of progress?

[The_old_man]

The only logical purpose of the hymen would be to prevent infectious agents from damaging developing sexual organs.

Said infectious agents would include feces in a diaper, dirty fingers on a roving hand, etc..

Prior to menses there is no cleansing flow through the vagina as there is urine through the penis.

 

[EnglishWimp]

The only logical purpose of the hymen would be to prevent infectious agents from damaging developing sexual organs.

Said infectious agents would include feces in a diaper, dirty fingers on a roving hand, etc..

Prior to menses there is no cleansing flow through the vagina as there is urine through the penis.

I just came reading that. Thanks

 

[carsonshepherd]

I just came reading that. Thanks

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Thanks, Joe.

So it's probably purposeless, but women have been killed for not having one. As I thought.

I know it would put your aunt's job at risk, but I vote for marsupial-style childbirth for all higher mammals. We should keep sex as it is, for recreational purposes, but babies should be of a size to be born without disturbing the mother's nap, as with kanagroos. Kangaroos also have the advantage of being able to ease their backaches by taking the kid out of the pouch now and then. This seems like too good an idea to be wasted on possums and such.

I don't know that we can say, with certainty, that its merely "probably purposeless". Could just as well say "its probably purposeful". Probabilities, in these regards, aren't a good place to start from.

Past that, yeah, women have been killed for not having one. Then, then again, they been killed for for having one; killed for being assumed to have one... etc.

 

[EnglishWimp]

Can we say that it's certainly probable?

 

[carsonshepherd]

Can we say that it's certainly probable?

We can probably say it's certainable.

 

[amicus]

You were seduced by Dr. Mab? O M G!!!

(quiet)

 

[carsonshepherd]

(quiet)

*faints from the shock*

 

[minsue]

*faints from the shock*

 

[amicus]

JoeW...

Without going back, I think I quoted the gynecologist as saying, no discernible purpose, if not, then I should have.

In the absence of evidence supporting the existence (of a purpose for the hymen) one logically assumes (within the knowledge accumulated thus far) that no purpose exists.

In your universe, there can be no 'certainty' about anything and no rational knowledge or wisdom about anything. I find it difficult to see how you even unzip ur fly without questioning if you need to urinate or not.

Such a deal...

 

[SlickTony]

It has to have some purely physiological, evolutionary use--not the equivalent of the seal on a jar of jam, as one writer put it. Here are some links I found:

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology/archive/november-1995/0366.html

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_226.html

I thought this one was kind of sickening:

http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/213_214/01-019.htm

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=84037

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by amicus
JoeW...

Without going back, I think I quoted the gynecologist as saying, no discernible purpose, if not, then I should have.

In the absence of evidence supporting the existence (of a purpose for the hymen) one logically assumes (within the knowledge accumulated thus far) that no purpose exists.

In your universe, there can be no 'certainty' about anything and no rational knowledge or wisdom about anything. I find it difficult to see how you even unzip ur fly without questioning if you need to urinate or not.

Such a deal...

Well, that's the kicker, really... there isn't a lack of evidence. There's a lot of evidence as to its possible uses--its just when we try and attach "purpose" that it becomes a much broader question. We can easily state what it /has/ done, just not what its /meant/ to do--if anything.

It does act, to be a little gross for a moment, as a bacterial fly-paper... but is the the "purpose"? Much harder.

Regardless, even were there a lack of evidence... logic can't state that there is no purpose. Logic can only say "Because there is no evidence, nothing is evidentiary" or "It may or may not have a purpose, as we can't confirm or deny one". Logic is a very good language for relational frames, but a very poor language for purpose-talk.

That aside, in "my" universe there are most definitely certitudes. Not many, but a few. They stem from the nature of logical contradiction and conceptual necessity. Quite a bit of "wisdom" (which is an odd word to use) has been derived from them. None of which, I'm sorry to say, has been about hymens.

 

[amicus]

JoeW, I do not wish to be antagonistic and I doubt we shall ever reach agreement...however.

We perceive the existence of something, hymen or the moon, based on the evidence of its existence. We use our senses to perceive that existence and our mind to categorize it and set forth to determine its defining characteristics, i.e. just 'what' precisely is it, why, and 'how does it function, what is its purpose.'

Perception and cognition go hand in hand.

It seems we part company at this point as you are often unwilling to accept what the sense perceive as 'reality' and then you deny that the mind can conceptualize what the senses perceive.

