|
|
 Originally Posted by boost
see, but I take issue with this. You claim to be starting at the beginning, yet when it was pointed out that your starting point is not the start at all since you are granting the sole islander knowledge that was collected over eons you just brushed it off. I know you probably think that I am nit picking but I really think that this is the faulty ground that your entire analogy is built on.
Furthermore I am near the point of being offended when you dodge peoples points by insisting that they be rephrased to fit your broken analogy. This is not your debate, but a debate that we are all participating in. If someone wishes to reference your analogy, or comment on it, fine. Otherwise it is quite rude to insist on its use.
Why does it matter if the island man is educated or not? We can begin with a man 200,000 years ago with no knowledge. That will work as well, but a modern man is easier for us to understand. Either will get the job done. Does the first man on earth, 200k years ago not apply either because he evolved from other animals? I don't understand your point here. It isn't relevant if he is a modern human or not.
The only people who think the island analogy is "broken" are people who can't get a very simple system to fit their world view, and cognitive dissonance is imploring them to dismiss it as "broken" or not applicable in some way. No one has offered convincing arguments for why it is broken, and it would be lovely if you didn't dismiss it because your ideas don't fit and you can't explain what, exactly, is wrong with the island analogy except to say your ideas don't work there and it therefore must be a worthless thought exercise.
|
Reply With Quote