/sci/ - Science & Math

moral responsibility is a bullshit concept invented solely to justify revenge

>professor of philosopher

>>7135481
le ebin meme

How is philosophy associated with academics? it's literally just pseudo-intellectual guess work. The people who "do" philosophy do for themselves, to bask in their own perceived genius

>>7135505
How do you know that? Sounds like a philosophical position.

>>7135430
I'm more interested in what neuroscience will tell us about the possibilities of virtual reality, dreams, the possibility of being able to create technology that can interpret dreams as audio and video/dream recording, and the conscious and subconsciousness.

This "muh feelings" bullshit has nothing to do with neuroscience. The absence of free will has no "moral" implications. The decisions of judges are just as unfree as the decisions of criminals. There is no "moral obligation" to change the law just because we are now aware that free will doesn't exist. The whole concept of "moral responsibility" is an illusion anyway.

>>7135505
I never understood how philosophers can be that delusional to presume they somehow had a monopoly on thinking. As if nobody else ever used their own brains. Philosophers constantly talk about other fields they never formally studied and then pretend their dilettantish and primitive ideas based on shallow and incomplete pop sci understandings would somehow be better and more qualified than the expertise of active researchers. Philosophers actually made themselves believe the ideas they produce (which any child could have produced just as well) would be novel and deep insights never thought before. It's actually quite pathetic. I mean when a normal 4 or 5 year old "explains" the world to its parents, then that's cute, but when a grown-up man still mentally operates on the same infantile level, that's really sad.

>>7135604

>>7135625

>>7135618
Have you ever read a philosophy textbook?

>>7135604
An absence of free will would have moral implications, as retributive justice is performed on the assumption of moral responsibility; which would not exist without free will. As for judges being unfree, obviously, but if the above is there reasoning, then they would be unjustified in applying certain kinds of judgement; and as reasonable people, could likely be persuaded to consider the implications of a lack of free will on the actions of criminals.

>>7135842
*their.

It's the other way round. If there was free will then punishment would neither affect the criminal nor the general public's behavior and therefore be pointless.

>>7135856
Due to a lack of determination?

>philosophy bashing on /sci/
rip, hope its just undergrad engineers

>>7135874
I really don't get it. What's with this false dichotomy that you either like phil, or science? They compliment each other very well.

>>7135430
Your only responsibilty to your body is hedonism, but you can also decide to be depressed as fuck. Moral nihilism ftw.

>>7135836
>philosophy textbook

Top lel. There are no "philosophy textbooks" because philosophy is not science and does not produce factual truths. In philosophy you don't read textbooks, you only read the opinions of a small number of accepted authors, some of who contradict each other. There is no condensed collection of truths generated by philosophy. It's not like physics or biology where you don't need to read Newton or Darwin in the original because you have modern mechanics or evolution textbooks. Philosophy is about subjective opinions. And on top of that, every high schooler is allowed and encouraged to question and argue against historical philosophers. Any high schooler can disagree with Aristotle, Kant or Schopenhauer, and as long as he provides arguments which subjectively convince his teacher, he will be awarded an A. Philosophy is literally nothing more than a buzzword for holding opinions.

>>7135842
>retributive justice is performed on the assumption of moral responsibility

Bullshit. Legal systems of justice don't rely on free will or "muh feelings" bullshittery. They merely exercise written law.

>>7135618
Because your "philosopher" is made of straw

>>7135874
Nice projection. In fact it is only undergrad engineers and CS students who in their severely limited knowledge ignorantly believe "philosophy" (or whatever they mistake for philosophy) would be deep or in any way relevant to science or math.

>>7135505
>>Philosophy is just guessing therefore it's worthless

so worthless

>>7135604
>>free will is an illusion so we shouldn't change our insane, illogical and irrational ways of livng

Your scare quotes reveal you to be one of those idiots who can't actually criticize ideas so much as pretend they are inherently ludicrous. "Moral obligation"?!? SUCH A THING IS ABSURD, GOOD SIR! TRULY, WE ALL ARE LIVING A LIE THUS IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY MATTER IF WE TREAT CRIMINALS LIKE SCUM OR LIKE HUMANS.

You're an irrational waste of life.

>>7136030
>>textbooks must contain factual truths

are you autistic, or possibly Hermione Granger?

>>as long as he provides opinions that convince his teacher he will get an A

Hahaha you actually think this is a bad thing? Interesting how people that feel critical thinking is useless are in need of it the most.

>>nothing more than buzzwords for holding opinions

I've never met such an autistic scientismist as you. It's almost like you don't understand the point of using new words and ideas to describe things we couldn't describe before.

>>7136056
1. Learn to write.
2. Saying that you don't think Phil. is deep is revealing.
3. Nice scare quote, are you trying to imply philosophy doesn't actually exist?
4. Philosophy is extremely important to both science and math, you clearly don't know much about either

>>7136058
>are you autistic, or possibly Hermione Granger?
Textbooks contain information everyone agrees upon. In philosophy there are no accepted theories, only opinions.

>Hahaha you actually think this is a bad thing?
I did not make any value judgements. I only proved that philosophy is of no intellectual merit.

>Interesting how people that feel critical thinking is useless are in need of it the most.
*tips dunce hat*
Philosophy does not teach critical thinking more than reading any arbitrary text does. You are a prime example of what >>7135618 describes. Critical thinking is a skill every normal person develops during their childhood. The fields which rely the most on critical thinking are the STEM fields.

>It's almost like you don't understand the point of using new words and ideas to describe things we couldn't describe before.
Science and math introduce new terminology all the time. If it turns out to be useful, it becomes accepted. Philosophy on the other hand arbitrarily redefines commonly used words for no purpose other than to satisfy the emotional opinions of the author.

>>7136067
>1. Learn to write.
English is my 3rd language. If you have any trouble understanding my post, feel free to ask for clarification.

>2. Saying that you don't think Phil. is deep is revealing.
Indeed, it reveals my highly developed critical thinking - a skill you seem to be lacking.

>3. Nice scare quote, are you trying to imply philosophy doesn't actually exist?
Fun fact: Even "professional" philosophers cannot agree on what philosophy actually is. Nor can they justify its existence.

>4. Philosophy is extremely important to both science and math, you clearly don't know much about either
Philosophy is of no relevance to science or math. The scientific method does not involve any philosophy. Mathematical research does not involve any philosophy. You'd know this if you ever attended a university. Please don't use youtube pop sci videos and NEET infested subreddits as your only source of education.

>>7136087
WHY do you keep using stawmen in your arguments

btw your philosophizing right now

>>7136087
>Even "professional" philosophers cannot agree on what philosophy actually is

>Even "professional" physicists cannot agree on what dark matter actually is

>>7136115
So physicists agree on what physics actually is, so you supported his argument

>>7136030
I can assure you there are a number of philosophy textbooks, most of which don't focus much on traditional thinkers. And philosophy is about rational argumentation not stating opinions. Again, you don't know what you're talking about, and I suggest you learn about the topic in great depth, before making criticisms.

>>7136038
And written law is based on assumptions of what's just.

>>7136087
But the scientific method is entirely philosophy. Obviously modern practice of science doesn't involve philosophy, but who cares?

>>7136078
How do you come to these conclusions? How do you know most children develop critical thinking (just look at society)?How do you know philosophers only care about satisfying their emotions? How do you know it's of no intellectual merit (whatever that is)?Why do you use so many ebin memes?

>>7136087
Philosophy is rational thinking applied to non-empirical questions.

>>7136350
>>7136321
If philosophy is only the use of arguments, then you admit that it has no intellectual merit. Every child uses arguments and rational thinking. Using arguments is as natural to us as walking, eating or breathing. And I don't see anyone claiming to be a professional walker, breather or eater. Neither do I see walking, eating or breathing departments in universities where they would waste years of their life studying how other people in the past walked, breathed or ate, and where the graduates would claim to be better qualified at walking, eating or breathing than the general public.

>>7136334
The scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy.

>>7136350
So it's just a buzzword for having opinions?

>>7135604
PULL THE GODDAMN LEVER YOU PATHETIC LITTLE BITCH!!

>>7136431
Most opinions aren't very well rationally justified, so no.

>>7136424
I'm afraid it does, it's the product of enlightenment philosophers. Hell it even used to be referred to as natural philosophy.

>>7136448
No opinion is "rationally justified". In the end everything boils down to "muh feelings". And this is why philosophy is shit. It isn't based on facts like science or math. Rational justification cannot exist without facts.