What I have briefly described is 'thinking', which you and many others seem to imply is a total waste of time in terms of 'knowing' anything.

What is it about you folks that makes you fear 'knowing' something as a certainty and then acting on it?

Is it fear of being in error? Is it a politically correct thing in which you must never appear to have a solid position on anything? Or is it just an intellectual hangover from the Ravi Shankar days of mind enhancing drugs and alternative universes?

I am at a loss to comprehend how one claims surperiority by claiming ignorance of all things real.

But then...thas just me...

amicus scratches his full head of somewhat greying follicles

 

[carsonshepherd]

What is it about you folks that makes you fear 'knowing' something as a certainty and then acting on it?

I know plenty of things for certain, amicus, but since they don't match up with your beliefs, do they count?

Is it fear of being in error?

No becuase I don't care if other people think I'm wrong.

Is it a politically correct thing in which you must never appear to have a solid position on anything?

No. I'm just as stubborn and convinced I'm right as anyone - I just don't try to force it on anyone.

Or is it just an intellectual hangover from the Ravi Shankar days of mind enhancing drugs and alternative universes?

Since I wasn't even born, no.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by amicus
JoeW, I do not wish to be antagonistic and I doubt we shall ever reach agreement...however.

We perceive the existence of something, hymen or the moon, based on the evidence of its existence. We use our senses to perceive that existence and our mind to categorize it and set forth to determine its defining characteristics, i.e. just 'what' precisely is it, why, and 'how does it function, what is its purpose.'

Perception and cognition go hand in hand.

It seems we part company at this point as you are often unwilling to accept what the sense perceive as 'reality' and then you deny that the mind can conceptualize what the senses perceive.

You're seem to be saying that "Science dictates that it has no purpose". I can't argue with that, except to say that Science (natural science, observation married to theory) and Logic are not synonymous and while one can use the other the two aren't the same and ought never be confused. Science may well state a hymen doesn't have a purpose, but Logic can only say the things (and type of things) I've outlined. Logic, again, is particularly limited in that regard.

What I have briefly described is 'thinking', which you and many others seem to imply is a total waste of time in terms of 'knowing' anything.

What is it about you folks that makes you fear 'knowing' something as a certainty and then acting on it?

Is it fear of being in error? Is it a politically correct thing in which you must never appear to have a solid position on anything? Or is it just an intellectual hangover from the Ravi Shankar days of mind enhancing drugs and alternative universes?

I am at a loss to comprehend how one claims surperiority by claiming ignorance of all things real.

But then...thas just me...

amicus scratches his full head of somewhat greying follicles

Um... ok.

I have no idea what that's all supposed to be about. Must be some other issue. As far as what Logic can do and can't, though, that's pretty well documented. Its one of the reasons why Natural Science has been so popular for the last three hundred years... Logic alone is insufficient for making synthetic assertions (and as such, people should avoid using it inappropriately).

 

[amicus]

Same old trusty dictionary:


Logic: "The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."

That system includes reason and rationality and non contradictory evidence of all sorts.

I see 'logic' as a tool, a means to an end, that of understand and comprehension.

You seem to see it as a religion.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by amicus
Same old trusty dictionary:


Logic: "The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."

That system includes reason and rationality and non contradictory evidence of all sorts.

I see 'logic' as a tool, a means to an end, that of understand and comprehension.

You seem to see it as a religion.

I guess we can play with dictionaries...

1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

...where "science" here is meant as "a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study", not Natural Science, of course.

Logic is a tool. My favorite, for sure. But knowing how to use it properly comes with knowing where it ceases to be what is asserting and where other "sciences" start. Logic cannot assert anything that is not formally propositionable and conclusive. Which is where things like Natural Science come in, to provide the things like "experiential confirmation" as a qualifier (something Logic is not designed to deal with, itself) for knowledge. It's hardly a religion.

 

[shereads]

Does a marsupial have a hymen? What about wombats?

 

[shereads]

Can we say that it's certainly probable?

I doubt it.

 

[NoJo]

Does a marsupial have a hymen? What about wombats?

I remember reading that wombats are the only animal besides homo sapiens known to fake orgasm.

 

[amicus]

Ah, Joe...perhaps we are not that far apart after all...logic is a tool, we agree upon that at least.

Logic applied to anything remains just what it is, a system.

I never implied, although I think you have, that logic is an end into inself.

Science is first involved in observation and theories, that is the scientific method almost a definition.

