http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/

My favorite quote:
"Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."

Although the rest of the page is pretty good, too :)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/

  I have to admit one thing, though: Some conspiracy theorists are quite
clever. They are real masters at presenting evidence in a way that fools
even an intelligent, educated person who has done his research on the
subject so that he has no idea what the real explanation is and is basically
bereft of counter-arguments without extensive additional research (which,
fortunately, as usually already been done and can be found with a google
search).

  I, for example, have read quite a lot of material by both the conspiracy
theorists and the debunkers, and I am quite familiar with all the "classical"
conspiracy theory claims and the presented "evidence" supporting those claims,
as well as the true explanations (which are usually rather simple when you
know the facts). Yet even I, from time to time, stumble across some "evidence"
that I just have no answer to and can't give any explanation all by myself.

  Basically this "evidence" presented by the conspiracy theorists consists
of really clever trick questions: By the way they are presented, they can be
quite convincing and it's difficult to come up with any other explanation.
(Yet usually when you read a competent debunking of the claim, the facts
become quite clear and obvious.)

  This is also usually the reason why scientists and debunkers don't like
to go to eg. discussion panels eg. in live radio against conspiracy theorists.
The conspiracy theorists will usually have prepared a bunch of cleverly laid
out trick questions which the debunker has never thought of before, and in
a live situation the debunker has only a few seconds to come up with an
answer. Like with all clever trick questions, this can be really difficult,
even if the answer is really simple. While the conspiracy theorist is wrong,
it gives the impression that he wins the discussion because the debunker is
surprised by this kind of trick question and has only a few seconds to
respond.
  (The situation would be very different if all the questions and arguments
were presented to the debunker well in advance, and the conspiracy theorist
would be prohibited from asking anything that wasn't presented in advance.
But of course this is seldom if ever done.)

  If even I get tricked by such cleverly presented "evidence" ("tricked" in
the sense that I just can't come up with the correct answer on my own),
I don't find it at all surprising that so many people believe in the
conspiracy theory.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/
> 
> My favorite quote:
> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
> 
> Although the rest of the page is pretty good, too :)
> 

lol... Fun read :)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/
> 
> My favorite quote:
> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
> 
> Although the rest of the page is pretty good, too :)
> 

Almost everybody, at some time or other, views logical arguments against
his(or her) position as cheating. It *is* probably true that a master 
logician can
pull the wool over most of our eyes. And of course there is no logical 
counter
to pure nonsense. Conspiracy theories are addictive; they give the believer
such a feeling of superiority -- but so is debunking. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> My favorite quote:
> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."

I was hoping for 44 funny conspiracy theories. I liked the Rambo quote 
better, myself.

Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of articles. 
When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read exactly the 
same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds the same to me. 
Maybe that's just me, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of articles.
> When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read exactly the
> same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds the same to me.
> Maybe that's just me, tho.

There's a common pattern there indeed: A tendency of people to attribute
everything they observe to the very same root cause.

In christianity for instance, everything bad is a conspiracy by Satan and his
demons. People denying it are obviously influenced by Satan, too. If something
conforms to the belief in God, it's proof for His existance; if something
contradicts it, it is a deception by Satan (or, alternatively, a test of
faith).

In conspiracianism, everything bad is a conspiracy by The Powers That Be. People
denying it are obviously influenced by The Powers, too (be it through money or
mind control). If some evidence speaks in favor of the conspiracy, it's another
proof of course; it something contradicts it, it is a cover-up plot by The
Powers That Be.

Not much of a difference here I guss.

In science, everything inexplicable is just a flaw in the accepted theories.
People refusing to accept those theories are obviously blinded by superstition.
If some experiment confirms their predictions, it's proof that the theories are
correct; if some experiment contradicts them, the system of theories just needs
some more refinement and consolidation.

Duh...

Maybe it's just that Man was designed (by means of Evolution of course) to
analyze, categorize, search for common patterns, etc.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> In christianity for instance, everything bad is a conspiracy by Satan and his
> demons. 
>
While far to many christians do hold this view, it is not fundamental to 
christianity as
I see it; and is dead wrong). It's always comforting to have someone, 
other than ourselves,
to blame for our own follies and mistakes. But you might wish to argue 
that the belief and
behavior of christians is what christianity is.




> In science, everything inexplicable is just a flaw in the accepted theories.
> People refusing to accept those theories are obviously blinded by superstition.
> If some experiment confirms their predictions, it's proof that the theories are
> correct; if some experiment contradicts them, the system of theories just needs
> some more refinement and consolidation.
> 
> Duh...
  Duh? This seems to be a pretty good description of the "scientific 
method", which
I guess we could say is bothe the power and the weakness of science. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>
> > In christianity for instance, everything bad is a conspiracy by Satan and his
> > demons.
> >
> While far to many christians do hold this view, it is not fundamental to
> christianity as
> I see it; and is dead wrong). It's always comforting to have someone,
> other than ourselves,
> to blame for our own follies and mistakes. But you might wish to argue
> that the belief and
> behavior of christians is what christianity is.

Of course the picture I painted is somewhat exaggerated to the respective
fundamentalists' perspective.

Further, I'd question the definition of a christian by his behavior, as behavior
may be founded on a much different basis than christian belief.

It's also a question what actually constitutes "christian" belief; if you're
trying to separate it from concepts such as God, Satan, heaven, angels, saints,
the Bible, or any some such, then you don't leave much that christians can
exclusively claim their own, and "ethical person" may turn out a more fitting
term.


> > In science, everything inexplicable is just a flaw in the accepted theories.
> > People refusing to accept those theories are obviously blinded by superstition.
> > If some experiment confirms their predictions, it's proof that the theories are
> > correct; if some experiment contradicts them, the system of theories just needs
> > some more refinement and consolidation.
> >
> > Duh...
>   Duh? This seems to be a pretty good description of the "scientific
> method", which
> I guess we could say is bothe the power and the weakness of science. :)

"Duh" because seen this way, I don't think there's much of a difference between
religion and "fundamentalist" science either.

