ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
In an attempt to keep the argument clear, I repeat, here, the basic example about the use of natural kinds in inductive arguments, and, the assignation of evidential support.

Quote from: Natural kinds with an example
We have hypothesis H1: All emeralds are green
We have hypothesis H2: All emeralds are grue
Where Grue :def.  green up until 1 january 1971, and, blue afterwards.
Where Bleen :def. blue up until 1 january 1971, and green afterwards
And then, we have that Green is grue up until 1 jan 1971, and, bleen afterwards
All observations up to 1 january 1971 support both H1 and H2.
What makes the difference?
It is argued that green is the more “entrenched” term.
IOW, (“entrenched” is) that the history of its sociological linguistic use, tell us that it (and any other co-extensional term) has been used plenty in successful inductive inferences, and thus, it is a good candidate to a natural kind (not a socio-linguistic construction).
And given this fact, the evidence goes to support H1.
natural-kinds-an-example

1st argument:

M1: An heterosexual couple life long commitment (successful or failed ones) with prospects of child-rearing their own children, ceteris paribus.

M2: M1 up until t1, and M1 or SSM afterwards

M3: M1 or SSM up until t1, and M1 afterwards

M1: M2 up until t1 and M3 afterwards.


We can take t1 to be something like 1st January 1850 (Or perhaps, it can also be the day SSM was accepted in the U.S, for example), to make the inference clearer.

Hm1: All Marriages are (the natural kind) M1

Hm2: all marriages are (the natural kind) M2

All observations up to t1 support both Hm1 and Hm2.

The suggestion is that M1 is the more “entrenched” term

IOW, that the history of its sociological linguistic use, tell us that it (and any other co-extensional term) has been used more in successful inductive inferences. IOW, it is a good candidate to a natural kind (not a socio-linguistic construction).

When people up to t1 observed marriage relation they thought about it as an M1 and their inferences from it were successful, that they would probably have children, or if did not have them already, soon, that they would be and treat each other in a certain way, that they should behave with others in a certain way (for example, not attempting to have children except with his wife), doing all kinds of successful moral and non-moral inferences, from it.

So, the evidence should go to Hm1

But if Marriage is (identity) M1, Marriage is a natural kind, then, all marriages include some prospects of child-rearing their own children, ceteris paribus. (successful or failed ones).
And no amount of misuse and misunderstanding of what it is would change that, even if increasingly common and accepted by society. (identity )


A preface to my 2nd argument:

Quote from: A Prussean narrative of romantic love.
Doing the right thing is to act in accordance with love, sum total morality is found in love, the answer is in the demand that love itself makes.

Love demands that love take a form that is appropriate (3 way).
Love is a response to reality, adopting a form that fits the reality of the situation (forms and sub forms of love).

Love actively seeks that the form fits, and, this is what allows for commitment.
Some Love forms: fraternal, romantic, filial, etc…

Love´s fundamental aspects:
1.   Benevolence (desire the good to the other)
2.   Appreciation (appreciate the beauty of such and such trait of the person…etc)

3.   (Desired) union

a.   Two types of union:

i.   Formal union (always present in love):  union of mind and will. Intimate knowledge.  The will sees the beloved with full empathy.

ii.   Real (something to be aspired to?):  intellectual conversation, doing stuff together, etc…

1.   Love can exist without it, at a given moment, but not without seeking it

2.   There is a right form (or forms) of union that is seek for each kind of love

a.   Right is to be appropriate to the beloved, to the lover and to the relationship


4.   Reciprocity based on the knowledge that it is good to love me and to be united to me.

Pruss’s framework: Start with the general concept of love, then, you specify the particular forms of love that are relevant to a specific case.

Then we ask, what is it that identifies romantic love between a (heterosexual couple), what is unique to it?
Is it Benevolence? is it appreciation? It does seem that other relations (e.g.  filial, friendship, SSR, etc.) can have very similar expressions with respect to these aspects.

What about union, is there a way in which RL of (Heterosexual couple) is expressed?

