The question of who invented the scientific method is extremely difficult to answer, simply because it is difficult to pin down exactly where it started.
by Martyn Shuttleworth (2009)
The scientific method evolved over time, with some of history’s greatest and most influential minds adding to and refining the process.
Whilst many point to Aristotle and the Greek philosophers as the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method, this is too much of a leap.
Whilst the Greeks were the first Western civilization to adopt observation and measurement as part of learning about the world, there was not enough structure to call it the scientific method.
It is fair to say that Aristotle was the founder of empirical science, but the development of a scientific process resembling the modern method was developed by Muslim scholars, during the Golden age of Islam, and refined by the enlightenment scientist-philosophers.
Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method.
They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period.
Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:
1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings
These steps are very similar to the modern scientific method and they became the basis of Western science during the Renaissance.
Al-Haytham even insisted upon repeatability and the replication of results, and other scholars added ideas such as peer review and made great leaps in understanding the natural world.
http://www.experiment-resources.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method.html
The question of who invented the scientific method shifts to Europe as the Renaissance began and the wisdom of the Greeks and Arabs helped Europe out of the Dark Ages.
It is certainly true that the scientific method finally came to Europe and many Christian scientists added to the process. But to claim that Christians developed it is simply not accurate.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Where do serial killers come from?
The FBI gave the standard profile of a serial killer, He is a person with few friends. He became much more religious just before he started murdering people. After reading all the available studies I could find and studying all the articles in the newspapers, what I find what most outstanding is that serial killers were sexually inhibited by their strong religious upbringing.
Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists."
Study after study show serial killers are a product of this environment, not genetics.
You can find much information on serial killers being sexually inhibited and their views on sex and religion at http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/what/whatlust.htm
Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists."
Study after study show serial killers are a product of this environment, not genetics.
You can find much information on serial killers being sexually inhibited and their views on sex and religion at http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/what/whatlust.htm
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 texts from the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 at Khirbet Qumran.
Interesting facts about the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Prophecies by Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel not found in the Bible are written in the Scrolls.
In the Scrolls are found never before seen psalms attributed to King David and Joshua.
The scrolls contain previously unknown stories about biblical figures such as Enoch, Abraham, and Noah. The story of Abraham includes an explanation why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac.
The Scrolls appear to be the library of a Jewish sect. The library was hidden away in caves around the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70) as the Roman army advanced against the rebel Jews.
Near the caves are the ancient ruins of Qumran. They were excavated in the early 1950's and appear to be connected with the scrolls.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus and in a few other sources, but not in the New Testament. The Essenes were a strict Torah observant, Messianic, apocalyptic, baptist, wilderness, new covenant Jewish sect. They were led by a priest they called the "Teacher of Righteousness," who was opposed and possibly killed by the establishment priesthood in Jerusalem.
Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.
How very odd.
The men of Qumran fervently believed in a doctrine of “last things.” They had fled to the desert and were readying themselves for the imminent judgment, when their enemies would be vanquished and they, God's elect, would be given final victory in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. It was in connection with these end-time events that one of the most fascinating teachings of the sect emerges. The messianic hope loomed large in the thought of the brotherhood. As a matter of fact, evidence shows that they actually believed in three messiahs—one a prophet, another a priest and the third a king or prince.
It is amazing how every generation believes it is living in the final days. They have always been wrong. They will continue to be wrong.
"They speak of a Teacher of Righteousness and a pierced messiah, of cleansing through water and a battle of light against darkness.
http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280:dead-sea-scrolls-prove-bible-unoriginal
Interesting facts about the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Prophecies by Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel not found in the Bible are written in the Scrolls.
In the Scrolls are found never before seen psalms attributed to King David and Joshua.
The scrolls contain previously unknown stories about biblical figures such as Enoch, Abraham, and Noah. The story of Abraham includes an explanation why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac.
The Scrolls appear to be the library of a Jewish sect. The library was hidden away in caves around the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70) as the Roman army advanced against the rebel Jews.
Near the caves are the ancient ruins of Qumran. They were excavated in the early 1950's and appear to be connected with the scrolls.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus and in a few other sources, but not in the New Testament. The Essenes were a strict Torah observant, Messianic, apocalyptic, baptist, wilderness, new covenant Jewish sect. They were led by a priest they called the "Teacher of Righteousness," who was opposed and possibly killed by the establishment priesthood in Jerusalem.
Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.
How very odd.
The men of Qumran fervently believed in a doctrine of “last things.” They had fled to the desert and were readying themselves for the imminent judgment, when their enemies would be vanquished and they, God's elect, would be given final victory in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. It was in connection with these end-time events that one of the most fascinating teachings of the sect emerges. The messianic hope loomed large in the thought of the brotherhood. As a matter of fact, evidence shows that they actually believed in three messiahs—one a prophet, another a priest and the third a king or prince.
It is amazing how every generation believes it is living in the final days. They have always been wrong. They will continue to be wrong.
"They speak of a Teacher of Righteousness and a pierced messiah, of cleansing through water and a battle of light against darkness.
"But anyone looking to the Dead Sea Scrolls in search of proof, say, that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah presaged by the prophets, or that John the Baptist lived among the scroll's authors, will be disappointed."
News items are circulating about how "hints" and "insights" contained in the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in caves near the ancient site of Qumran can be found in the Bible. In other words, certain ideas in the scrolls also appear in the New Testament, meaning, of course, that the impression of Christianity as a "divine revelation" appearing whole cloth miraculously from the very finger of God is clearly erroneous.
Few scholars today claim that any of the Dead Sea Scrolls ("DSS") date to the time after Christianity was allegedly founded by a "historical" Jesus in the first century of the common era. Indeed, it is agreed that most of the scrolls pre-date the turn of the era and that none of them show any knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity.
In my book The Christ Conspiracy, I demonstrate that Christianity is an amalgam of the many religions, sects, cults and brotherhood traditions of the Mediterranean and beyond. One of the major influences on Christianity is that of Jews, obviously, including those mentioned in the New Testament, i.e., the Pharisees and Sadducees. Ancient Jewish historian Josephus also mentions the sect of the Essenes, who are traditionally associated with Qumran, in a "by default" argument. However, scholar Solomon Schecter - who discovered a scroll at Cairo that was later found at Qumran - points to a heretical sect of Sadducees or Zadokites, as they are called in both the Bible and DSS. In The Christ Conspiracy, I discuss thisZadokite origin of the DSS and this group's obvious influence on the New Testament.
What this rumination all means, of course, is that Christianity is, as I contend in my books, largely unoriginal, representing not fresh and new "divine revelation" but, again, the amalgamation of not only the ideas of the Zadokite authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls but also influences from the Essenes, Jews, Samaritans and many others.
To understand how the Dead Sea Scrolls influenced early Christianity, just turn to the New Testament.
Take, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, a facsimile of which is on display as part of the Milwaukee Public Museum's Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. Written around 125 B.C. and the only scroll to emerge virtually intact from the caves at Qumran, its messianic message is quoted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke, the earliest of which wasn't written until around A.D. 65.
Take, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, a facsimile of which is on display as part of the Milwaukee Public Museum's Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. Written around 125 B.C. and the only scroll to emerge virtually intact from the caves at Qumran, its messianic message is quoted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke, the earliest of which wasn't written until around A.D. 65.
The scrolls' so-called "Son of God" text reads much like the story of the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke. And the Scrolls' "Blessing of the Wise" echoes the beatitudes of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount....
This early dating of the gospels, it should be noted, is based only on the a priori assumption that the story they relate is at least partially true in recounting a "historical" Jesus who truly walked the earth at the time he is claimed in the gospels themselves. There is no external evidence whatsoever for the existence of any canonical gospel at this early a date. In fact, the canonical gospels as we have them do not show up clearly in the historical record until the end of the second century.
Moreover, the Sermon on the Mount - supposedly the original monologue straight out of the mouth of the Son of God Himself - can be shown to be a series of Old Testament scriptures strung together, along with, apparently, such texts from Qumran. No "historical" founder was necessary at all to speak these words, as they are a rehash of extant sayings. (Even in this patent literary device the gospels cannot agree, as Luke 6:17-49 depicts the Sermon as having taken place on a plain.)
It is easy to see why the Catholic Church would blanche upon the discovery of these scrolls, as it could be - and has been - argued that these texts erode the very foundation of Christianity. It appears that this news, however, when released slowly has little affect on the mind-numbing programming that accompanies Christian faith.
