Now that is real faith

[lightgigantic]

You were claiming that because they had scientific credentials then it must be science... :shrug:
I.e. you were appealing to their "authority".

Well that's pretty obvious, isn't it?
Not even a geologist can talk about biology without venturing into a different discipline of authority.

Some of us label non-ID design a science? Not sure I understand you here? What is an example of non-ID design? Architecture, perhaps?

Life and the universe arising out of chance combinations etc etc ...
You aren't trying to tell me that you have heard of dawkins yet you haven't heard of these ideas, are you?

Irrelevant to the argument of whether he is criticising the science of eugenics or the nazi practices in the name of eugenics.
Unless you can demonstrate how the act of "blathering" has relevance to this issue?

He is talking about natural consequences of the scientific outlook ... much like his peers of yesteryear talked .... that is the relevance of it , hence :

The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

Sure, bad science is still science. But when one falls outside the remit of science entirely, however, one can not classify it as science at all.

On the contrary it was arguably the most dominant discipline of science (and definitely the most prominent in fields such as anthropology) until around WW2.

To say that eugenics has no scientific parallel or calling is simply unscientific
:shrug:

For example ID is not science - it is not even bad science - it is just unscientific. Calling it a science, or treating it as such may give it a popular weight, but that is mere marketing.

No more than Dawkins et al's blathering about a godless universe .. yet it doesn't appear to stop him, does it? ... wonder why ... could it be because ".... science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it."

And noone is arguing that what the nazis did was not promoted and rationalised as science.

the scientific principles of eugenics in the 19th and 20th centuries (it wasn't just isolated to nazi germany) were just as scientific as about 75% of whatever dawkins has published

Or that merely referring to something as science gives it a sense of authority with the general public.

What utter nonsense!!
Even advertising borrows from the prestige of science to lend credibility to its products .... what to speak of less noble causes

But there is a difference between being merely bad science and being unscientific.

Sure ... however as far as the topics of eugenics or god and the universe is concerned the only difference is chronology dictated by cultural prejudice ... unless you can actually empirically establish a godless universe in any more authoritative manner than early 20th century notions of race.
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.
Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of. . . an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.
There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science."

Actually, I've heard one view in a WWII documentary according to which Hitler didn't take much issue with Jews until Stalin took issue with them in Russia, and that at that time, as Hitler and Stalin were still allies, out of solidarity with Stalin, Hitler focused on the Jews as well.

 

[Balerion]

Actually, I've heard one view in a WWII documentary according to which Hitler didn't take much issue with Jews until Stalin took issue with them in Russia, and that at that time, as Hitler and Stalin were still allies, out of solidarity with Stalin, Hitler focused on the Jews as well.

Wow.

I don't even know what else to say to that, except perhaps that you should be ashamed of yourself for being that ignorant of history.

 

[wynn]

Wow.

I don't even know what else to say to that, except perhaps that you should be ashamed of yourself for being that ignorant of history.

Because history is, like, a totally precise science and all that.

 

[Balerion]

Because history is, like, a totally precise science and all that.

Which means that absurd theories such as "Hitler didn't really have a problem with the Jews until Stalin did, and the Holocaust was just him being a good friend," are totally valid.



Spread your propaganda elsewhere.

 

[Syzygys]

So that in modern wars won by cultural factors and technological superiorities, overall mental capacity of winners has quite possibly been less than that of losers.

Possibly so, but we could put it this way: In modern wars if/when the technological more advanced won, that also means that the population in that country sooner or later has access to that technology, thus its survival is better than the losing country.

The nations that replaced the Roman empire were not stronger than that empire in any obvious way.

Sure, but the point here was that even the mightiest can and will eventually fall, and even so called barbarians can win against them...

Without care, which is not apparent so far, you will end up confusing Lamarckian evolution, and other evolutionary patterns, with Darwinian evolution.

Not familiar with that, but I am not sure it effects the bottomline...

 

[Syzygys]

That's more survival of the fittest... which is not the same as natural selection.

You might be into something, we probably can treat them here as the same. Anyhow, people disagreeing with me wouldn't acknowledge or like that wording either.

How can genocide be survival of the fittest?? How can anyone say such a thing, oh the horrors!!!

 

[wynn]

Which means that absurd theories such as "Hitler didn't really have a problem with the Jews until Stalin did, and the Holocaust was just him being a good friend," are totally valid.



Spread your propaganda elsewhere.

You just did the kind of thing the Nazis did:
Looking for a scapegoat, you pick someone who seems feasible, make wild claims about them, add some emotion - and voila, you "have" an "enemy" you must exterminate and feel justified to do so ...

 

[Sarkus]

Well that's pretty obvious, isn't it?
Not even a geologist can talk about biology without venturing into a different discipline of authority.

Nor do they venture and make claims in fields they're not an authority in. Doesn't seem to stop you, though.

Life and the universe arising out of chance combinations etc etc ...
You aren't trying to tell me that you have heard of dawkins yet you haven't heard of these ideas, are you?