Here, the demands that (romantic) love itself does are key  for the right thing being to act in accordance with love, as well as for the sum total morality to be found in love, demands that consist, in general, that love take the form that is appropriate, considering all 3 aspects with respect to the lover, the loved and the relationship, which is consistent with  Love constituting a response to reality, that adopts a form that fits the reality of as given situation (forms and sub forms of love).

Additionally, that the fact that Love actively seeks the form that fits allows for the possibility of commitment. Which in turn potentiates the aspects of love itself



Musings  towards my 2nd argument:

There seems to be a very unique demand, where aside from other relevant telos, there is, at least, one unique telos, namely, the telos of human reproduction, when even as biological organisms work as one system with the same function and goal, a factual instance of human mating, this is how humans mate.

Then, it follows that romantic love, is, at least, a love that seeks a real union of two persons as one organism, in principle, in an unlimited loving commitment to a personal integrated reproductive striving.

Pruss argument goes beyond this conclusion (with additional considerations), and he concludes that “It follows that various sexual acts other than intercourse weather because they are of the wrong sort or they lack the interpersonal dimensions of commitment and integration are not what romantic love seeks for”

Yet, the present argument has a somewhat humbler approach.




The 2nd  argument:

This union aspect of romantic love has a place in time, and, a reduced one at that, and, it can be enriched, and complemented, then: one obvious way in which this excellent good can be enriched is through a commitment of the couple, that further extends their relation through time, and, potentiates the good of reproduction, followed by the good of bringing about a family, through child-rearing the children, product of the (love) relationship as a whole.


But then, an explanation offers itself, to the result of our previous argument, namely, that marriage is described by the propositions “a heterosexual couple life long commitment (successful or failed ones) with prospects of child-rearing their own children, ceteris paribus” and that explanation is that more specifically “Marriage is a loving lifelong commitment (successful or failed ones) to a real union through a personally integrated reproductive striving (successful or failed ones)” Which is just to say that a real union through a personally integrated reproductive striving is an intrinsic (see account of intrinsic property appended at the end) property of marriage.

And if this is correct, In conclusion:

All marriages include in intrinsic fashion a reproductive striving.

Corollary: Marriage is being misunderstood and increasingly abused, today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote from: One account of Intrinsic property - SEP
Intrinsic properties.
F is an intrinsic property iff, necessarily, for any x (i): if the ascription of F to x is grounded by a fact containing a constituent y, then y is part of x; and (ii) if the negation of the ascription of F to x is grounded by a fact containing y, then y is part of x
A is grounded by the state of affairs that B iff it is the case that A in virtue of it being the case that B
The relevant notion of grounding is meant to be an explanatory one. Grounding, here,  is meant to be what connects the explanans of an explanation with its explanandum


References:

marriage-is-natural-kind OP

marriage-is-natural-kind some plausible conclusions

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes

natural-kinds-an-example

marriage-as-natural-kind

PS: The comments attributed to Pruss are still my rendering of them, and, even though, I think they are somewhere in the area of being correct, they might still unintentionally missrepresent Pruss´s position, so they should not be taken as good ones on the basis of the purported support given by Pruss to them.


Some Evidence
« Last Edit: November 02, 2016, 04:18:35 am by ontologicalme »

1

kurros

  • *****
  • 12195 Posts
    • View Profile
So people who get married but don't want children are in a "fake" marriage? People who get married but aren't fertile are in "fake" marriages? Whether by genetic misfortune, disease, or age? This argument seems to invalidate an awful lot of marriages.

2

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
So people who get married but don't want children are in a "fake" marriage? People who get married but aren't fertile are in "fake" marriages? Whether by genetic misfortune, disease, or age? This argument seems to invalidate an awful lot of marriages.



Thanks for your comment and questions, but, I hope you didn´t just simply go to the conclusion and then wrote this. I have put some serious thought on this.

"... real union through a personally integrated reproductive striving (successful or failed ones)..."


As far as I can tell, and, I have seen, most couples, at the very least, enter marriage with some intent to procreate, be it that they decide to wait or not, and, most do strive to do so, even those that after trying for a while, discover that, at least, one of them is not fertile, Whether by genetic misfortune, disease (and at times even age).