If a scientist claims that *everything* is (or will eventually become)
explicable by science and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by
superstition, then he's just as fundamentalist as a christian claiming that
*everything* is explained in the Bible and anyone not acknowledging this is
mislead by Satan, or a conspirationist claiming that *everything* is the work
of The Powers That Be and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by the very
same.

So the only point of view that seems somewhat different in this respect is that
of the agnostic who claims he simply doesn't know - but even those may come in
a fundamentalist flavor, claiming that we *cannot* know and anyone not
acknowledging this is mislead by pride.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   This is also usually the reason why scientists and debunkers don't like
> to go to eg. discussion panels eg. in live radio against conspiracy theorists.
> The conspiracy theorists will usually have prepared a bunch of cleverly laid
> out trick questions which the debunker has never thought of before, and in
> a live situation the debunker has only a few seconds to come up with an
> answer.

Another reason is that, usually, the deck is stacked in such venues, and 
its usually far easier to spout out 10 minutes of conspiracy laden 
misinformation, logical fallacies and made up BS, than it is to spend 
the same 10 minutes debunking any of it. In some case, it could take 30 
minutes per "issue" raised by the wacko, to explain properly. Woo wins 
where there are time limits and the audience is already thinking they 
should have gone down the street to watch the strippers, than sit and 
listen to two people debate about the hollow earth theory of reptile 
world domination. There is no way in hell those people are going to sit 
through 6 hours or rebuttals, even if the hosts of the kangaroo debate 
where willing to give a scientist the time to do so.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> My favorite quote:
>> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
> 
> I was hoping for 44 funny conspiracy theories. I liked the Rambo quote 
> better, myself.
> 
> Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of 
> articles. When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read 
> exactly the same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds 
> the same to me. Maybe that's just me, tho.
> 
Nope. The exact same tactics are used by those trying to defend the idea 
of "faith" against the real world, every time the two conflict (which in 
this century is just about every time someone says, "But the Bible says...")

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>> In christianity for instance, everything bad is a conspiracy by Satan 
>> and his
>> demons.
> While far to many christians do hold this view, it is not fundamental to 
> christianity as
> I see it; and is dead wrong). It's always comforting to have someone, 
> other than ourselves,
> to blame for our own follies and mistakes. But you might wish to argue 
> that the belief and
> behavior of christians is what christianity is.
> 
Problem I have with this argument is always, "Have you read the damn 
book?" lol Seriously, the *point* of any religion, including 
Christianity, is that there is some thing, or things, able to fiddle 
around with the world and do things with/too it and us, which we can't 
ourselves, and its our job to avoid the nasty ones, while praising, 
worshiping, and hoping for a grand and happy after life for getting it 
right, from the "good" one(s).

The Fundigelics are ***dead right***. Those who practice Christianity 
are not Christians, by the definition of actually absolutely believing 
in the fundamental principles that define the Bible. They may believe in 
a god, but its not the OT god, and it, in some ways, doesn't even 
resemble the NT god, which was unhinged, a bit racists (those damn dirty 
unclean Sumeritans, who might as well have been atheists, but.. well, I 
found **one good one**, isn't that just amazing?!) and seriously 
clueless about some things, just like the old one was.

Lets put it this way. More liberal Christians define what "Christian" is 
by their own behaviors, then attempt, and generally fail, at projecting 
that back on the Bible, in a sort of revisionist, "Well, this is what 
Jesus would do if here now, even if he didn't, or even contradicted it, 
but since its what nice 'modern' Christians would do it, so would 
Jesus." One might as well make up a new term, or take the old "diest" 
one, and stop pretending to follow the NT/OT god, because its no more an 
accurate version of what people that believed would have done 2,000 
years ago, or 4,000 even, than China is the same now as it was under its 
first Emperor. All anyone is keeping is the name.

And the insane lunatics, who all claim to follow the "true" version of 
what was intended, (never mind their own glossing over of parts they 
find terribly inconvenient), are a) right, in that liberal Christians 
are less like the old world ones than themselves, they are also **so** 
old world, that, most of the time, they care more about if you or me are 
breaking rules than if "they" do so. After all, they know the rules, and 
are asking forgiveness for them, while the rest of you deny that the 
rules apply at all, or make sense.

Strictly speaking, there is very little, beyond a few bits that are 
nearly universal ideas anyway in many societies, and most hard fought 
and won "from" religious people that didn't care at all for them, which 
can be attributed to Christianity, by itself, in the modern form. Its 
like reading some blurb about a movie being "Based on a true story.", 
only you look into it and a) the original story has nothing to do with 
the movie at all (except superficially), and b) its seems rather likely 
that the original version was made up, then embellished, and finally 
exaggerated to the point of stupidity, before being published by some 
guy whose life work seems to be collecting crazy stories, from people in 
financial distress, who the locals all say, "Never heard of those 
ghosts, demons, or other strange goings on, until the bank foreclosed on 
the house, and so and so Ghost Hunter, showed up to talk to them about 
the non-existent Indian burial site under their house."

Fundies and the like are ***heavily*** investing in them being right, 
them being the ones "saved", and everyone else being, literally, damned 
wrong. Most Christians in the modern era have a sort of, "Well, everyone 
is probably going to be OK, except maybe vague groups A and B, who 
'might' be sinning a bit more than Jesus would forgive, but who am I to 
say so." Thus, they have no reason to want all, most, more than half of, 
or even *much of anything* in the Bible to be absolute, undeniable, true 
events. The only one they hold onto is Jesus, and then only because they 
can't quite give up the idea of living forever, and reincarnation is 
just "too weird" for most of them. Though, you will find some that even 
subscribe to that.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Of course the picture I painted is somewhat exaggerated to the respective
> fundamentalists' perspective.

Unfortunately, "fundamentalist" is one of those terms much abused by the 
media.
It ought to mean something like "believing or adhering to the 
fundamentals of",
whereas, it has come to mean something like "one ready to exercise violence
against those who disagree with his beliefs"
> 
> Further, I'd question the definition of a christian by his behavior, as behavior
> may be founded on a much different basis than christian belief.

