Etiquette

You might possibly be correct on that.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...of-language-wrong-pinker-weighs-in-on-debate/

No one seems to know one way or the other. The question is less settled than I had thought.

Nevertheless, I think I am correct to think that there is a common human basis for ethics and that ethics could serve as a basis for relational etiquette, and often actually does.

My thinking on this has to do with the radical commonality of human needs. Human needs are at the root of so much of human ethics. But any theory of this kind will probably always be controversial because it may be impossible to apply "hard science" to the question, "What are human needs?" We can apply hard science to human biological needs, of course. But how can we do that in relation to human psychological needs? Strong arguments can be made about human psychological needs, but they will never have the "force" of the physical sciences, I suspect.

But if folks don't need "proof" I think it can be basically demonstrated that what we hold valuable in human relationships has a pattern of integrity (wholeness) in it. I think that's really important. What this means is that the whole (of relational values) is more than a collection of random, unrelated parts or particulars. The parts and particulars inform one another and constitute a knowable whole.

It is fun to theorize about such things, but there is no real way to scientifically test it. As such it dies come down to what one wishes to believe without proof.
 
It is fun to theorize about such things, but there is no real way to scientifically test it.

Possibly so. I doubt either of us have thought long and hard enough about it to be sure on that. And I think there are things we know which we really know that haven't been "proven" scientifically, per se. In other words, there are things which count as knowledge which aren't scientifically demonstrated, per se. Science is useful, but it isn't everything.
 
I recently watched an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson in which he talked about truth.

There are three kinds of truth:

Objective truth - Things that can be scientifically demonstrated, repeated, and tested.

Personal truth - Things we "know". This is more like beliefs, such as a belief in God.

Political truths - Repeat something enough and it becomes a "truth".

Of these three, only one is an actual truth.
 
I recently watched an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson in which he talked about truth.

There are three kinds of truth:

Objective truth - Things that can be scientifically demonstrated, repeated, and tested.

Personal truth - Things we "know". This is more like beliefs, such as a belief in God.

Political truths - Repeat something enough and it becomes a "truth".

Of these three, only one is an actual truth.

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson. He's a good scientist and a good popular spokesperson for science (which I also like). But Tyson, like perhaps most hard scientists, isn't much of a philosopher. And those words from him which you quoted really make this very, very clear.

It's sad that such a bright, intelligent mind as his is (quite apparently) unfamiliar with what philosophy and philosophers have to say about the various kinds of knowledge, ways of knowing and the implications thereof. Not one philosopher I know of would agree that that set of kinds of knowledge (or truth) bears any sophistication. It's the sort of stuff you'd expect from a middle school student, really. And it's almost the perfect statement of a scientistic world view.

Curiously enough, his name is prominently mentioned in the blog post I just googled up when seeking to explain scientism here:

https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/

But, as with most things, it's best to read several articles on the topic before imagining we have a handle on it. 'Cause folks can be biased, you know. And a round view comes from various angles. Google "scientism" if you're curious with why it may be a real problem.

This Wikipedia page may be helpful in stepping in on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
 
Last edited:
You do understand that many people do not take science seriously, right?

You do understand that many people do not take history seriously, right?

You do understand that many people do not take spelling, punctuation, grammar ... seriously, right?

... logic ...

... reason / reasoning ...

I also realize that Donald Trump was elected president. :(
 
In any case, as it tends to be with history, science, grammar, etc., it tends to be those with the least acquaintance which take the subject with the least seriousness. I hear that many people to this day believe the world is flat and that it was created in six days about six thousand years ago ... somewhere in the Middle East.
 
Curiously enough, his name is prominently mentioned in the blog post I just googled up when seeking to explain scientism here:

https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/

Doh. Admittedly of a "science" bent, and woefully ignorant of "philosophy" - I tried to read the blog post referenced and it made exactly zero sense to me! WTF is it even talking about!?!

I would agree with Feynman on the Value of Science" : When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

And: "You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things... It doesn't frighten me."

And: "Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things are known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgments can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show."

And: "We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and there is no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified — how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You only think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don’t know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know."

And, also: "It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."

(PS. If you get the impression that Feynman is my favorite "dead-white-male" you might be right, Heinlein informed my philosophy, Feynman informed my life. If there is an afterlife, which I doubt, I would like to meet both of them. I would tell Heinlein what he got wrong, and spend the rest of eternity trying to wrap my head around what Feynman understood about the physical universe!)
 
Last edited:
You do understand that many people do not take science seriously, right?

You do understand that many people do not take history seriously, right?