It does invalidate some unions as one of marriage, those formed with out any level of intent to procreate.

That does not mean there can not be other types of loving relationships or (legal or not ) unions, they just shouldn´t be conflated with marriage.

Is there a premise that you think is to be questioned?

Thanks
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 02:31:56 am by ontologicalme »

3

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile
So people who get married but don't want children are in a "fake" marriage? People who get married but aren't fertile are in "fake" marriages? Whether by genetic misfortune, disease, or age? This argument seems to invalidate an awful lot of marriages.

This^
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

4

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
This might sound dismissive and I really don't mean it to.  But this is my honest reaction.  A sort of fascinated "car crash" amazement.  Amazement that anybody (including Pruss) could spend so much time on such a contrived complex position simply to try to justify a couple of verses in the Bible and the associated attitudes it leads to.

Clearly there is no intuitive basis for this.  But desperate times call for desperate measures.  So, just as WLC has to declare sympathy for the Israelite soldiers, rather than the babies they massacred, we have this similarly tortured account.  We are simply discussing what we should include within the term marriage.  Almost all Christians (now) think SS couples should get the legal protections of marriage.  Nobody complains when people are described as "married to their jobs".  But describe a SS couple with all the legal protections of marriage as, married, and it's a problem.  Who on earth cares ?

So we have discussions about "natural kinds" and ruminations on "what is an inductive argument".  Why ?Nobody talks like this.  Nobody thinks like this.  Not unless faced with unpalatable truth.  Just as climate change deniers contrive mass conspiracy theories so Christians concoct spectacular arguments to explain why morally unacceptable attitudes are actually OK.

I appreciate how you value rationality.  The lengths you will go to, in order to call your position "reasonable" is, in it's own way, laudable. 

As I've said before.  It's hard work to believe this stuff when you're intelligent.
Life is a box of chocolates!

5

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Does anyone has a comment, contribution or objection that actually engages with the premises of the argument  (after all, that´s what one should do, in principle, if one wants to deny an argument's conclusion, and still be rational about one´s position against it)? specially, after actually, understanding the argument.

I can not stop others from posting, but, I´d prefer it those posts were not question begging, red herring, had hominem  fallacious knee jerk comments.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 02:37:44 am by ontologicalme »

6

kurros

  • *****
  • 12195 Posts
    • View Profile
So people who get married but don't want children are in a "fake" marriage? People who get married but aren't fertile are in "fake" marriages? Whether by genetic misfortune, disease, or age? This argument seems to invalidate an awful lot of marriages.

I hope you just simply go to the conclusion and then wrote this.
I have put some serious thought on this.

" real union through a personally integrated reproductive striving (successful or failed ones)"


As far as I can tell, and, I have seen, most couples, at the very least, enter marriage with some intent to procreate, be it that they decide to wait or not, and, most do strive to do so, even those that after trying for a while, discover that, at least, one of them is not fertile, Whether by genetic misfortune, disease (and at times even age).

It does invalidate some unions as marriages, those formed with out any level of intent to procreate.

That does not mean there can not be other types loving relationships or (legal or not ) unions, they just shouldn´t be conflated with marriage.

Yes I read all that, and stand by what I said. Maybe "most" couples intend to procreate, but so what? There are millions who don't. My father was recently remarried, and both him and his wife are around 60, obviously having no intention to have children and biologically could not anyway. I see nothing in your argument that is very convincing as to why I should not consider this a "real" marriage. At best it just seems like you are not talking about the same thing as the rest of society when you define marriage this way.

7

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
If you want a substantive response I can try.

For the majority of time, before t1, marriage involved some sense of ownership, with the wife as a chattel.  Since t1 either chattel status has persisted (in some places) or it has been updated.  What do you conclude from this ?


But I was being genuine and not knee-jerk.  Why bother with this ?  Do you really care how the word marriage is applied ?
Life is a box of chocolates!

8

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
So people who get married but don't want children are in a "fake" marriage? People who get married but aren't fertile are in "fake" marriages? Whether by genetic misfortune, disease, or age? This argument seems to invalidate an awful lot of marriages.