I've never heard such referred to as "non-ID design"... since design implies a designer. Hence seeking clarity...
And while abiogenesis is a science that looks at possibilities for the origins of life, the origin of the universe mostly is outside science.

He is talking about natural consequences of the scientific outlook ... much like his peers of yesteryear talked .... that is the relevance of it,

What else he talks about is irrelevant to this specific issue. :shrug:
But feel free to continue with the straw man... just don't expect people to respond.

On the contrary it was arguably the most dominant discipline of science (and definitely the most prominent in fields such as anthropology) until around WW2.

To say that eugenics has no scientific parallel or calling is simply unscientific

There is much science behind eugenics - good and bad.
There is also much that is unscientific behind certain brands of eugenics.
Dawkins didn't refer to the whole realm of eugenics as unscientific, but those theories used by the nazis.
But for some reason you continue to see a criticism of one aspect as a criticism against the whole.
Why do you do that?

No more than Dawkins et al's blathering about a godless universe .. yet it doesn't appear to stop him, does it? ... wonder why ... could it be because ".... science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it."

Irrelevant. Please stop with the straw men.
Or is your entire argument now "Well, Dawkins does it so you can't criticise others for doing it!"?

the scientific principles of eugenics in the 19th and 20th centuries (it wasn't just isolated to nazi germany) were just as scientific as about 75% of whatever dawkins has published

Some of the principles, sure. But so are the scientific principles behind brick-laying. But not all brick-layers need follow the science to put one brick on top of another, and their approach can thus be deemed unscientific.

And where have I said that Dawkins is being scientific, or that his strong brand of atheism is scientific?
More straw men, LG.

What utter nonsense!!
Even advertising borrows from the prestige of science to lend credibility to its products .... what to speak of less noble causes

You say its nonsense and then more or less rephrase what I said. :shrug:

Sure ... however as far as the topics of eugenics or god and the universe is concerned the only difference is chronology dictated by cultural prejudice ... unless you can actually empirically establish a godless universe in any more authoritative manner than early 20th century notions of race.

Straw men, LG. Who is saying that Dawkins is being scientific in such claims, or that they are even backed by science?

Your argument now seems to be "Yeah, well, Dawkins isn't being scientific either!"
:shrug:

 

[Aqueous Id]

I find it curious that certain groups do not consider activities by humans to be natural. While at the same time these same groups argue that homosexual behavior is not natural and subsequent marriages are not natural.

Hmmm. Now you're going to make me have to actually think, after I was having a such a swell time in a numb euphoria imagining the destruction of creationism via some sort of ideological genocide.

I would have to point out that anyone who's so worried about other people's personal business probably is already behaving unnaturally and ought to be eliminated from the count of people whose ideas matter.

From the way they see the definition of natural, nothing we do is natural so why get in a stink about non-heterosexual behavior. Marriage is something unique to humans, so marriage is not natural. If doing what is natural is equated with being right, then we also shouldn't fly in planes, study the ocean floor, or go to outer space. These are activities unique to human behavior and therefore not natural. Ironically homosexual behavior is NOT unique to humans, so I guess it is more natural than marriage... makes ya wonder... doesn't it.

Yeah I would definitely argue against marriage as being natural, particularly where ritual is involved. Choosing a mate and bonding are obviously natural, although that varies from species to species so there's no golden ruler to measure it by. Whether the partner is same sex or not is a function of higher order thinking, in which a rational reason has led to the choice of partner. To me it's no different than choosing brown eyes over blue or simply choosing to fly solo.

The perception about marriage being something sacred seems to me to be coming from people with some kind of hang-up. They're way to serious to begin with. Add to that a visceral homophobia and you're talking mental disorders on the verge of general hysteria.

I would classify this in the same category as xenophobic responses against minorities, even though many a Klansman is probably a closet homosexual.

Shouting and waving fists over the presence of dark eyed people in Arizona - formerly New Spain and home to indigenous folks - probably correlates on a PET scan to ideation that same sex couples threaten the sanctity of marriage.

As far as I can tell the only question worthy of public scrutiny is: what's wrong with the haters, and why are they even allowed to vote? What gives any person the power over anyone else's life? How is such a result guaranteed by the right to a voter registration card?

I favor full equality among all groups for the very reason that the same rationale that strikes out at same sex marriage may be visited upon me for some other arbitrary hangup. Besides, it's just psycho to worry about what other people are doing. It's, um...voyeurism. Yeah, that's what it is. How natural is that?

 

[Aqueous Id]

That's just like trying to say that totemism is not religion or eugenics is not science

:shrug:

Totemism would fit under a general banner of religion since it arises from superstition.

Eugenics would fall under religion, as an extension, since its adherents believed they were divinely chosen. The pseudo science they trotted out is no more science than the ID pseudo science of the modern era. Same same: holier than thou.

 

[spidergoat]

When I am in a danger or in such a situation that there is no one to help me or when all the circumstances are to my opposition, even then I feel a strength in my heart. I feel my God is with me as I am in truth. ...

Sometimes false confidence is not a virtue.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Actually, I've heard one view in a WWII documentary according to which Hitler didn't take much issue with Jews until Stalin took issue with them in Russia, and that at that time, as Hitler and Stalin were still allies, out of solidarity with Stalin, Hitler focused on the Jews as well.