You are right. It is much clearer to define a christian as one who 
accepts some form
of christian belief than simply one who exhibits what is generally 
accepted as good
behavior. There is, for example, no specifically christian morality or 
ethic. The behavior
enjoined by Jesus in those regards don't belong solely to christianity 
(as you say below).

> It's also a question what actually constitutes "christian" belief; if you're
> trying to separate it from concepts such as God, Satan, heaven, angels, saints,
> the Bible, or any some such, then you don't leave much that christians can
> exclusively claim their own, and "ethical person" may turn out a more fitting
> term.
> 
I wouldn't try to separate it from those concepts. The concept of God is 
fundamental to
  but not exclusive to, christian belief (and so is the Bible in a 
somewhat different way).
For instance, the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism 
is the acceptance
of Jesus as divine. A lot that many christians believe about Satan, 
heaven, angels, etc. is,
I think, accumulated tradition. Of course some no doubt regard the who 
of christian belief as
accumulated tradition.

>>> In science, everything inexplicable is just a flaw in the accepted theories.
>>> People refusing to accept those theories are obviously blinded by superstition.
>>> If some experiment confirms their predictions, it's proof that the theories are
>>> correct; if some experiment contradicts them, the system of theories just needs
>>> some more refinement and consolidation.
>>>
>>> Duh...
>>   Duh? This seems to be a pretty good description of the "scientific
>> method", which
>> I guess we could say is bothe the power and the weakness of science. :)
> 
> "Duh" because seen this way, I don't think there's much of a difference between
> religion and "fundamentalist" science either.
> 
> If a scientist claims that *everything* is (or will eventually become)
> explicable by science and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by
> superstition, then he's just as fundamentalist as a christian claiming that
> *everything* is explained in the Bible and anyone not acknowledging this is
> mislead by Satan, or a conspirationist claiming that *everything* is the work
> of The Powers That Be and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by the very
> same.
> 
> So the only point of view that seems somewhat different in this respect is that
> of the agnostic who claims he simply doesn't know - but even those may come in
> a fundamentalist flavor, claiming that we *cannot* know and anyone not
> acknowledging this is mislead by pride.

I agree. We should always beware of assigning motives to others, though 
few of us
observe that caution. Perhaps we might say that differences in beliefs, 
however important
and however strongly held, should never result in discourtesy (in a 
broad sense). :)

David

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> If a scientist claims that *everything* is (or will eventually become)
> explicable by science and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by
> superstition, then he's just as fundamentalist as a christian claiming that
> *everything* is explained in the Bible and anyone not acknowledging this is
> mislead by Satan, or a conspirationist claiming that *everything* is the work
> of The Powers That Be and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by the very
> same.
> 

Hmm. How about... Nothing so far has **ever** been, **actually** 
explained by the supernatural, which is to say, asserting, "Well, 
something had to be, so why not Pixies?", is not an "explanation", its a 
refusal to either look for an answer, or admit you don't know one. By 
the same token, **everything** we do have an answer for **has been** 
explained by science, just not always in the way, or to the 
satisfaction, of those that hate the resulting answer. i.e, things like 
mind/consciousness, etc., where "emergent property" isn't good enough 
for them, since denying "special cause", also denies, "special 
existence". But, when someone in science says, "science can answer 
that", then mean, "because none of the other BS things people have come 
up with provide anything that does, or which does so in a way that 
proves useful at making anything from the result, or making 'correct' 
predictions." This doesn't mean that, asked a direct question of, "Well, 
what is the answer then.", its not going to be, "I don't know."

This differs from religions. It differs in a very specific way. To 
religion, "I don't know.", is ***always*** an invalid answer, and the 
*correct* one is always some variation of, "That is just how it is.", 
"Because god wants it that way.", or, "Its too mysterious to bother 
figuring out." No scientist will ever say, "We can't know.", or, when 
given something that isn't explained yet, will resort to, "Just because, 
or because of some BS I just made up."

If you have a conflict with this, then all you have to manage is to 
explain anything that provides knowledge about the world, which isn't 
testable via *some* sort of scientific examination (even if its, does it 
look like X number of people show what we describe as love), or which, 
when attempting to provide an explanation, goes farther than claiming 
that the things "exists", waffling about what it "is", and can't predict 
*jack* about the thing in question, without using purely circular 
associations, in which you predict A, because of B, which is happening 
because of A, which you **still** haven't correctly explained, or 
predicted in a way that can be said to "always" be a result of B.

Example, seem to remember a case a while back of reading someone who 
figured out that there was a specific "mathematical" scale that defined 
when we hear notes are a) part of the same sequence of music, and b) 
following logically, and where c) failing to follow that pattern made 
them dissonant. The pattern closely matched sounds like speech, animal 
calls, and other things that exist in nature, where each shift in 
frequency fell in that range, and thus provided us with "predictability" 
of how many things there where, what they where doing, and when those 
actions "changed". I.e., we like music because it conforms to patterns 
layed down in the brain to detect "sameness" of objects, distinguish 
between multiple objects, and tell us when something has **changed** 
significantly in our environment, thus disturbing us. Its probably 
**impossible** for any species that has adapted auditory reception and a 
means to react to changed in our environment, to "not" like music.

Is this satisfactory for telling why someone like Bach, and another 
Beethoven? Maybe not, but that is likely in their psychological make up, 
which is also testable, or in difference in their ability to perceive 
such shifts accurately, or even in memory recall, where a specific "set" 
of tonal events link up with a similar tonal pattern, which is 
"associated" in that memory with water falls, or sea shores, or wind, 
etc. Its all quantifiable, unsatisfactory, if all you want is to 
"poetic" and "philosophical" gibberish explanations, and simply **not** 
what people asking the question ***want*** to hear as an answer.