>>7136414
Hows does it follow that the use of extensive argumentation to justify and criticize ideas has no intellectual merit? I don't think most children use rational thinking very well, all kids can count, they're not mathematicians. It doesn't follow that something being natural means it can't be pursued professionally; running is natural, people do it professionally; empirical inference is natural, people are scientists; basic numerical, and language skills are natural, people do these things professionally. Again, the difference is the relative sophistication of these activities. And finally most philosophy teaching is focused on contemporary arguments, at least at higher levels.

>>7135604
In your picture, your moral obligation is to benefit as many people as possible, therefore you should let the train run over the group of 5. Too many humans on this planet, too many fat, weak, dumb, shitty people breeding. Then you should kill the other one that doesn't get run over

>>7136454
Science doesn't produce facts, it produces extensively empirically justified models. Mathematics, if anything, produces facts, but as per Godel, even this could be doubted, as any set of axioms cannot both be logically consistent, and complete. As for you cannot rationally justify an argument, seeing as your comment doesn't make use of mathematical or scientific "facts", it cannot be justified, and is thereby self-refuting.

>>7136472
Philosophy never reaches any sophisticated level. Arguments in philosophy are shallow and neither understanding nor formulating them requires any qualifications. Every argument in philosophy can be thought of and disproved by a 5 year old. Every person who barely learned to read is equally qualified to produce or dissect a philosophical argument. Children in high school can write an essay disagreeing with a historical philosopher and they won't be marked wrong as long as their arguments are coherent. Deal with it, philosophy has no intellectual merit. It's not like science where you need years of studying before you can even begin to understand contemporary theories.

>>7136493
You haven't justified a single one of your claims. Demonstrate that what you say has any basis in reality.

>>7136493
rite m8.

>>7136492
Every observation, every measurement and every experimental result of science is a fact. The genetic code? Fact. The electromagnetic spectrum? Fact. The chemical composition of citric acid? Fact.

As for Gödel: His incompleteness theorem does in no way prove that math is flawed. He merely showed that math can never be fully reduced to logic.

>>7136556
>Confusing the rigorous and practical definition of fact.

>>7136563
>inane semantics trolling

Define "define".

>not majoring in philosophy and physics or math and physics
plebs the lot of you, plebs
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Science-Perennial/dp/0061209198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426631159&sr=8-1&keywords=physics+and+philosophy

>>7136570
>Thinking this is inane.

M8 you are having a discussion on philosophy, these distinctions are important.

Practially results of scientific experiments can be thought of as facts. That is what is useful.

However, since it is not yet known if the world around you is as it seems, then no observation of it can technically derive a fact.

Rather you can derive a fact of what you observe but that doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with actual reality.

>>7136583
>muh cannot know nuffin
>what if reality doesn't real

Embarrassing, dude. This is an 18+ forum. Please at least try to hide the fact that you're underage.

>>7136610
>reality don't real meme
>ad hominem

and I'm the child.

I thought /sci/ would at least enjoy analytic philosophy since it's practically math

Where does the perception that it's all either "can't know nuffin" or rambling bullshit come from

>>7136645
Analytic philosophy is the worst kind of philosophy. The claim that it is "practically math" is a blatant lie. The so called analytic philosophers are opinionated autists who declare their baseless beliefs to be axioms and then mistakenly think this settles the debate. Absolutely disgusting.

>>7136658
Still mad about that C you got in intro philosophy?

Please give one example of an analytic philosopher declaring his or her baseless beliefs to be axioms and then mistakenly thinking this settles the debate. Just one (but with an actual citation to a book or paper).

>>7136672
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga

>>7136672
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

>>7136687
Could you be a little more specific? Do you have a particular paper or book in mind? Better yet, why don't you give me a quotation?

>>7136708
Are you seriously gonna go that low to defend a fucking creationist on /sci/? Please go back to /pol/ and learn some subtlety for your pathetic troll attempts.

>>7135463
First fucking post. /sci/ isn't that bad after all.

>>7136702
What's wrong with Peter Singer?

>>7137884
He's anti-science.

>>7137889
Is he? When did he say that?

>>7136702
>>7137884
>>7137889
Peter Singer: "It's wrong to eat animals"
Rest of the world: "Om nom no... did someone say something? meh. Om nom nom"

He needs to get a real job.

>>7137896
So would critiquing racism when it was widespread have been wortheless? You have to start somewhere, and I for one, have stopped eating meat on the basis of his arguments. And would you stop with the ebin memes?

>>7135505
>>7135618
etc.

Why don't you stop painting in such broad strokes?