I hope you just simply go to the conclusion and then wrote this.
I have put some serious thought on this.

" real union through a personally integrated reproductive striving (successful or failed ones)"


As far as I can tell, and, I have seen, most couples, at the very least, enter marriage with some intent to procreate, be it that they decide to wait or not, and, most do strive to do so, even those that after trying for a while, discover that, at least, one of them is not fertile, Whether by genetic misfortune, disease (and at times even age).

It does invalidate some unions as marriages, those formed with out any level of intent to procreate.

That does not mean there can not be other types loving relationships or (legal or not ) unions, they just shouldn´t be conflated with marriage.

Yes I read all that, and stand by what I said. Maybe "most" couples intend to procreate, but so what? There are millions who don't. My father was recently remarried, and both him and his wife are around 60, obviously having no intention to have children and biologically could not anyway. I see nothing in your argument that is very convincing as to why I should not consider this a "real" marriage. At best it just seems like you are not talking about the same thing as the rest of society when you define marriage this way.

I´m pretty sure your father´s relation is a wonderful and beautiful one, and one that should be honored and cellebrated (I honestly mean this), but the argument is no that "most" couples intend to procreate, then, all marriages are only those formed by couples that have an intent to procreate.

In one of the links I referenced, I had an interesting conversation with Belorg, where there was one plausible conclusion that I mentioned, namely, in the case that marriage is a natural kind, anyone wanting to defend that some kind of relation or union is a marriage should try to show that not including it in the past was an actual mistake of category (by include I mean the way the term was used sociologically and linguistically).

I have given some reasons to think that marriage is a natural kind and one that intrinsically includes an striving for procreation.

All you are doing is begging the question and rejecting the conclusion, because , youd don´t see it

 
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 02:51:28 am by ontologicalme »

9

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
If you want a substantive response I can try.

For the majority of time, before t1, marriage involved some sense of ownership, with the wife as a chattel.  Since t1 either chattel status has persisted (in some places) or it has been updated.  What do you conclude from this ?


But I was being genuine and not knee-jerk.  Why bother with this ?  Do you really care how the word marriage is applied ?


Thanks for your comment. That´s not how the word was used socially and linguistically , and, your argument is in itself an example of missuing the term, when it is at best a weak inference and rather a bad one.

I think it is important, and that is not really relevant to the discussion.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 02:52:17 am by ontologicalme »

10

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
There also seems to be a contradiction/non-sequitur.

How can a word's "history of its sociological linguistic use" make a word a good candidate for not being "a socio-linguistic constriction" ?
Life is a box of chocolates!

11

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
There also seems to be a contradiction/non-sequitur.

How can a word's "history of its sociological linguistic use" make a word a good candidate for not being "a socio-linguistic constriction" ?

Because,  use does not imply construction. But, let me try to expand, the use that is relevantly being refered to is the use with respect to the term's projectibility manifested as entrenchment, in other words, the use in actual inductive inferences.

That the term has sucessfully been used very frequently inductive inferences, in the past, is what indicates it's naturalness.


Quote from: Entrenchment
Logic, philosophy of language A term introduced by Goodman , in association with Goodman's paradox or the new riddle of induction , as a function of the frequency and success of projection in producing true statements. If a predicate has been projected frequently in past generalizations, it is entrenched for future generalizations of the same sort and has high projectibility . For example, all observed emeralds have been both green and grue (green to some future time T and blue thereafter), and any evidence confirming the generalization that all emeralds are green also confirms that all emeralds are grue. Nevertheless, we call them green rather than grue because “green” is better entrenched and more projectible than “grue,” and we will conclude that future emeralds will be green, not grue. Entrenchment is not identical with familiarity, for relatively unfamiliar predicates can also be well entrenched. The entrenchment of a predicate results not only from the actual projection of that predicate alone, but also from the projection of all predicates coextensive with it. Entrenchment is the decisive factor for projectibility, and the degree of entrenchment of a predicate provides us with a criterion for deciding between projectible predicates. A predicate is unprojectible if it is not entrenched. “Entrenchment depends upon frequency of projection rather than upon mere frequency...