The bottom line is that the existence of the Old Testament and the intertestamental literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls shows how Christianity is a cut-and-paste job - a fact I also reveal in The Christ Conspiracy, in a chapter called "The Making of a Myth," which contains a discussion of some of the texts obviously used in the creation of the new faith. These influential texts evidently included some of the original Dead Sea Scrolls, serving not as "prophecy," "prefiguring" or "presaging" but asblueprints of pre-existing, older concepts cobbled together in the New Testament.
http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280:dead-sea-scrolls-prove-bible-unoriginal
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Women and menstruation
What is it about Middle Eastern religions and women's periods? They all throw a fit over a normal biological function.
The Muslims:
They ask you about menstruation. Say: 'It is an indisposition. Keep aloof from women during their menstrual periods and do not approach them until they are clean again; when they are clean, have intercourse with them whence God enjoined you....'
Quran 2:222, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 34
The Jews:
In the Old Testament of the Bible there were Jewish restrictions around menstruating women (in Leviticus 12). Menstruating women were unclean for 7 days and couldn’t have sex with their husbands (men who had a seminal discharge were also considered unclean, until nightfall). A woman had to purify herself after she finished menstruating, until then anything that she touched would be unclean (as would anyone who had touched her, or had been touched by a person who had been in contact with her).
The Christians:
During the first 500 years of Christianity menstruation was not considered a curse & there were no restrictions placed on it, however after that some Christian leaders started to see anything to do with sex as bad, including mensturation and pregnancy (read more here). In many churches, menstruating women no longer permitted to enter the church or to take communion. This menstrual taboo was continued by theologians into the Middle Ages.
Menstruating women were not allowed to have sex with their husbands – it was believed that menstrual blood was noxious & would corrupt semen, resulting in the conception of disabled children. Phyisicians in the 16th century (such as Thomas Sanchez and Cardinal Cajetan) began to reject this fear of menstrual blood, and started to view it as harmless. Until quite recently, however, most Christians theologians continued to view sex during menstruation as a sin.
In Christianity, the ’ritual uncleanness’ of menstruating women soon gave way to the idea that all women (whether menstruating or not) were ‘ritually unclean’, and this idea became part of Catholic Church Law:
In 1140 AD The Law Book of Gratian forbade all women from distributing communion, touching sacred objects, touching or wearing sacred vestments, teaching in church, baptizing people, and from becoming priests or deacons. It also asserted that women were ‘weak of mind’ and not made in the image of God. The Corpus Iuris Canonici (1234 – 1916 AD) prohibited menstruating women from receiving communion. In 1917 the Codex Iuris Canonici still placed heavy restrictions on women (however a specific menstrual restriction was not mentioned): women could not serve Mass or distribute communion, women could not preach or read sacred scripture aloud in church, and women had to be the last choice of minister for baptism. In 1983 many of these prohibitions against women were lifted by the Catholic church (the new Code of Canon Law states that women may preach, lead Mass, and distribute communion).
http://myperiodblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/menstruation-and-religion/
The Muslims:
They ask you about menstruation. Say: 'It is an indisposition. Keep aloof from women during their menstrual periods and do not approach them until they are clean again; when they are clean, have intercourse with them whence God enjoined you....'
Quran 2:222, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 34
The Jews:
In the Old Testament of the Bible there were Jewish restrictions around menstruating women (in Leviticus 12). Menstruating women were unclean for 7 days and couldn’t have sex with their husbands (men who had a seminal discharge were also considered unclean, until nightfall). A woman had to purify herself after she finished menstruating, until then anything that she touched would be unclean (as would anyone who had touched her, or had been touched by a person who had been in contact with her).
The Christians:
During the first 500 years of Christianity menstruation was not considered a curse & there were no restrictions placed on it, however after that some Christian leaders started to see anything to do with sex as bad, including mensturation and pregnancy (read more here). In many churches, menstruating women no longer permitted to enter the church or to take communion. This menstrual taboo was continued by theologians into the Middle Ages.
Menstruating women were not allowed to have sex with their husbands – it was believed that menstrual blood was noxious & would corrupt semen, resulting in the conception of disabled children. Phyisicians in the 16th century (such as Thomas Sanchez and Cardinal Cajetan) began to reject this fear of menstrual blood, and started to view it as harmless. Until quite recently, however, most Christians theologians continued to view sex during menstruation as a sin.
In Christianity, the ’ritual uncleanness’ of menstruating women soon gave way to the idea that all women (whether menstruating or not) were ‘ritually unclean’, and this idea became part of Catholic Church Law:
In 1140 AD The Law Book of Gratian forbade all women from distributing communion, touching sacred objects, touching or wearing sacred vestments, teaching in church, baptizing people, and from becoming priests or deacons. It also asserted that women were ‘weak of mind’ and not made in the image of God. The Corpus Iuris Canonici (1234 – 1916 AD) prohibited menstruating women from receiving communion. In 1917 the Codex Iuris Canonici still placed heavy restrictions on women (however a specific menstrual restriction was not mentioned): women could not serve Mass or distribute communion, women could not preach or read sacred scripture aloud in church, and women had to be the last choice of minister for baptism. In 1983 many of these prohibitions against women were lifted by the Catholic church (the new Code of Canon Law states that women may preach, lead Mass, and distribute communion).
http://myperiodblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/menstruation-and-religion/
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Do Angels sin?
My question is not could an angel sin, but are they actually sinning? Since Satan is supposed to be a fallen angel, his rebellion against god would be placed in the category of sin, therefore, we know that angels can sin. But I am curious if angels actually do sin in the eyes of god. Angels are protrayed as good beings, doing the bidding of god. They seem to all act in accordance with gods will. Now the bible says that Lucifier was created perfect. Since Lucifer was created perfect, it would seem logical that all angels were created perfect.
"...thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so... thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that THOU WAST CREATED, till iniquity was found in thee..." (Ezek.28:14-15).
What is perfection? Something is deemed "perfect" when it conforms completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Thus a perfect thing will have no flaws, blemishes, or defects—that is, it will not possess any negative feature or lack any positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal. Therefore, if angels were created perfect and are without flaw, then it stands to reason that they are not sinning in the eyes of god. In fact, given the example of Satan, it would seem that if an angel did sin, then god would strip him of being an angel and cast him down as well.
However, there is supposedly only one being without sin. This is, of course, Jesus. Jesus not only could, but did live his whole life without sin. 1 Peter 2:22 says, "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 1 John 3:5 says, ". . . And in him is no sin." Then in John chapter 8 Jesus said of himself, "Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. . ." Supposedly, Jesus also showed us by his example. Hebrew 4:15 says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin." Therefore, it is possible that Jesus could sin, but never did.
Now, here is the paradox. If Jesus is the only one who never sinned, that would mean that all angels must also have sinned. However, we know that if an angel sins, he will be cast down and will no longer be an angel. Therefore, although angels are capable of sin, they cannot be sinning. Otherwise, they would not still be angels. By this train of thought, we can see that Jesus is not the only one without sin.
Once again, the bible provides a fable that completely falls apart under scrutiny.
"...thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so... thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that THOU WAST CREATED, till iniquity was found in thee..." (Ezek.28:14-15).
What is perfection? Something is deemed "perfect" when it conforms completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Thus a perfect thing will have no flaws, blemishes, or defects—that is, it will not possess any negative feature or lack any positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal. Therefore, if angels were created perfect and are without flaw, then it stands to reason that they are not sinning in the eyes of god. In fact, given the example of Satan, it would seem that if an angel did sin, then god would strip him of being an angel and cast him down as well.
However, there is supposedly only one being without sin. This is, of course, Jesus. Jesus not only could, but did live his whole life without sin. 1 Peter 2:22 says, "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 1 John 3:5 says, ". . . And in him is no sin." Then in John chapter 8 Jesus said of himself, "Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. . ." Supposedly, Jesus also showed us by his example. Hebrew 4:15 says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin." Therefore, it is possible that Jesus could sin, but never did.
Now, here is the paradox. If Jesus is the only one who never sinned, that would mean that all angels must also have sinned. However, we know that if an angel sins, he will be cast down and will no longer be an angel. Therefore, although angels are capable of sin, they cannot be sinning. Otherwise, they would not still be angels. By this train of thought, we can see that Jesus is not the only one without sin.