Hitler was in prison piecing together his rant against Jews in Mein Kampf just as Stalin was rising from military to political power. Lenin was declining at that time. Considering all the upheaval and intrigue in connection with Stalin's power plays, and from trying to gag Lenin's disparagement of Stalin, it would seem unlikely that cross-fertilization had yet occurred. And considering the widespread purges Stalin conducted years later as Hitler was himself rising to power, it would take a narrow filter to distinguish Stalin as characteristically anti-Semitic, since he demonstrated he was an equal opportunity murderer, as seen in the 700,000 people he arbitrarily executed under pretext that they were a threat to the state.

 

[Balerion]

You just did the kind of thing the Nazis did:
Looking for a scapegoat, you pick someone who seems feasible, make wild claims about them, add some emotion - and voila, you "have" an "enemy" you must exterminate and feel justified to do so ...

Oh yes, I'm just like the Nazis. Because really all the Nazis were about was historical accuracy, and the Jews were notoriously loose with that sort of thing.

Keep on trolling, Wynn.

 

[lightgigantic]

Totemism would fit under a general banner of religion since it arises from superstition.

Eugenics would fall under religion, as an extension, since its adherents believed they were divinely chosen. The pseudo science they trotted out is no more science than the ID pseudo science of the modern era. Same same: holier than thou.

explain
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Nor do they venture and make claims in fields they're not an authority in. Doesn't seem to stop you, though.

Unlike you, I don't insist on undermining the authority by reinventing premises when I engage in a critique ...

I've never heard such referred to as "non-ID design"... since design implies a designer. Hence seeking clarity...
And while abiogenesis is a science that looks at possibilities for the origins of life, the origin of the universe mostly is outside science.
What else he talks about is irrelevant to this specific issue.

Glad to hear that you agree that Dawkins is mostly outside of science

There is much science behind eugenics - good and bad.
There is also much that is unscientific behind certain brands of eugenics.
Dawkins didn't refer to the whole realm of eugenics as unscientific, but those theories used by the nazis.
But for some reason you continue to see a criticism of one aspect as a criticism against the whole.
Why do you do that?

I would have thought the quote was quite clear in that ...

"As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it."

Irrelevant. Please stop with the straw men.

Please don't gloss over key aspects of a critique

Or is your entire argument now "Well, Dawkins does it so you can't criticise others for doing it!"?

Let me put it in italics again for you once again since you seem to have not read it - "science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.""

IOW what Dawkins is doing (in the name of science) is precisely what teh forbears of eugenics did in the previously century, namely support a cultural prejudice under the banner of science

Some of the principles, sure. But so are the scientific principles behind brick-laying. But not all brick-layers need follow the science to put one brick on top of another, and their approach can thus be deemed unscientific.

Not sure how brick laying fits into the discussion since its quite a "doable" procedure that certainly doesn't rely on a cerebral head trip to awe an audience

And where have I said that Dawkins is being scientific, or that his strong brand of atheism is scientific?

I think its plainly obvious what you vouch for in lieu of your critique of ID

You say its nonsense and then more or less rephrase what I said. :shrug:

You weren't clear in your phrasing.

Straw men, LG. Who is saying that Dawkins is being scientific in such claims, or that they are even backed by science?

I am not sure what you are imagining to be the driving force behind things like abiogenesis/ origins of the universe if not science ... since there have been numerous models, discussions and experiments (all of which have failed btw) since the synthesis of urea. Dawkins represents but a current popular figurehead.
:shrug:

Your argument now seems to be "Yeah, well, Dawkins isn't being scientific either!"
:shrug:

Its about calamities as a consequence of bad ideas ... which, ironically (as I mentioned in my first contribution to this thread) science is the clear winner in comparison to religion.

 

[Neverfly]

Glad to hear that you agree that Dawkins is mostly outside of science

This is you in a nutshell... Because that's not what he said at all.
Hmm...
Your pop tarts are done.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is you in a nutshell... Because that's not what he said at all.
Hmm...
Your pop tarts are done.

My point is that you can't say abiogenesis is a science and discussions about the origins of the universe are not without sounding whimsical ... unless of course you can actually show how life is engineered from lifeless matter (Heads down and bums up now ... seems you better get those pop tarts into action with some natural processes ....)
:shrug:

Edit : BTW, he does actually say it ... if you bothered to read further ..."And where have I said that Dawkins is being scientific, or that his strong brand of atheism is scientific?"

 

[Neverfly]

Edit : BTW, he does actually say it ... if you bothered to read further ..."And where have I said that Dawkins is being scientific, or that his strong brand of atheism is scientific?"

Eh, I leave that to Sarkus. Maybe I don't know enough about Dawkins. As I understand it, Dawkins is pretty scientific.

 

[lightgigantic]

Eh, I leave that to Sarkus. Maybe I don't know enough about Dawkins. As I understand it, Dawkins is pretty scientific.

yeah ... just like eugenics circa 1900
:shrug: