Sigh…
What process or mechanism did you use to determine that it is possible for a unicorn to exist?
Please describe in enough detail that the process or mechanism can be duplicated to determine other possibilities.
1 Like
Sure. First, just to clarify, I’m not attempting to argue the existence of unicorns - the original mention of unicorns was intended as an outlandish example of something that while it is technically possible, a claim to it (and infinite other things) being possible is vacuous.
One of the more recent processes I described was as follows:
I also gave the example that somewhere in the universe, there could be a planet with a creature that is horse-like and has a horn on its head, that could either be discovered by a human explorer and called a unicorn based on its appearance (and subsequently named as a unicorn as its official designation), or by a complete coincidence, the name given by a local populace of the planet.
This is supported by the fact that there is life on at least one planet in the universe (Earth) so it’s possible there are other planets with life also; horses have evolved on Earth, so it’s possible a horse-like creature could evolve on another planet, and animals with horns have evolved on earth, so it’s possible a horse-like creature could evolve on another planet.
I also had to support the possibility that interstellar travel is theoretically possible, to allow for the possibility of a human explorer discovering life on a different planet.
That covers it being nomologically possible - for what it’s worth - but there’s no underlying argument that this meaningfully benefits - again, as above, the original reference to (an invisible pink unicorn on another planet) was intended to highlight how something being possible doesn’t really count for anything, as there are infinite possible things.
You and Sheldon have been going back and forth about “unicorns” non stop in this thread lol. Not complaining. I think it’s pretty funny actually loooool. 
I have a little insight here, as I’ve trained horses for over 25 years. Let me share a few insights.
First off, mammals are mammals. Much of their behavior is similar. The biggest differentiation I’ve seen is between predators and prey animals.
We all know dogs and cats as predators. We understand the hunt and we understand aggression.
Prey animals stay alive by their proximity to predators. This is why horses become hyper-vigilant if left completely alone. They also rely much more on a “community” to keep an eye out for threats.
If a horse decides to act up or show their ass in a herd the probability is that they will be pushed out. This is enough for most horses to modify their behavior to regain access into said herd. You don’t want to be all alone with all those wolves out there…
My point in all of this is that animals and humans experience much of life and the world in very similar ways.
The difference being that animals rarely have a reason to lie. They live in the moment. Their allegiances are based on survival and trust.
You only have to believe in running fast. No agendas, no Machiavellian motives and no fucking social media…
Cyn1
3 Likes
Not to mention horses themselves are undeniable evidence that evolution exists. But… Christians will dismiss that too because it doesn’t line up with their confirmation bias.
Horse evolution has been significantly shaped by breeding, leading to modern breeds that were developed for specific functions like warfare, agriculture, and racing. Selective breeding began with domestication on the Eurasian steppes around 5,500 to 4,200 years ago, intensifying about 4,200 years ago to create a more successful and widespread horse population. Modern breeding techniques have further refined these traits, leading to the diverse range of horses seen today, from powerful draft horses to agile racehorses.
Early selective breeding
The modern horse lineage originated in the Western Eurasian steppes, with domestication occurring around 5,500 years ago.
A major breeding revolution occurred about 4,200 years ago, which drastically reduced the generation time of horses and enabled their rapid expansion across Eurasia.
This selective breeding focused on traits that made horses more suitable for human use, such as increased docility (ZFPM1 gene) and stronger backs (GSDMC gene).
Originally, the first horses were about the size of a medium dog and had 5 digit feet. This evolved into the hoof we see now. Empirical evidence leans toward a continuing evolution to a bifurcated hoof, similar to cattle, goats, deer and sheep.
Over the past 50 million odd years they have obviously grown larger, legs became longer and their teeth adapted for grazing. Human intervention has led to even more varied and subtle changes to the horse.
The best bar bet involving horses has to do with the origin of the “chestnut” inside their four legs. If you’ve never seen one, you can consult the Oracle (Google) for an image. As mentioned previously, the original horses had 5 digits. As the foot evolved into the modern version the five digits became one…the middle one to be precise. The chestnut is a remnant of the thumbnail. Wins a beer every time…
Evolution is.
That’s good (pats head twice). Let’s not ruin it for the rest of us, now.
But, surely you’re not going to admit that his definition is valid?
I invite you to ask yourself, why the word “disagreement” is in there.
Every definition is valid, for some given value of “valid” that you’re willing to torture sufficiently, but for practical purposes each person has to accept or reject the definition for themselves. Fireflies is entitled to his own views, just not to his own facts.
1 Like
That makes sense @mordant , and of course the truth likely is that there is no “perfect” grasp of reality, only methods that return the most reliable results, if of course reliably true is something you value.
One can believe anything, but to what end. It seems obvious that subjective religious beliefs do not return consistently reliable results, but they clearly offer succour and solace to many, and I am fine with that, as long as they don’t tell others they must live their lives according to those beliefs, especially if they are pernicious.
As the Hitch once said:
“…I’m perfectly happy for people to have these toys and to play with them at home and hug them to themselves and share them with other people who come around to play with their toys. So that’s absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don’t bring the toys to my house, don’t say my children must play with these toys, don’t say my toys…are not allowed by their toys.”
Exactly.
The question is, do you approach your assessment of reality mainly in terms of what you want or need to believe, and thus deploy motivated reasoning in that direction rather than accepting any encountered evidence that a thing may not be as you’d wish it was?
A secondary question is, do your beliefs become a source of identity and thus anything that violates them represents personal annihilation? Or do you hold your beliefs loosely and provisionally, so that you can be curious and open to change them in light of new information? The latter seems intolerable to some folks as they never feel that anything is settled. But the fact is that in the real world our knowledge and understanding is always improving and so to be change-averse is not a good strategy. Change for the sake of change is not the point, but in general, change for good and sufficient reasons is to be desired.