Talk:Human being

MIB, thanks for that spate of collaborative editing! --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:26, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, thank you. This is why I'm here; there's still so much left to do!

By the way, in response to "Whether science should consider the human body (including the brain) as "all there is" remains an unsettled question."

I was under the impression the real debate was whether science could consider anything beyond the human body, since science can only consider things that can be measured and quantified. It's the essential line between science and philosophy, you know? AManInBlack 11:34, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Not exactly. The decision not to try to measure or quantify anything which is not considered an aspect of the materal world is an arbitrary one. What is debated is whether this abitrary decision is wise, useful, or even necessary.

For those who presuppose that the material world is "all there is", there is no room for legitimate differences of opinion on the subject (see Extremism).

Religious people like me see this as academic dishonesty. And as an encyclopedia editor with 5 years of experience, I just won't stand for it.

Let's continue this thread at Debate:Can science consider any aspect of human beings beyond the human body? --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:48, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, we're worrying here more about what materialism is, not whether non-material things can be measured. One could easily say that the laws of themodynamics are miracles while still looking at the world in a materialistic way.

Since this article has pretty much dumped all the text on the biological-causes-of-human-behavior subject, it's kind of moot. AManInBlack 13:55, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The list of social sciences is incomplete. History and geography should be included. My degree is in Social Science and my disciplinary concentrations were History, Sociology and Political Science in that order of precedence. If history isn't a social science then I was awarded a faulty degree!--Porthos 11:45, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, add it, then. Why should biology be the only science that gets to study men? --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:53, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I did add it earlier but you removed it on your next edit.--Porthos 11:55, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

If it was lost, it probably wasn't lost intentionally. There are three people editing at the same time, here, making things a little confusing. AManInBlack 12:18, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I vote for merging with a redirect to Homo sapiens. conservative 22:38, 2 June 2011 (EDT)