>>7136610
Claiming an objectively knowable reality is an philosophical position you know

Is /sci/ even aware that there is a whole field of study in Philosophy that deals with the venture of science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Philosophy+of+science

>>7135631
kek

>>7135481
>>7135481
Moral responsibility to kill those popcorn eating mutha fuckas?

>>7139807
He claimed last time it was worthless. It's interesting, because questions of value are philosophical, therefore his argument is self-refuting.

>trying to make logcial arguments against philosophy
>trying to argue against philosophy wihtout any logical arguments

>>7139961
>Having a whole bunch of opinions about whatever, but philosophy is useless

>>7135618
/thread

Only acceptable philosophical opinion about something is from researches or qulified persons working in those fields.

>>7135618
Science is for premises, philosophy is for making conclusions. Your argument is like "I don't get how mathematicians think they've got a monopoly on math".

ITT we see how religious zealotry has been replaced by dogmatic reverence for science, what ever that is.

As a mathematician I can say anyone who doesn't value philosophy is an idiot.

>>7140065
Sure that's why CERN employs so many philosophers, because the physicists are too intellectually limited to interpret the scattering data ...

/sarcasm

If you honestly believe this bullshit, you are mentally retarded.

>>7140076
>As a mathematician

Trasnlation: "As a first semester undergrad who thinks he's a polymath because he passed calculus"

Math PhD student here. You're full of shit.

>>7140088
Sure sure. You guys can build stuff and interpret date, but you don't know what do with it. It's one thing to invent a car and another to decide what to do with it and why. You're anal spasm proves me right.

>>7140091

Lol, m8 you must have a really shitty grasp of foundations.

>>7140061
Except that post is based on a straw man.

>>7140096
OK, so what, according to philosophy should one do with a car and why should one do it? I can't wait to show me the grand conclusions of philosophy.

>>7140131
Do you think we should allow abortions? Why? Do you think we should use chemical weapons? Why?
Do you think we should help the poor? Why?

We could go on like that forever. You'll have to be a complete fucking moron to not see how philosophy shapes society every day. You vote I suppose, so you probably have some views that probably are based on what you think society should be like.

>>7140131
A car?

>>7140091
How do you know that?

>>7140109
I don't give a shit about foundations. They are not relevant to my topics of research. And in fact I don't know any colleague to whom they would be relevant either.

>>7135430
>Nothing useful.

>>7140096
Do you really think engineers by pure coincidence constructed a whole fucking car with seats and wheels and steering wheel without figuring out that you have to sit on the seat and use the steering wheel to navigate the car? Do you really think it took a philosopher's brilliant insight to figure out what this randomly constructed object would be good for?

>>7140162
Thank you for proving the uselessness of philosophy. Philosophy answers none of the questions in your post. It fails to provide an objective answer. All these questions are matters of opinions. Everyone can hold opinions. Philosophers are not better qualified to hold opinions.

>>7140497
Nothing has an objective answer (if by that you mean indisputable), all there is, is justified arguments. And there are many justified arguments for those kinds of questions (though with more controversy than in science). Therefore they aren't just "opinions", therefore certain people can be better apt to address these questions. Also by your own reasoning, seeing as your argument isn't "objective", it's thereby just an opinion, and opinions have no epistemic value, so your view is thus self-refuting.

>>7140553
Apart from perhaps pure maths.

>>7140557
Philosophy underlies all contexts in and through which math applies.

>>7140566
True, but this guy won't admit that.

Philosophy is a framework for the application of facts. This process has a measurable real world effect. That effect can be judged objectively as good or bad in relation to a goal. Thus, "successful" and "unsuccessful" are adequate descriptions for philosophies.

If you need science to determine what's fun then you're not a very fun person to be around.

Thanks philosophy.

>>7136424

the scientific method is literally philosophy

>>7140553
philosophy was invented to deal with reality on rational terms. Therefore, if something is found to be objectively irrational, then it can be reasonably assumed to be objectively false. For example, claims of the existence of God.

>>7141013
It is a methodology used to find the truth.

>>7135618

Naive scientism all day err'day.

>>7136424
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

MOM I POSTED IT AGAIN

>>7136616
It's called ad personam.
You'd know it if you had read Schopenhauer :)

>>7141108
>I study STEM but I have never looked inside an epistemologic problem


ape

Just because something seems to be unanswerable in the moment, that does not mean that we should not ask those questions. Actually, if we look at history, Philosophers are the ones who developed empirical inquiry. Thales of Miletus, a Pre-Socratic Philosopher, for example, is credited with developing a plan to divert a river for Persian troops to cross a river, predicted a solstice, developed the angle side angle theorem, and generally developed the idea of materialism. He also allegedly said that fish turned into mammals, although we cannot say he is the father of evolution. He however mostly focused on politics and morality, and was basically a combination of King Solomon and Benjamin Franklin.

Philosophy and science are different terms for the same thing; they ask questions and provide answers. Humanism, materialism, and empiricism all fit into both categories. It's people like you that are like the Inquisition, except now it is in the name of Humanism and Science, rather than Catholicism. For the sake of the evolution of the human race is now the will of God. Bottom line is that humans ask questions and try to understand the universe around them, and there are some things that are not absolute or concrete. We can still use non-concrete information to benefit ourselves. By the way most scientists would say they were progressive(in terms of philosophy) so again, philosophy not useless.

http://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/2zmaox/another_wacky_sci_thread_in_which_all_philosophy/

How can all these fucking people argue that philosophy is stupid/useless/vapid/baseless/doesn't exist without realizing that when arguing that you are making a philosophical statement.
The credibility of the statement is dependent on the credibility of the field that you're claiming to be not only useless, but also 'not related to the real world'.
It doesn't make any sense to claim that philosophy doesn't exist or has no use, because MAKING A CLAIM is in and of itself a part of philosophy.

>>7142434
Philosophy is a very distinct academic discipline. By claiming that every use of arguments would be philosophy you are only revealing your disgusting ignorance. Fuck off back to reddit.

>>7135505
>>7135618
This is why I don't come here often.

This place is full of undergrads pretending their discipline is somehow superior to others in order to feel better.

>>7142474
No come back we love you

>>7142474
This kind of bullshit post is what makes me write posts like >>7135618

I presented reasonable criticism, and the only response the self-proclaimed "experts at thinking" can think of is "hurr durr u r dumb u must be undergrad lol". Not only are you wrong (I'm a math PhD student), but also did you fail to address any of the points in my post. You claim to be a master of arguments but you fail at the simplest level. You behave like an ill-mannered child. How do you expect to convince anyone if the only thing you achieve is to evoke disgust?

>>7144167
Many others have addressed your points. Your response, nonsense, and dank memes.

>>7144167
>>7144203
Besides, we're not philosophers, we've just bothered doing some research into a topic, before dismissing it.

>>7144203
Nobody in this thread posted any counter-argument. All I see is baseless insults and ignorant teenaged platitudes along the lines of "hurr durr every thought is philosophy" which basically only devalue philosophy and thus support my point.

>>7144204
So you're talking about a field you never studied formally and yet you pretend to hold some authority? Great example of what I described in >>7135618. I almost surely know more about philosophy than you. I read most of the "great" philosophers and I came to my conclusions by critically questioning their bullshit. You on the other hand seem to dogmatically believe snippets of factoids you collected from equally ignorant manchildren on reddit. And in addition you are painfully unaware of how you and your kind are the reason why /sci/ hates philosophy.

>>7144210
You're beyond reason, I'm sorry.

>>7144219
>philosophers tell me to engage in critical thinking
>insult me when I use my critical thinking to question their dogma
epic irony

Sapere aude ;)

>>7137896
He's right, though. It's wrong to embrace avoidable suffering and it's wrong to be unhealthy.

>>7144252
"Muh feelings" is not an argument and not a justification for anything.

>>7144258
Then why do you post them?

>>7144252
Why is it wrong? What does it mean for an action to be "wrong"?

>>7144263
I don't.

>>7144270
Okay HAL, if you say so.

>>7144269
I'd argue that it means not being able to be justified, which as humans is the case for eating meat.

>>7144301
Meat tastes good. Meat is healthy. That's enough of a justification. Your position on the other hand has no justification other than "muh feelings". If you're a furry who desperately needs to anthropomorphize animals, then that's your problem. But please keep your anti-scientific nonsense out of /sci/.

>>7144303
There are other ways to stay healthy, and pleasure doesn't provide justification for doing immoral acts. My position is that since animals have feelings, and can feel pain, and since we don't need to eat them to survive, to unnecessarily cause them harm solely for our own pleasure is immoral.

I didn't know making baseless accusations against was scientific though, thanks for that :-)

>>7144303.
Meat isn't healthy. Do some research instead of denying facts.

>>7144311
1. There is nothing immoral about eating meat. Your feelings are not facts.
2. Animals cannot "feel" pain like humans do. Animals' brains are not sufficiently complex to have consciousness. They merely automatically react to painful stimuli. You are needlessly and unscientifically anthropomorphizing them.

>>7144311
>immoral acts

In other words: "MUH FEELINGS!!!!!11!!!!!"

Opinion discarded. Please go back to /pol/ or /lit/.

>>7144311
Why is it "immoral"? What does that mean objectively?

>>7144319
1. Again, you haven't provided any justification for your claim, at first that it was moral because it provided you pleasure, and now you are restating your claim without justification. My feelings are not facts, but the fact is that animals feelings do exist, which provides reason for us not to consume animals.
2. Do you have any proof that animals don't feel pain the way we do? What about cats and dogs, it seems clear to most people that they feel emotions and pain. How about chimphanzees and gorillas who can be taught sign language? Are they merely automatons in the cartesian sense too?

>>7144320
You could use the pleasure=justification argument to justify serial killers killing people and a host of other incredibly stupid behavior, which is why it is clearly wrong.
>>7144322
It is immoral because you knowingly harm another being capable of feeling to sate a desire that can be fulfilled in other, less harmful manners.

>>7144327
>>7144333
Again: "Moral or immoral" is absolutely meaningless. Your subjective emotional preferences are irrelevant to science and nobody is obliged to take them seriously.

>>7144327
1. You are the one making a claim. You are claiming it would be "immoral" to eat animals. It is your burden of proof. It is your burden to define what that means and why it has any objecitve basis. So far you only cried about "muh feelings".
2. It is a basic fact of evolutionary neurobiology that animals' brains are significantly simpler than human brains. In your post you committed the same fallacy again. You baselessly anthropomorphized animals only to satisfy your irrational world view against all evidence.

>>7144312
Meat is healthy. Do some research instead of denying facts.

>>7144333
>You could use the pleasure=justification argument to justify serial killers killing people and a host of other incredibly stupid behavior, which is why it is clearly wrong.
No justification was given. You are under the mistaken impression that moral philosophy is logical. Moral philosophy is arbitrary. Society eats meat and puts serial killers in jail because it feels like it. You do not eat meat because you feel like it. The universe doesn't care about pleasure, pain, or what you consider moral.

>>7144347
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-mediterranean-diet-or-a-whole-food-plant-based-diet/
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/plant-based-diets
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat

Philosophically the universe may care. If a segment of society takes on the responsibility of elevating the morality of society then it could be said that such action is the manifestation of the universes will.

Those who put science on a pedestal are deeply flawed.

>>7144345
>The
mere charge of “anthropomorphism” is question-
begging, for the attribution of human-like mental
qualities to nonhumans is incorrect only if they
genuinely lack those qualities.
>but if the call was
ignored then it had transferred. The results showed
that transfer of habituation could occur across acousti-
cally dissimilar calls when those calls were used in
similar
(social)
contexts. Because the calls are
acoustically dissimilar, the best explanation for these
results is that the vervets categorize calls according to
what they mean, not what they sound like. The idea
for these experiments arose as a direct result of
adopting a cognitive perspective that viewed the
monkeys as understanding their vocalizations rather
than merely responding in an automatic fashion.
https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/pdfs/76/1/42?search-result=1

Animals are capable of cognition and pain(if you still don't believe this I can look for more articles), so it is not anthropomorphizing them to so much as seeing them as they truly are. You are also claiming that it is justified and justifiable to eat meat, despite that being the more common view it doesn't alleviate you from the burden of proof either.

>>7144342
So because something isn't related to science people shouldn't take it seriously? Morality is deeply related to science in how scientific discoveries are applied, and in the processes through which they are discovered. To espouse morality in science is to go back to Nazi type experimentation practices.

>>7144342
Moral arguments aren't always based on emotional preferences, just look at utilitarianism. You may as well lampoon science for having epistemic preferences, such as a posteriori, over a priori.

>>7144210
>>7141315
This is not a valid argument? At least, it does not make you question your stance that you are generalizing too much?

>>7135430
I'm a Christian so no.

>>7145076
what if man was made with free will but sin has taken it away? Does a retarded or severely mentally ill person have free-will?