But when we go beyond science, beyond Physics, into Metaphysics, I sense you think logic begins to fail in terms of qualifying and quantifying metaphysical knowledge.

I maintain there is a direct connection, that metaphysical phenomenen are conceptually tied to physics and the 'scientific' knowledge gained in the metaphysical world is a valid (logically) as is Physics.

You have knowledge of epistemology, that branch of philosophy that investigates the orgin, nature and methods of human knowledge and I think perhaps it is in this realm that you and I part company.

I consider abstracts and concepts as just extensions of the 'absolute' knowledge we can have of the physical world. Perhaps I am mistaken, but are you locked up in the old mind/body dichotomy of past philosophers?

amicus...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by amicus
Ah, Joe...perhaps we are not that far apart after all...logic is a tool, we agree upon that at least.

Logic applied to anything remains just what it is, a system.

I never implied, although I think you have, that logic is an end into inself.

I think that's been the crux of it. You said that "Logic states X", you didn't mean that literally.

Science is first involved in observation and theories, that is the scientific method almost a definition.

But when we go beyond science, beyond Physics, into Metaphysics, I sense you think logic begins to fail in terms of qualifying and quantifying metaphysical knowledge.

I maintain there is a direct connection, that metaphysical phenomenen are conceptually tied to physics and the 'scientific' knowledge gained in the metaphysical world is a valid (logically) as is Physics.

You have knowledge of epistemology, that branch of philosophy that investigates the orgin, nature and methods of human knowledge and I think perhaps it is in this realm that you and I part company.

I consider abstracts and concepts as just extensions of the 'absolute' knowledge we can have of the physical world. Perhaps I am mistaken, but are you locked up in the old mind/body dichotomy of past philosophers?

amicus...

I believe Logic is as capable as it is... which is to say, it can show contradiction, necessity, and possibility concerning the relations of ideas metaphysically (that's just true by definition, though). Epistemology is tougher, the ever-present question of justification seems to always be an appeal to things outside of the certainty of Logic and into the "need to be certain using other sciences". Which isn't a value judgement, just to say that drawing certitude from things not as perfect as Logic is not easy... to date, nobody has ever done it, or if they have, they haven't bothered publishing it.

 

[amicus]

Joe....

"... Epistemology is tougher, the ever-present question of justification seems to always be an appeal to things outside of the certainty of Logic and into the "need to be certain using other sciences". Which isn't a value judgement, just to say that drawing certitude from things not as perfect as Logic is not easy... to date, nobody has ever done it, or if they have, they haven't bothered publishing it...."


"...the ever present question of justification..." I do not understand your meaning with the word 'justification'.

"...Out side the certainty of logic..." Logic is a tool, like a hammer, the 'certainty' is only in how it is used.

"...need to be certain using other sciences..." All science inter relates and both confirms and denies theorem by others.

And of course in matters of psychology and pharmaceuticals, in astronomy and paleontology, it has been done and published, thousands of times...


must we part paths again? sighs...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by amicus
Joe....

"...the ever present question of justification..." I do not understand your meaning with the word 'justification'.

Pick up any basic Epistemology text or article, its been entirely about Justification--resting arguents for knowledge on the method or a prime fact--for years and year. There are many that think that Epistemology is ONLY talk about justification, now.

"...Out side the certainty of logic..." Logic is a tool, like a hammer, the 'certainty' is only in how it is used.

Hmmm, yes and no. Logic gives us certain things--Non-Contradiction, for instance. And that has application, of course. But, outside of Logic, and into other sciences, we have a need to /be/ certain using them despite not having the perfect relational frame that Logic has when referencing itself.

"...need to be certain using other sciences..." All science inter relates and both confirms and denies theorem by others.

Sometimes. Not all the time, for sure. The sciences don't all translate well to each other, not yet. Grand Unification has been on the table as the holy grail of scientific work for years and years. Only when everything is the same paradigm can they confirm and deny each other as a matter of course.

 

[Pure]

while we listen to the fascinating exchange on logic and epistemolgy, is anyone up for a good butt fuck?

Remaining questions: regarding some earlier posts, does the buttfuck present a danger because of its bypassing the safeguards (alleged) of the hymen, or does it have value in *preserving* that barrier?

Given teens' propensity for passing things around--like the 'clap'-- discuss the pro and cons of anal infections, including gonorrhea. Pro: perhaps, for gonorrhea, less likely to lead to PID and impaired fertility.