Statistics can't help

As we've been discussing nature vs. nurture in class and whether statistics are reasonable evidence for either side.  The nature side of the debate has more of a advantage because their argument is behind science.  With science, statistics dealing with matters such as brain structure, are more reliable.  However, on the nurture side, statistics aren't as reliable.  How can we actually 100% determine if a parent's guidance effects our development? How can we distinguish between environmental causes and parental?

Response to Corbin's "Viscious Circle"

It really is hard to see this cycle of your right, I'm right, ending anytime soon.  The entire battle of each side, the naturalist side and the supernaturalist side, is very strong and many people support each explanation.  The results of this argument are big disagreements that are frustrating for both sides and inconvenient.  For example, politics are effected every day by this disagreement.  How we as a country run our government is determined by the people.  However, it gets very difficult to leave our government in the hands of people who disagree on important topics.  Final agreements wont be made anytime soon but more compromise is in order. 

Can we seek compromise through language?

Compromise is one of the hardest things this world will come across, especially in regards to the Nature of Human Nature.  However, when we are faced with conflict in important institutions, such as the government, society must make some sort of compromise.  Can language be the answer for some disputes?

In class, we came across the idea of thinking of the universe equal to the way some religions think of "God" or "Self."  Some religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, believe that the "universe" is, essentially, "God" and that everything works not because God rules but because all of the laws of physics are God.  With naturalists, the universe controls all, the laws of physics, logic, reason.  However, scientists have limited knowledge of the universe, just like religious individuals have about their "God." I believe in order to take a step in the direction of "pragmatic empiricism," society must take these types of connections into consideration and try to reach a compromise when both parties could have the same main idea but have different branches off of the idea.