You do understand that many people do not take spelling, punctuation, grammar ... seriously, right?

... logic ...

... reason / reasoning ...

I also realize that Donald Trump was elected president. :(

Yeah, the people who do not take science, history, language, logic, and reasoning seriously are the ones who voted for Trump.
 
Pigliucci is a "Professor of Philosophy" who makes a living selling books. He has a vested interest in slamming science.
 
Pigliucci is a "Professor of Philosophy" who makes a living selling books. He has a vested interest in slamming science.

Slamming science? I'd think you must be joking, but I don't see a wink. ;)

Anyway, the history of science reveals the reliance of science upon philosophical thinking from it's earliest start to the present. Science is an example of applied philosophy. One simply can't do good science without applying a bit of philosophy -- which is to say a bit of careful metacognition (Thinking carefully about one's own thinking).

Bad science (of which there is plenty) uses no such care and shares much in common with orthodox religion in this respect. It is cultish and relies on authority rather than demonstration to establish "truth".
 
Does common etiquette generally boil down to kindness toward others?

Do violations of common etiquette amount, most basically, to meanness?

Is empathy and compassion our best guide in behaving with common courtesy / social etiquette?

Shouldn't all three be equally intertwined? Empathy and compassion will lend themselves into etiquette, as etiquette is shown towards the recipient and at the same time shows the enlightenment of the person displaying etiquette...
 
sex etiquette

This is a very important thread. It's very important that everyone in a polyamorous relationship works from the same guidelines/expectations.

Of course every set of lovers is able to make their own rules/guidelines everyone in the group must adhere to them.

I wonder what people think of this situation. Two lovers (L and C) each have one other lover (L + Q, and C + J). Q and J are monogamous. Sometimes L has sex with C and Q in the same day. C just learned of this and is uncomfortable. All four are now working on the guidelines for this.

Does anyone have similar experiences? Anything that's worked well, not worked well?
 
I've seen plenty of bad science as a specialist in breastfeeding and natural birth.

Mothers were told to diet during pregnancy to ensure a small baby who would be easier to birth. My own doctor in 1985 told me to take up smoking next time, after my first child was born at a 10 healthy pounds.

I've seen doctors take over the process of birth, by forcing women to lie on their backs to labor and push out a baby. This is bad for the mother and baby, as it goes against gravity, and doesn't allow the birth canal to open fully. But this position is easier on the doctor/voyeur. Then doctors could be a "hero" and "deliver" the baby themselves with episiotomies and forceps.

I've seen doctors use forceps, suction cups, large episiotomies, dangerous drugs, overly strong epidurals, to disempower the ability of a woman's body to give birth. I've seen forceps damage babies' heads. I've known of episiotomies that ruptured the vagina into the colon. I've seen babies born so drugged from the mother through the placenta, they couldn't nurse. I've seen women so incapacitated by their spinal anesthesia, they can't raise their heads off their bed, much less lift and feed and care for their babies. For weeks!

I've heard women tell their stories. Of how doctors, even hospital "midwives," shamed them for vocalizing, or for taking a natural instinctive squatting position to labor and push. Of how monitors strapped around their bellies made it impossible to get out of bed, be upright, and move around during labor. Their labors stalled and then they "needed" drugs to start labor again.

I myself was starved and dehydrated during my first long labor, causing it to stall, and me "needing" to have morphine to rest my exhausted body and uterus. Then I "needed" Pitocin to start labor again, since the morphine stopped the labor. I went 36 hours with no food, no water, just ice chips, while doing the hardest physical work of my life.

I've heard of doctors sewing up womens' episiotomies extra tight "for the husband," wink wink.

Millions and billions of male babies were and are circumcised (this is pushed as a matter of course by doctors and nurses), which prevents them from nursing properly, as they pass out immediately, for hours, from the pain, and then are screaming and/or lethargic for days. Parents are sometimes not even asked if they want their sons circumcised. It's just assumed it should happen, and so millions and billions of males are damaged against their will, and even against their parents' wishes, and have their natural functions compromised for life. Where's the science there?

Again and again, I've heard of doctors telling women to quit breastfeeding at the first hint of a lactation difficulty, or if the mother needs a certain drug, or needs to go back to work outside the home. Almost always, this isn't necessary, and harms the baby.

I've heard of doctors agreeing with the fathers of the babies, who didn't want their wives to breastfeed in public, but to be given a bottle of formula. This causes the mother's milk to begin drying up. The formula of cow's milk or soy is a common allergen as well. This causes "colic," since the baby's stomach and gut is in extreme pain. Doctors used to pass out morphine to be given to
colicky babies.