But, that is the point. Religions, in what ever form, are about what 
people *want* to be true. Science is supposed to be about what **is** 
true. (Well, at least as long as you don't hire some semi-fruitloop, 
like Francis Collins to run the NIH, but that is a side issue.)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> It ought to mean something like "believing or adhering to the 
> fundamentals of",
> whereas, it has come to mean something like "one ready to exercise violence
> against those who disagree with his beliefs"

And yet, those two things are the same for many fundamentalists.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Unfortunately, "fundamentalist" is one of those terms much abused by the
> media.
> It ought to mean something like "believing or adhering to the
> fundamentals of",
> whereas, it has come to mean something like "one ready to exercise violence
> against those who disagree with his beliefs"

That's what I'd call "radical" (though they're typically also fundamentalists).


> For instance, the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism
> is the acceptance of Jesus as divine.

A bit more than that, to all I know; Judaism does not even acknowledge Jesus as
a prophet (which, for instance, Islam does).

There's also strong dissent about the position whether the Mosaic rituals are
still binding; Jews are obviously convinced that this was the case, and even
many of the earliest Christians (who were Jews after all) seem to have
continued, and partially even insisted on, this tradition, while Paulus seems
to have taught otherwise among the Gentile christians (though he also seemed to
have strongly opposed the position that it was particularly *bad* to follow
those old rituals). And the thing is of course complicated further by various
christian sub-groups having introduced their own rituals instead (which
apparently were often adapted versions of older traditions).


> A lot that many christians believe about Satan,
> heaven, angels, etc. is,
> I think, accumulated tradition. Of course some no doubt regard the who
> of christian belief as
> accumulated tradition.

That's a very difficult topic, because a lot can be interpreted into the bible,
so it's hard to tell which is true christian, and which is heathen tradition
projected onto biblical terminology and the like.


> I agree. We should always beware of assigning motives to others, though
> few of us
> observe that caution. Perhaps we might say that differences in beliefs,
> however important
> and however strongly held, should never result in discourtesy (in a
> broad sense). :)

There's a point to that indeed.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > If a scientist claims that *everything* is (or will eventually become)
> > explicable by science and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by
> > superstition, then he's just as fundamentalist as a christian claiming that
> > *everything* is explained in the Bible and anyone not acknowledging this is
> > mislead by Satan, or a conspirationist claiming that *everything* is the work
> > of The Powers That Be and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by the very
> > same.
>
> Hmm. How about... Nothing so far has **ever** been, **actually**
> explained by the supernatural, which is to say, asserting, "Well,
> something had to be, so why not Pixies?", is not an "explanation", its a
> refusal to either look for an answer, or admit you don't know one.

And that - I'm sorry to say - is *rubbish*.

"It was the Pixies" is, as such, just as good as an explanation as "it was the
electric discharge of blah whatever".

The *true* quality of the explanation is not in what faith it is based upon, but
in how useful it is to base decisions and actions thereupon. If the Pixies
explanation leads me to act the same as the Electric Discharge explanation,
then there's no difference in quality among those two whatsoever.

The fact that sciencentific explanations seem to be better suited in today's
times to guide to good decisions and actions should not lead us to frown upon
anyone who based - or even still base - their decisions and action on Pixie
explanations. There's even evidence that our faith in science has been leading
us into wrong directions, and that for instance we missed some points "natural
religions" seem to be more proficient at (and have been so for thousands of
years).

Actually, scientific explanaitions seem to be particularly *bad* at giving
guidance for action, because they're perfectly detached from any moral aspects.
At best it can lead me to try to achieve what *I* think is best, even if those
thoughts happen to be total rubbish.


> This doesn't mean that, asked a direct question of, "Well,
> what is the answer then.", its not going to be, "I don't know."
>
> This differs from religions.

No, this is not the difference between science and religion - it is instead the
difference between fundamentalism and... well, non-fundamentalism.

Ask any non-fundamentalist christian a tricky question about their faith, and
they'll possibly respond with "I don't know" as well.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> "It was the Pixies" is, as such, just as good as an explanation as "it was the
> electric discharge of blah whatever".

Let me know when you get those pixies charging your car battery for you.

> The *true* quality of the explanation is not in what faith it is based upon, but
> in how useful it is to base decisions and actions thereupon. 

Study in contrast: Dark Ages vs Industrial Revolution.

> If the Pixies
> explanation leads me to act the same as the Electric Discharge explanation,
> then there's no difference in quality among those two whatsoever.

That is incorrect.

> Actually, scientific explanaitions seem to be particularly *bad* at giving
> guidance for action, because they're perfectly detached from any moral aspects.

This is incorrect.

In any case, religion isn't any better at providing moral guidance.

> At best it can lead me to try to achieve what *I* think is best, even if those
> thoughts happen to be total rubbish.

And this differs from religion how?  Can we say Salem Witch Trials?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> where there are time limits and the audience is already thinking they 
> should have gone down the street to watch the strippers, than sit and 
> listen to two people debate about the hollow earth theory of reptile 

Maybe scientists would have more success if they had strippers explain 
why the hollow earth theory is false? :)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> My favorite quote:
>> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
> 
> I was hoping for 44 funny conspiracy theories. I liked the Rambo quote 
> better, myself.

I almost quoted that one, too.  But then, I would have quoted another 
part... and another... and pretty soon, I would have quoted the whole 
da** article :)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a6f1f7e$1@news.povray.org...
> Chambers wrote:
> > My favorite quote:
> > "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
>
> I was hoping for 44 funny conspiracy theories. I liked the Rambo quote
> better, myself.
>
> Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of articles.
> When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read exactly the
> same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds the same to me.
> Maybe that's just me, tho.

Ironically, religions provide the antithesis of some of the arguments of the
anti-conspiracy theorists, in that while it's near impossible to make
everyone believe the story, with a little bit of luck, it's relatively easy
to fool the majority for centuries at a time, and it needn't even take that
much logistics and effort. Of course failure rate of religions is high
enough and results are not fully predictable, so it's not the ideal model to
plant a conspiracy surely and speedily.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Actually, scientific explanaitions seem to be particularly *bad* at giving
> guidance for action, because they're perfectly detached from any moral aspects.
> At best it can lead me to try to achieve what *I* think is best, even if those
> thoughts happen to be total rubbish.
> 

Hmm. I seem to remember someone commenting some where something like.. 
"descriptive, not proscriptive". So, sure. Its really really bad at 
giving guidance for, what I presume, you mean to be "social" actions 
(Mind, this isn't always the case. For example, the *proper* social 
action among some groups is to teach abstinence, yet, the **effective** 
social action is to hit the idiot advocating this over the head and bury 
the body. lol) In any case, the problem here isn't that science can't 
say anything about such actions, but rather that it can't, without a 
clear understanding of the social contexts, and the thought processes of 
those involved, which if you had them, would let you make predictions, 
both of *if* a given solution would be accepted at all, or if it would 
work at all. And, sometimes, it can say that even without those details, 
because, quite frankly, much of societies delusions are based on how we 
would like to be, not on how we "are", so its fairly predictable as to 
the outcome when "are" comes into direct conflict with "want", and one 
of the two has to give in.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> Actually, scientific explanaitions seem to be particularly *bad* at 
>> giving
>> guidance for action, because they're perfectly detached from any moral 
>> aspects.
> 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> In any case, religion isn't any better at providing moral guidance.
> 

I would argue that, in most respects, it is worse. Why? Because the key 
feature of science is, "You could be wrong.", while the key feature of 
religion is, "There is one right and true way, so failing to follow it 
is automatically wrong." Its why science, in 200 years, gave us space 
shuttles, while religions in 2,000 gave us... well, not much of 
anything, since most of the stuff one can attribute to purely 
"religious" thinking, like prayer, homeopathy, natural cures, etc. are 
just variations on the same tried and failed ideas. All you get is 
"repackaging", never anything *new*. There is no qualitative difference 
between, "laying on of hands" and "therapeutic touch". The only 
difference between "old" religious concepts and new ones is the trend to 
gobble on science words, in an attempt to legitimize what didn't work 
2,000 years ago, any more than it works now. The actual methods, ideas, 
prescriptions, and even excuses haven't changed, even if *what* they are 
applied to has shifted slightly.

In reality, religions are defined by the current morals, or they fail, 
or fight to violently to try to survive anyway, while the world changes 
around them. But, in the later two cases, their "moral claims" are 
meaningless, since the whole reason they failed, or are failing, is 
because no one follows them any more. The rest, change *religion* to fit 
*morality*, not the other way around. But, inevitably, the failure to 
recognize this leads what ever new variation arises to find itself in 
the "fight or die" camp, eventually, when the rest of the world either 
becomes more stable, or more irrational, than what ever "absolute moral 
code" the religion claims to be following as a description of how to 
properly live.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4a6f1f7e$1@news.povray.org...
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> My favorite quote:
>>> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
>> I was hoping for 44 funny conspiracy theories. I liked the Rambo quote
>> better, myself.
>>
>> Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of articles.
>> When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read exactly the
>> same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds the same to me.
>> Maybe that's just me, tho.
> 
> Ironically, religions provide the antithesis of some of the arguments of the
> anti-conspiracy theorists, in that while it's near impossible to make
> everyone believe the story, with a little bit of luck, it's relatively easy
> to fool the majority for centuries at a time, and it needn't even take that
> much logistics and effort. Of course failure rate of religions is high
> enough and results are not fully predictable, so it's not the ideal model to
> plant a conspiracy surely and speedily.
> 
Well, the issue there is, religions deal with the intangible and 
undefinable, by conspiring to provide, tangible and definable 
characteristics to them, and they do this based on a fear of the 
unknown. If people where scared to death of space aliens from the dark 
matter parts of the universe coming here to eat them, they would fall 
for the conspiracy just as effectively, as long as it told them how to 
*avoid* getting eaten with everyone else, and they would do almost 
anything to get that result. The problem most other conspiracy theories 
have is that they attempt to invent the silly and insane, to describe 
events in the "real world", for which it is possible to define, 
describe, or give evidence of the reality of the situation, and where 
only their own cherry picked bits of wacky point to what they think it does.


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> while the key feature of 
> religion is, "There is one right and true way, so failing to follow it 
> is automatically wrong." 

Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> If people where scared to death of space aliens from the dark 
> matter parts of the universe coming here to eat them, 

That would be Scientology.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> I would argue that, in most respects, it is worse. Why? Because the key
> feature of science is, "You could be wrong.", while the key feature of
> religion is, "There is one right and true way, so failing to follow it
> is automatically wrong."

I disagree.

You may be right with some religions, and indeed most particularly with those we
typically think of when we hear "religion": christianity, islam, and judaism.
Most likely all monotheistic religions, for that matter.

From what I know, however, Buddhism for instance is quite a *lot* about *not*
knowing answers, and I guess they're even a lot better than science at dealing
with the concept of absence of an answer; they even have a dedicated word to
represent a non-answer (somethig like "NULL" in C ;)): "Mu".

I'd also guess that so-called "natural religions" are much less focused on being
right or wrong.


Also, I'm not talking about who was more effective at putting a man on the moon.
I'm talking about science having led us to overcrowding, global warming,
exploitation of any natural ressource we can get our hands on, radioactive
waste we have no idea how to deal with the next few million years, and the
like. And I'm asking the question whether the thing we're aiming for with
science is really *good*.

Not that I'd have an answer to this question. But I think it is legitimate to
ask, given the existing evidence.

Maybe an "explanatory" model of the world that focuses on moral lessons instead
of predictions might be of more benefit to mankind. Such a model would have no
need for being perfectly rational. If such a model attributed spirits to each
and everything to teach us respect for the world around us and each other, then
that would be perfectly legitimate.

Again, I'm not trying to give an answer here - rather ask a question, with my
point being that it's a question that science cannot answer either, although it
touches the very foundation of science's claim of superiority above religion.

In other words, science is founded on blind faith that technological advancement
is inherently good. So far, this has yet to be proven, and there is reason to
assume that it is *impossible* to prove. Therefore, science is just another
religion - q.e.d.


And just in case someone is about to claim that at least nobody has ever
committed cruelties in the name of science: Open your eyes.

Animals are tortured in the name of medicine, for instance.

And if you look closely enough, science has actually led to what is commonly
considered one of the greatest cruelties in history: The Nazi-German Holocaust
- driven by belief in the concept of a "Herrenrasse", which was nothing than
Darwinism gone radical-fundamentalist.

Science led utterly astray, for sure. But just the same can be said in defense
of chrisitianity with respect to the crusades. And the same can be said in
defense of islam with respect to terrorism.


So much for the superiority of science.

Again, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying it's bad. Maybe it's the best religion
mankind has ever invented. All I'm saying is that it bears all characteristics
of a religion itself.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> I'm talking about science having led us to overcrowding, global warming,
> exploitation of any natural ressource we can get our hands on, radioactive
> waste we have no idea how to deal with the next few million years, and the
> like. 

Versus the alternative of famine, plague, and so on. You think there was no 
overcrowding in the dark ages? No using up all the available natural 
resources leading to widespread famine?  Granted, we had less radioactive 
waste, but that's not saying much.

> Maybe an "explanatory" model of the world that focuses on moral lessons instead
> of predictions might be of more benefit to mankind.

Science does this. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that radioactive 
waste and global warming is *bad*, would you?  Without the continued 
advancement of science, you'd have no idea whether that is good or bad, even 
if you knew about it.

> Such a model would have no
> need for being perfectly rational. If such a model attributed spirits to each
> and everything to teach us respect for the world around us and each other, then
> that would be perfectly legitimate.

How would you decide what's good and bad if it's fictional spirits teaching 
you that? How do you know euthanasia is good or bad, birth control is good 
or bad, without actually basing it in the facts of the results?

> Again, I'm not trying to give an answer here - rather ask a question, with my
> point being that it's a question that science cannot answer either,

Of course it can. You have to decide what your goal is, i.e., what you 
consider "good", and then science tells you how to achieve that. Religion 
doesn't answer either question.

> In other words, science is founded on blind faith that technological advancement
> is inherently good. 

Of course it isn't, or you wouldn't have given the list of "bad 
technological advancements" above.

In any case, science isn't technology. Science is a method of finding 
answers that you can apply to the real world. Without science, religion has 
no power to tell you how to behave well, even if it was right about what 
goals you have.

In other words, if your religion says "happiness is good", it's science that 
tells you how to obtain happiness.

> So far, this has yet to be proven, and there is reason to
> assume that it is *impossible* to prove. Therefore, science is just another
> religion - q.e.d.

Straw man.

> Animals are tortured in the name of medicine, for instance.

So, does your religion say it's better to experiment with new drugs on 
animals, experiment with new drugs on humans, or just let sick people die 
for a lack of new drugs?

> And if you look closely enough, science has actually led to what is commonly
> considered one of the greatest cruelties in history: The Nazi-German Holocaust
> - driven by belief in the concept of a "Herrenrasse", which was nothing than
> Darwinism gone radical-fundamentalist.

That wasn't science.

> Science led utterly astray, for sure. 

While they did do some awful experiments on humans, it wasn't science that 
gassed tens of millions of people.

While they did do some awful experiments on humans, at least they didn't 
torture any animals!

> So much for the superiority of science.

Straw man.

> Again, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying it's bad. Maybe it's the best religion
> mankind has ever invented. All I'm saying is that it bears all characteristics
> of a religion itself.

No, really, it doesn't. You just don't know what science actually is.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> It ought to mean something like "believing or adhering to the 
>> fundamentals of",
>> whereas, it has come to mean something like "one ready to exercise 
>> violence
>> against those who disagree with his beliefs"
> 
> And yet, those two things are the same for many fundamentalists.
> 
I think you have simply accepted the media usage of the term. :)There's 
no real connection
between believing in the fundamentals of something and being violent 
about it. Most, probably
all, scientist believe in the fundamentals of physics, but few of them 
are violent about it. I suppose
I have accepted the media usage too, although I believe the fundamentals 
of Christianity, I
would now hesitate to call myself a fundamentalist.  "Fundamentalist" 
and "fundamentalist" have been
destroyed as useful descriptive terms and become largely pejorative. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > I'm talking about science having led us to overcrowding, global warming,
> > exploitation of any natural ressource we can get our hands on, radioactive
> > waste we have no idea how to deal with the next few million years, and the
> > like.
>
> Versus the alternative of famine, plague, and so on. You think there was no
> overcrowding in the dark ages? No using up all the available natural
> resources leading to widespread famine?  Granted, we had less radioactive
> waste, but that's not saying much.

.... and, in absolute numbers, there were less people suffering.

Which one does count - the number of people living a happy life? the number of
people leading a miserable one? or maybe it's irrelevant?

Science cannot tell us that.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, "fundamentalist" is one of those terms much abused by the
>> media.
>> It ought to mean something like "believing or adhering to the
>> fundamentals of",
>> whereas, it has come to mean something like "one ready to exercise violence
>> against those who disagree with his beliefs"
> 
> That's what I'd call "radical" (though they're typically also fundamentalists).

"Radical" is another media buzz-word that has come to have little 
descriptive
meaning.

> 
>> For instance, the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism
>> is the acceptance of Jesus as divine.
> 
> A bit more than that, to all I know; Judaism does not even acknowledge Jesus as
> a prophet (which, for instance, Islam does).

I think you are right, but they could accept him as a prophet 
misunderstood or misrepresented
by the christians with little or no change in their beliefs.

> There's also strong dissent about the position whether the Mosaic rituals are
> still binding; Jews are obviously convinced that this was the case, and even
> many of the earliest Christians (who were Jews after all) seem to have
> continued, and partially even insisted on, this tradition, while Paulus seems
> to have taught otherwise among the Gentile christians (though he also seemed to
> have strongly opposed the position that it was particularly *bad* to follow
> those old rituals). And the thing is of course complicated further by various
> christian sub-groups having introduced their own rituals instead (which
> apparently were often adapted versions of older traditions).

I think this is all true.

> 
>> A lot that many christians believe about Satan,
>> heaven, angels, etc. is,
>> I think, accumulated tradition. Of course some no doubt regard the who
>> of christian belief as
>> accumulated tradition.
> 
> That's a very difficult topic, because a lot can be interpreted into the bible,
> so it's hard to tell which is true christian, and which is heathen tradition
> projected onto biblical terminology and the like.
Also true.

David :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> How would you decide what's good and bad if it's fictional spirits teaching
> you that? How do you know euthanasia is good or bad, birth control is good
> or bad, without actually basing it in the facts of the results?

Nice ones you picked: Science tells us *zero* about these either.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> while the key feature of religion is, "There is one right and true 
>> way, so failing to follow it is automatically wrong." 
> 
> Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.
> 
And that is an vast oversimplification. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > And if you look closely enough, science has actually led to what is commonly
> > considered one of the greatest cruelties in history: The Nazi-German Holocaust
> > - driven by belief in the concept of a "Herrenrasse", which was nothing than
> > Darwinism gone radical-fundamentalist.
>
> That wasn't science.

Yeah, that hurts scientific people to hear.

It was founded on *pure* science (sharing the same rationale as euthanasia at
that time) - Darwin's theories. The world at that time still had to learn that
science without morals is barbaric and cold right to the core.

The whole world, by the way. "Survival of the fittest"-type of thinking was very
popular back then all across the globe. Nazi-German excelled in it though.

> > Science led utterly astray, for sure.
>
> While they did do some awful experiments on humans, it wasn't science that
> gassed tens of millions of people.
>
> While they did do some awful experiments on humans, at least they didn't
> torture any animals!

Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an incredible lot
of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on darwinism,
whether you like to hear that or not.


> Straw man.
> ...
> No, really, it doesn't. You just don't know what science actually is.

Very simple to type that as a response instead of really trying to grasp a
point.

I rather think you are refusing to accept the term "science" in the sense I'm
using it, because you don't like it being called a religion, and thrown from
its steeple.

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> I have accepted the media usage too, although I believe the fundamentals
> of Christianity, I
> would now hesitate to call myself a fundamentalist.  "Fundamentalist"
> and "fundamentalist" have been
> destroyed as useful descriptive terms and become largely pejorative. :)

.... also, some christian fundamentalists might consider "the fundamental of
christianity" to be a different set of things than you do ;)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> no real connection
> between believing in the fundamentals of something and being violent 
> about it.

Except perhaps in religions that tell you everyone who doesn't believe as 
you do are subhuman, which is my point.

> "Fundamentalist" 
> and "fundamentalist" have been
> destroyed as useful descriptive terms and become largely pejorative. :)

Gee, I wonder who might have caused that?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> while the key feature of religion is, "There is one right and true 
>>> way, so failing to follow it is automatically wrong." 
>>
>> Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.
>>
> And that is an vast oversimplification. :)

Why? If you have only one God and he created the universe and you're 
supposed to worship him, it pretty shuts down the "there are lots of ways to 
go about it" theory.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> .... and, in absolute numbers, there were less people suffering.

Yes, because without science, they died faster. :-)

> Which one does count - the number of people living a happy life? the number of
> people leading a miserable one? or maybe it's irrelevant?

And religion can?

> Science cannot tell us that.

It can help you achieve your ends, unlike religion, which can neither answer 
those questions nor help you achieve your ends.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> How would you decide what's good and bad if it's fictional spirits teaching
>> you that? How do you know euthanasia is good or bad, birth control is good
>> or bad, without actually basing it in the facts of the results?
> 
> Nice ones you picked: Science tells us *zero* about these either.

And neither does religion. That's my point.  Science gives you the 
information to decide whether those things are good or bad, depending on 
your goals.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> And if you look closely enough, science has actually led to what is commonly
>>> considered one of the greatest cruelties in history: The Nazi-German Holocaust
>>> - driven by belief in the concept of a "Herrenrasse", which was nothing than
>>> Darwinism gone radical-fundamentalist.
>> That wasn't science.
> 
> Yeah, that hurts scientific people to hear.
> 
> It was founded on *pure* science (sharing the same rationale as euthanasia at
> that time) - Darwin's theories. The world at that time still had to learn that
> science without morals is barbaric and cold right to the core.

No. It was clothed in pseudo-science. You don't start with "the Aryan race 
is best" and then try to prove it, if you're doing science. You certainly 
don't kill millions of people in order to prove it.

> The whole world, by the way. "Survival of the fittest"-type of thinking was very
> popular back then all across the globe. Nazi-German excelled in it though.

Yep. It wasn't science, tho. "Survival of the fittest" isn't darwinism any 
more than breeding show dogs is darwinism. People were breeding plants and 
animals for specific traits thousands of years before Darwin was born.

> Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an incredible lot
> of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on darwinism,

Uh, no? There was neither natural selection involved, nor change over 
several generations. Why was it based more on darwinism than invading Russia 
was? Darwin talked about natural selection and changes between generations. 
How does that equate to killing millions of people based on their religion?

> whether you like to hear that or not.

OK, here's the question:
1) What hypothesis was the nazis trying to disprove by gassing millions of 
people?
2) What would have they accepted as evidence that their hypothesis was wrong?
3) What events were they trying to observe by gassing millions of people in 
support or refutation of their hypothesis?

Again, just because the nazis claimed it was science doesn't mean it was any 
more science than throwing witches in the lake to see if they sink was 
scientific.

If you don't say "We do this experiment, and if X is the result, then our 
hypothesis is wrong", then you're not doing science. It's really pretty 
simple - falsifiability is the hallmark of scientific theories.

>> Straw man.
>> ...
>> No, really, it doesn't. You just don't know what science actually is.
> 
> Very simple to type that as a response instead of really trying to grasp a
> point.