Once again, the bible provides a fable that completely falls apart under scrutiny.
Monday, August 15, 2011
The age of consent
I am posting this because some Christians I debate say that allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying children and animals. Of course, the idea that people will want to marry animals is absurd. There many be the unusual situation, but for the most part, people are not attracted to animals in a sexual way. Besides, animals cannot give consent, therefore, it is a moot point.
However, children have been allowed to get married for centuries in Christian societies. I am not saying that I believe it is ok for children to get married. On the contrary, I believe waiting until someone is in their late 20's or early 30's is a better time for that. However, I want to point out that people, including Christians, have been marrying young girls for centuries.
In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.
The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was twelve years of age.[4]
In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between twelve and fourteen but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than seven. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than seven, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of two and three year olds.[3]
The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only nine when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old."[3]
Reliable data for when people used to marry is very difficult to find. In England for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period comes from records which involved only those who left property after their death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seemed that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages. Additionally, 20th and 21st centuries' historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept data regarding young ages of marriage, and would instead explain the data away as a misreading by a later copier of the records.[3]
A small group of Italian and German states which introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also set it at twelve years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European nations also began to enact age of consent laws. The French Napoleonic Code established an age of consent of eleven years in 1791, which was raised to thirteen years in 1863. Nations such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at ten–twelve years and then raised it to between thirteen and sixteen years in the second half of the 19th century.[4]
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. A New York Times article states that it was still aged seven in Delaware in 1895. [5] Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, with ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen; the campaign was successful: by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen.[6][7]
Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from ten to thirteen were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality, childhood and adolescence, resulting in raising the ages of consent.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
However, children have been allowed to get married for centuries in Christian societies. I am not saying that I believe it is ok for children to get married. On the contrary, I believe waiting until someone is in their late 20's or early 30's is a better time for that. However, I want to point out that people, including Christians, have been marrying young girls for centuries.
In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.
The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was twelve years of age.[4]
In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between twelve and fourteen but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than seven. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than seven, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of two and three year olds.[3]
The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only nine when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old."[3]
Reliable data for when people used to marry is very difficult to find. In England for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period comes from records which involved only those who left property after their death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seemed that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages. Additionally, 20th and 21st centuries' historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept data regarding young ages of marriage, and would instead explain the data away as a misreading by a later copier of the records.[3]
A small group of Italian and German states which introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also set it at twelve years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European nations also began to enact age of consent laws. The French Napoleonic Code established an age of consent of eleven years in 1791, which was raised to thirteen years in 1863. Nations such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at ten–twelve years and then raised it to between thirteen and sixteen years in the second half of the 19th century.[4]
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. A New York Times article states that it was still aged seven in Delaware in 1895. [5] Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, with ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen; the campaign was successful: by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen.[6][7]
Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from ten to thirteen were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality, childhood and adolescence, resulting in raising the ages of consent.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Law of Non-Contradiction has nothing to do with proving a negative
The law of Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is defined as follows:
"It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections ." It will be noted that this statement of the LNC is an explicitly modal claim about the incompatibility of opposed properties applying to the same object. It does not apply to proving that something cannot exist. The problem with proving a negative is that it is impossible to know that something does not exist somewhere.
As Aristotle himself stated, “a demonstration of everything is impossible”, resulting in infinite regress.
So, what it gets down to is that to prove a negative, you have know everything there is to know in the universe.
This is really the idea behind the claim that "you can't prove a negative"--that we don't have the resources or ability to exhaustively enumerate all examples over the entire universe. For example, Betrand Russell postulated a teapot orbiting the sun - how would you prove it wasn't there?
"It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections ." It will be noted that this statement of the LNC is an explicitly modal claim about the incompatibility of opposed properties applying to the same object. It does not apply to proving that something cannot exist. The problem with proving a negative is that it is impossible to know that something does not exist somewhere.
As Aristotle himself stated, “a demonstration of everything is impossible”, resulting in infinite regress.
So, what it gets down to is that to prove a negative, you have know everything there is to know in the universe.
This is really the idea behind the claim that "you can't prove a negative"--that we don't have the resources or ability to exhaustively enumerate all examples over the entire universe. For example, Betrand Russell postulated a teapot orbiting the sun - how would you prove it wasn't there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)