I know untold numbers of doctors only give lip service to breastfeeding, to this day, while taking money, new hospital wards and wings, and very fancy very expensive vacations from formula companies. Formula companies pay for doctor's children's tuitions. They have pens and notepads on their desks where parents can see them, labeled Enfamil or Similac. They sell breastfeeding mothers' addresses to formula companies, so the women receive a case or 3 of "free" formula in the first challenging weeks home with their newborns. Mothers often lose hope with a fussy baby in the middle of a long night, and succumb to giving one bottle of formula, which is heavy and indigestible, which makes the baby fall asleep, which then causes the mother to believe her milk was inadequate, and quit breastfeeding.

Mothers, ordinary mothers, non-scientists, have had to fight for aware labor, for rooming in with their newborns, for having a partner or close friend present for them at the birth. Mothers, ordinary women, not scientists, have had to fight to continue breastfeeding when doctors tell them to quit at the drop of a hat.

Science didn't know breastmilk (all mammals' milk) was a live food, a perfect food with specific proportions of nutrients, proteins, vitamins, minerals, fats, salts, and sugars, for the young of whatever species, full of immunoglobulins which set up a new person's/animal's immune system for life. Science only saw that breasts and nipples had bacteria on them. So doctors mistakenly recommended mothers clean their nipples with alcohol before breastfeeding, causing the nipples to crack and bleed, and the mothers to quit breastfeeding in pain. Science also recommended mothers "toughen up" their delicate nipples with rough washcloths before birth. Babies were breastfed on their backs instead of facing in to the mother, causing them to be unable to swallow, and to not latch on fully, and to cause the mother's nipples to be sore from the poor latch, and the baby to not get a good full feeding.

"Scientific" doctors also recommended mothers only nurse their babies every 4 hours (to "allow the breasts to fill"), which isn't nearly often enough, and caused failure to thrive. Then they told the mothers their milk was too thin and weak, because the mother was too nervous, and so she should switch to formula (salty cow's milk and table sugar).

In the 20th century, "science" told parents that a baby had to sleep in a separate bed, in a separate room, to not be picked up ever except to feed it. And you could prop the bottle so the baby could self feed as soon as possible! And give a pacifier when the baby really needed food. Separate sleeping isn't good for many mammals, including humans. The baby goes into a too deep sleep, and may begin to dehydrate and starve. And the mother's milk supply isn't required and starts to dry up prematurely.

Science told mothers that a baby would be spoiled by feeding too often, not realizing human (primate) milk is dilute and needs to be fed almost continuously. Look at any ape family! The infants are never put down and are feeding more often than not.

Doctors recommended mothers and fathers take long dates, or even vacations, away from their young infants, "for the sake of their marriage," ending the breastfeeding relationship prematurely, causing sicker infants who needed more doctor visits and hospitalizations, and antibiotics.

Flawed science told women formula was cleaner and purer than human milk, even when all it was, was diluted pasteurized cow's milk and sucrose (Karo syrup), as it was from 1900 to the 1950's. They knew this "formula" had no Vitamin C, so mothers were told to give their 2 month old babies tomato or orange juice (known allergens). They knew their "formula" had no vitamin B, so mothers were told to give their 2 or 3 month olds wheat based cereal before the baby was meant to swallow solid food. They hadn't identified taurine yet, so generations of babies' eyes didn't develop normally and were weak, necessitating glasses at a very young age.

In short, flawed science caused breastfeeding to almost die out in the mid 20th century, and it's still not that popular today. Science caused harm to humans.

I could go on forever on this subject. I taught it for over 25 years.

To sum up, the scientific method can be flawed. Those "doubts" scientists have are often covered up by the time their "science" is applied. Formula companies hostile to breastfeeding funded and still sometimes fund research on human milk. Coverups of data do exist, in the human milk field and many other areas. Big Pharma for example. Oxycodone anyone?

Scientific results are often inconvenient for companies just interested in making a buck, and the hell with consumers who are damaged. Research is incomplete, the wrong questions are asked, the test subjects are inappropriate, the terms are not fully defined, data is flawed, results are skewed and then covered up.

Sometimes people need to look beyond "science" for answers on how to live a healthy life.
 
I've seen plenty of bad science as a specialist in breastfeeding and natural birth.

Mothers were told to diet during pregnancy to ensure a small baby who would be easier to birth. My own doctor in 1985 told me to take up smoking next time, after my first child was born at a 10 healthy pounds.