Quote from: Projectibility
Logic, epistemology, philosophy of science A term introduced by Goodman in his discussion of the problem of confirmation. A projection is an inference from the known to the unknown on the grounds of induction from past experience. Projectibility is the degree of entrenchment of this inference. If all observed emeralds are green, we may reasonably infer that future emeralds are green, but not that they are grue (green before some future time T and blue thereafter), for “green” is a projectible predicate and is well entrenched, having a high frequency of projection, while “grue” is not well entrenched. This is true even though the claims that all emeralds are grue and that all emeralds are green have equal inductive support. Grounding projectibility involves distinguishing between valid projections and invalid projections. Inductive reasoning can apply only to projectible properties or hypotheses rather than to all properties or hypotheses. Hence, to decide which property is projectible becomes an important issue in epistemology. According to Goodman, a hypothesis is projectible if all conflicting hypotheses are overridden. By introducing the notion of projectibility, and by defining it in terms of the historical record of entrenchment through actual projections, Goodman rejects the traditional discussion of confirmation that allows green and grue to be equally...
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 03:01:53 am by ontologicalme »

12

kurros

  • *****
  • 12195 Posts
    • View Profile
So people who get married but don't want children are in a "fake" marriage? People who get married but aren't fertile are in "fake" marriages? Whether by genetic misfortune, disease, or age? This argument seems to invalidate an awful lot of marriages.

I hope you just simply go to the conclusion and then wrote this.
I have put some serious thought on this.

" real union through a personally integrated reproductive striving (successful or failed ones)"


As far as I can tell, and, I have seen, most couples, at the very least, enter marriage with some intent to procreate, be it that they decide to wait or not, and, most do strive to do so, even those that after trying for a while, discover that, at least, one of them is not fertile, Whether by genetic misfortune, disease (and at times even age).

It does invalidate some unions as marriages, those formed with out any level of intent to procreate.

That does not mean there can not be other types loving relationships or (legal or not ) unions, they just shouldn´t be conflated with marriage.

Yes I read all that, and stand by what I said. Maybe "most" couples intend to procreate, but so what? There are millions who don't. My father was recently remarried, and both him and his wife are around 60, obviously having no intention to have children and biologically could not anyway. I see nothing in your argument that is very convincing as to why I should not consider this a "real" marriage. At best it just seems like you are not talking about the same thing as the rest of society when you define marriage this way.

I´m pretty sure your father´s relation is a wonderful and beautiful one, and one that should be honored and cellebrated (I honestly mean this), but the argument is no that "most" couples intend to procreate, then, all marriages are only those formed by couples that have an intent to procreate.

In one of the links I referenced, I had an interesting conversation with Belorg, where there was one plausible conclusion that I mentioned, namely, in the case that marriage is a natural kind, anyone wanting to defend that some kind of relation or union is a marriage should try to show that not including it in the past was an actual mistake of category (by include I mean the way the term was used sociologically and linguistically).

I have given some reasons to think that marriage is a natural kind and one that intrinsically includes an striving for procreation.

All you are doing is begging the question and rejecting the conclusion, because , youd don´t see it

Well it's hard to tell if I am begging the question because the actual logical structure of your argument is unclear to me. But ok let's focus on whether it was a mistake not to include some type of modern marriage as a marriage in the past. Are you saying that old or infertile people were not permitted to get married in biblical times? What about in other cultures? I have no idea what the answer is, but I am curious as to your response to this. I would have expected social and linguistic history to be on my side with respect to the recognition of non-reproductive marriages. Which if true, would put the burden back on you to show why this historical usage was "wrong".
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 03:02:28 am by kurros »

13

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
If you want a substantive response I can try.

For the majority of time, before t1, marriage involved some sense of ownership, with the wife as a chattel.  Since t1 either chattel status has persisted (in some places) or it has been updated.  What do you conclude from this ?


But I was being genuine and not knee-jerk.  Why bother with this ?  Do you really care how the word marriage is applied ?


Thanks for your comment. That´s not how the word was used socially and linguistically , and, your argument is in itself an example of missuing the term, when it is at best a weak inference and rather a bad one.

I think it is important, and that is not really relevant to the discussion.

I'm not sure you know that chattel was not part of the social or lingusitic use.  At what point was it recognized that a husband could actually rape their wife?  How long have wives taken the name of the husband?  What about dowry and arranged marriages?  I would think that the "donation" or "transference" of the wife, from the father to the husband, was absolutely fundamental to the process and the word's use.

Futhermore having children out of wedlock was/is antithetical to marriage.  Procreation, even as the result of love, was considered the moral opposite of marriage.  Loving relationships which produced children were never the foundation of a societally acceptable "marriage".  If procreation between a man and a woman is essential and intrinsic to marriage how do you explain the societal condemnation of this process in the absence of religious or legal recognition?  Historically nobody said "well they have the essentials right, let's go easy on them".  In fact many Christians don't even manage that today.

From a Christian perspective surely the intrinsic/essential bit is the "brought together by God" part.  And since western concepts of marriage have been dominated by Christianity for two millennia the claim that child rearing is the essential bit seems very odd.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 03:05:31 am by LADZDAZL »
Life is a box of chocolates!

14

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
So people who get married but don't want children are in a "fake" marriage? People who get married but aren't fertile are in "fake" marriages? Whether by genetic misfortune, disease, or age? This argument seems to invalidate an awful lot of marriages.

I hope you just simply go to the conclusion and then wrote this.
I have put some serious thought on this.

" real union through a personally integrated reproductive striving (successful or failed ones)"


As far as I can tell, and, I have seen, most couples, at the very least, enter marriage with some intent to procreate, be it that they decide to wait or not, and, most do strive to do so, even those that after trying for a while, discover that, at least, one of them is not fertile, Whether by genetic misfortune, disease (and at times even age).

It does invalidate some unions as marriages, those formed with out any level of intent to procreate.

That does not mean there can not be other types loving relationships or (legal or not ) unions, they just shouldn´t be conflated with marriage.

Yes I read all that, and stand by what I said. Maybe "most" couples intend to procreate, but so what? There are millions who don't. My father was recently remarried, and both him and his wife are around 60, obviously having no intention to have children and biologically could not anyway. I see nothing in your argument that is very convincing as to why I should not consider this a "real" marriage. At best it just seems like you are not talking about the same thing as the rest of society when you define marriage this way.

I´m pretty sure your father´s relation is a wonderful and beautiful one, and one that should be honored and cellebrated (I honestly mean this), but the argument is no that "most" couples intend to procreate, then, all marriages are only those formed by couples that have an intent to procreate.

In one of the links I referenced, I had an interesting conversation with Belorg, where there was one plausible conclusion that I mentioned, namely, in the case that marriage is a natural kind, anyone wanting to defend that some kind of relation or union is a marriage should try to show that not including it in the past was an actual mistake of category (by include I mean the way the term was used sociologically and linguistically).

I have given some reasons to think that marriage is a natural kind and one that intrinsically includes an striving for procreation.

All you are doing is begging the question and rejecting the conclusion, because , youd don´t see it

Well it's hard to tell if I am begging the question because the actual logical structure of your argument is unclear to me. But ok let's focus on whether it was a mistake not to include some type of modern marriage as a marriage in the past. Are you saying that old or infertile people were not permitted to get married in biblical times? What about in other cultures? I have no idea what the answer is, but I am curious as to your response to this. I would have expected social and linguistic history to be on my side with respect to the recognition of non-reproductive marriages. Which if true, would put the burden back on you to show why this historical usage was "wrong".

I`m not working on any special burden on Biblical times, I have kept  myself, as much as I can, clear of any specifically theistic, and definitely Christian views, on the matter.

I could be mistaken, but, I find it quite implausible that the concept of marriage, or any other co-extensional term, in any culture, socially and linguistically was used to infer anything but, a relation, with at least including a man and a woman with prospects to procreate children.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 03:07:32 am by ontologicalme »