I've seen doctors take over the process of birth, by forcing women to lie on their backs to labor and push out a baby. This is bad for the mother and baby, as it goes against gravity, and doesn't allow the birth canal to open fully. But this position is easier on the doctor/voyeur. Then doctors could be a "hero" and "deliver" the baby themselves with episiotomies and forceps.

I've seen doctors use forceps, suction cups, large episiotomies, dangerous drugs, overly strong epidurals, to disempower the ability of a woman's body to give birth. I've seen forceps damage babies' heads. I've known of episiotomies that ruptured the vagina into the colon. I've seen babies born so drugged from the mother through the placenta, they couldn't nurse. I've seen women so incapacitated by their spinal anesthesia, they can't raise their heads off their bed, much less lift and feed and care for their babies. For weeks!

I've heard women tell their stories. Of how doctors, even hospital "midwives," shamed them for vocalizing, or for taking a natural instinctive squatting position to labor and push. Of how monitors strapped around their bellies made it impossible to get out of bed, be upright, and move around during labor. Their labors stalled and then they "needed" drugs to start labor again.

I myself was starved and dehydrated during my first long labor, causing it to stall, and me "needing" to have morphine to rest my exhausted body and uterus. Then I "needed" Pitocin to start labor again, since the morphine stopped the labor. I went 36 hours with no food, no water, just ice chips, while doing the hardest physical work of my life.

I've heard of doctors sewing up womens' episiotomies extra tight "for the husband," wink wink.

Millions and billions of male babies were and are circumcised (this is pushed as a matter of course by doctors and nurses), which prevents them from nursing properly, as they pass out immediately, for hours, from the pain, and then are screaming and/or lethargic for days. Parents are sometimes not even asked if they want their sons circumcised. It's just assumed it should happen, and so millions and billions of males are damaged against their will, and even against their parents' wishes, and have their natural functions compromised for life. Where's the science there?

Again and again, I've heard of doctors telling women to quit breastfeeding at the first hint of a lactation difficulty, or if the mother needs a certain drug, or needs to go back to work outside the home. Almost always, this isn't necessary, and harms the baby.

I've heard of doctors agreeing with the fathers of the babies, who didn't want their wives to breastfeed in public, but to be given a bottle of formula. This causes the mother's milk to begin drying up. The formula of cow's milk or soy is a common allergen as well. This causes "colic," since the baby's stomach and gut is in extreme pain. Doctors used to pass out morphine to be given to
colicky babies.

I know untold numbers of doctors only give lip service to breastfeeding, to this day, while taking money, new hospital wards and wings, and very fancy very expensive vacations from formula companies. Formula companies pay for doctor's children's tuitions. They have pens and notepads on their desks where parents can see them, labeled Enfamil or Similac. They sell breastfeeding mothers' addresses to formula companies, so the women receive a case or 3 of "free" formula in the first challenging weeks home with their newborns. Mothers often lose hope with a fussy baby in the middle of a long night, and succumb to giving one bottle of formula, which is heavy and indigestible, which makes the baby fall asleep, which then causes the mother to believe her milk was inadequate, and quit breastfeeding.

Mothers, ordinary mothers, non-scientists, have had to fight for aware labor, for rooming in with their newborns, for having a partner or close friend present for them at the birth. Mothers, ordinary women, not scientists, have had to fight to continue breastfeeding when doctors tell them to quit at the drop of a hat.

Science didn't know breastmilk (all mammals' milk) was a live food, a perfect food with specific proportions of nutrients, proteins, vitamins, minerals, fats, salts, and sugars, for the young of whatever species, full of immunoglobulins which set up a new person's/animal's immune system for life. Science only saw that breasts and nipples had bacteria on them. So doctors mistakenly recommended mothers clean their nipples with alcohol before breastfeeding, causing the nipples to crack and bleed, and the mothers to quit breastfeeding in pain. Science also recommended mothers "toughen up" their delicate nipples with rough washcloths before birth. Babies were breastfed on their backs instead of facing in to the mother, causing them to be unable to swallow, and to not latch on fully, and to cause the mother's nipples to be sore from the poor latch, and the baby to not get a good full feeding.

"Scientific" doctors also recommended mothers only nurse their babies every 4 hours (to "allow the breasts to fill"), which isn't nearly often enough, and caused failure to thrive. Then they told the mothers their milk was too thin and weak, because the mother was too nervous, and so she should switch to formula (salty cow's milk and table sugar).

In the 20th century, "science" told parents that a baby had to sleep in a separate bed, in a separate room, to not be picked up ever except to feed it. And you could prop the bottle so the baby could self feed as soon as possible! And give a pacifier when the baby really needed food. Separate sleeping isn't good for many mammals, including humans. The baby goes into a too deep sleep, and may begin to dehydrate and starve. And the mother's milk supply isn't required and starts to dry up prematurely.

Science told mothers that a baby would be spoiled by feeding too often, not realizing human (primate) milk is dilute and needs to be fed almost continuously. Look at any ape family! The infants are never put down and are feeding more often than not.

Doctors recommended mothers and fathers take long dates, or even vacations, away from their young infants, "for the sake of their marriage," ending the breastfeeding relationship prematurely, causing sicker infants who needed more doctor visits and hospitalizations, and antibiotics.

Flawed science told women formula was cleaner and purer than human milk, even when all it was, was diluted pasteurized cow's milk and sucrose (Karo syrup), as it was from 1900 to the 1950's. They knew this "formula" had no Vitamin C, so mothers were told to give their 2 month old babies tomato or orange juice (known allergens). They knew their "formula" had no vitamin B, so mothers were told to give their 2 or 3 month olds wheat based cereal before the baby was meant to swallow solid food. They hadn't identified taurine yet, so generations of babies' eyes didn't develop normally and were weak, necessitating glasses at a very young age.

In short, flawed science caused breastfeeding to almost die out in the mid 20th century, and it's still not that popular today. Science caused harm to humans.

I could go on forever on this subject. I taught it for over 25 years.

To sum up, the scientific method can be flawed. Those "doubts" scientists have are often covered up by the time their "science" is applied. Formula companies hostile to breastfeeding funded and still sometimes fund research on human milk. Coverups of data do exist, in the human milk field and many other areas. Big Pharma for example. Oxycodone anyone?

Scientific results are often inconvenient for companies just interested in making a buck, and the hell with consumers who are damaged. Research is incomplete, the wrong questions are asked, the test subjects are inappropriate, the terms are not fully defined, data is flawed, results are skewed and then covered up.

Sometimes people need to look beyond "science" for answers on how to live a healthy life.

You have a very broad view of what science is. I don't consider a doctor's opinion to be science. What scientific method was used for any of that? Nearly everything you mentioned was people looking beyond science for answers.
 
Primitive 20th century scientific research led, for example, to the belief among doctors that the bacteria on a breast was bad, and therefore pasteurized cow's milk was a better food for human babies.

Doctor believed they were practicing scientifically advanced methods by making birth safer by keeping women on their backs so they could better observe the birth. Not knowing or caring that horizontal birth was the cause of longer labors that were more stressful for the babies. Keeping the women quiet with strong meds and strapping their legs in stirrups was considered safer and "cleaner."

I could go on, but I don't have time right now. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.
 
There's a cavalcade of science to back up how damaging the science of intervention in childbirth has been. Childbirth has indeed become safer over the millennia, but there's been (and still is) an awful lot of horrifying and detrimental science regarding childbirth and infant rearing. "Good science" is not necessarily truth or best - not even close. Don't even get me started on the medical community's commonly accepted Ferber method of sleep "training" for babies. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Primitive 20th century scientific research led, for example, to the belief among doctors that the bacteria on a breast was bad, and therefore pasteurized cow's milk was a better food for human babies.

Doctor believed they were practicing scientifically advanced methods by making birth safer by keeping women on their backs so they could better observe the birth. Not knowing or caring that horizontal birth was the cause of longer labors that were more stressful for the babies. Keeping the women quiet with strong meds and strapping their legs in stirrups was considered safer and "cleaner."

I could go on, but I don't have time right now. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.

A mention of specific studies would be nice. Formula was developed in the 1800's for women who were unable to breast feed. I can't find any study that says formula is better, only that it is adequate. You've piqued my curiousity.
 
A mention of specific studies would be nice. Formula was developed in the 1800's for women who were unable to breast feed. I can't find any study that says formula is better, only that it is adequate. You've piqued my curiousity.

From my understanding, it was the fact that you could measure formula and see the infant drink that amount. Instead of women and their annoying opaque and mysterious breasts which are completely deceiving.

How they sold it to women is by convincing them that their infants were hungry because their breaSts were inadequate due to their faulty anatomy and not due to the medication and procedures performed on them. Normal infant behavior such as crying or sucking was misinterpreted as hunger when it was pain due to a traumatic birth or need of comfort because they are mammals.

Therefore, to tired, anxious parents, a bottle of formula they could see going in their baby was a God send. Especially as many people expect women to be full of milk as soon as she has a baby.

It was better for research in other areas of infant care too as you could reduce the variables by making sure all babies had the same amount.
 
Back
Top