I understand your point. Science doesn't provide moral guidance except in 
some really obvious ways (like "a murder rate greater than the birth rate 
tends to be bad for society, hence murder is bad"). The results of science 
can be used for good or bad. Yep. Science isn't inherently good in a moral 
sense, yep. (It's inherently good in the sense that it works and therefore 
helps you achieve whatever goals you're trying to achieve, including 
religious or moral goals.)

But religion (in general) doesn't provide moral guidance either. It just 
states "this is good, that is bad" without saying how to achieve that 
goodness, how to avoid the badness, or why anything would be good or bad. It 
gives a fiat as to how you should behave without explanation or evidence.

Science isn't good or bad. It's a way of figuring out how the world works. 
You have to decide whether it's good or bad.  Unfortunately, religion isn't 
the way to do this, since it's irrational and therefore ungrounded in 
reality. Once you ground it in reality, it is *ta daaah* science.

> I rather think you are refusing to accept the term "science" in the sense I'm
> using it, 

You're using it wrong. Science isn't technology. Science isn't terminology. 
Science isn't "what the nazis said it was."

I'm refusing to accept the term as you're using it for the simple reason 
that what you're talking about isn't science any more than faith healing is 
moral guidance, nor any more than laws are religion.

> because you don't like it being called a religion, and thrown from
> its steeple.

You're so cute when you're trying to justify yourself.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > because you don't like it being called a religion, and thrown from
> > its steeple.
>
> You're so cute when you're trying to justify yourself.

??

Man, you're so far off the mark.

What would there be for me to justify?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You're using it wrong. Science isn't technology. Science isn't terminology.
> Science isn't "what the nazis said it was."

Science is a way of looking at the world.
It was taken by the Nazis - assuming their "race" to be the fittest - as a call
to action they should go out and ensure survival of this fittest race.

Just like christianity is a way of looking at the world.
It was taken by the crusaders as a call to action that they should go out and
free Jerusalem from the "heathen hordes".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You're using it wrong. Science isn't technology. Science isn't terminology.
>> Science isn't "what the nazis said it was."
> 
> Science is a way of looking at the world.

Yes.

> It was taken by the Nazis - assuming their "race" to be the fittest - as a call
> to action they should go out and ensure survival of this fittest race.

That isn't science.  It's using some buzzwords from science to motivate 
people to a political end.  I mean, really.  "Darwin says that when an 
environment changes, individuals who the change affects negatively will 
leave fewer descendants. Therefore, we should invade Poland."  That just 
isn't science. Darwinism doesn't say "you should try to ensure the survival 
of the fittest." Indeed, the Nazis, by invading Poland, ensured that they 
changed the environment to one in which they could no longer survive, 
defeating their very purpose.

You can use *anything* as a justification. "Mother Teresa wanted to end 
suffering, therefore we should shoot sick babies." That doesn't mean 
Christianity encourages infanticide.  (You have to look elsewhere in 
Christianity to find that justification.)

> Just like christianity is a way of looking at the world.
> It was taken by the crusaders as a call to action that they should go out and
> free Jerusalem from the "heathen hordes".

And that's the difference between science and religion. Science says "this 
is what is."  Religion says "this is what you should do."  That *is* the 
difference, and that *is* why science isn't religion.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an incredible lot
> > of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on darwinism,
>
> Uh, no? There was neither natural selection involved, nor change over
> several generations. Why was it based more on darwinism than invading Russia
> was?

As you mention it - yes, invading eastern Europe and later Russia was along the
same lines. "Lebensraum im Osten" ("room to live in the east") was the motto of
that.

> Darwin talked about natural selection and changes between generations.
> How does that equate to killing millions of people based on their religion?

Jesus talked about holding the other cheek. Still the crusades are commonly
associated with the religion he founded. Why should science be treated any
different in this respect?

That's actually hypocrisy.

> Again, just because the nazis claimed it was science doesn't mean it was any
> more science than throwing witches in the lake to see if they sink was
> scientific.

.... neither do I find any reference in the Bible of Jesus mention anything of
throwing witches in lakes, and still the middle ages are frequently taken as an
argument against christianity.

If actions committed with reference to christian teachings are considered valid
evidence against christianity, then actions committed with reference to
scientific teaching must be considered valid evidence against science - or am I
missing some important point here?

I'm quite sure that Hitler got Darwin's teachings perfectly wrong, but I'm sure
the crusaders and witch hunters din't get Jesus' teachings perfectly right
either.


> But religion (in general) doesn't provide moral guidance either.

Even leaving aside that this is far from true for virtually all religions I know
of, it would in no way contradict my point.

It seems to me that you think I'm trying to defend religion against science, but
I'm not at all. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that science possesses
all traits of a religion as well.


> It just
> states "this is good, that is bad" without saying how to achieve that
> goodness, how to avoid the badness, or why anything would be good or bad. It
> gives a fiat as to how you should behave without explanation or evidence.
>
> Science isn't good or bad. It's a way of figuring out how the world works.
> You have to decide whether it's good or bad.  Unfortunately, religion isn't
> the way to do this, since it's irrational and therefore ungrounded in
> reality. Once you ground it in reality, it is *ta daaah* science.

Why is irrationality bad and rationality good? What makes you think knowing that
doing X will get you from A to B is superior to just knowing that doing X (or
maybe actually Y) is the right thing to do? If nobody can tell you whether
being at B is really a good thing, knowing how to get there doesn't seem to add
much substantial benefit. Maybe being busy finding out how to get to B may
instead actually distract you from the question whether you really want to go
to B?

I think the disciples of science employ a circular argument regarding the
alleged superiority of rationality.


I'll stick with it: From what I see, science possesses every feature of a
religion. Not in the theories it develops, but in its very foundations. I do
repeat my plead here to not get me wrong: It may be the best religion to be had
so far. But I cannot be perfectly sure about that.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And that's the difference between science and religion. Science says "this
> is what is."  Religion says "this is what you should do."  That *is* the
> difference, and that *is* why science isn't religion.

"Thou shalt not be irrational."

So that doesn't constitute telling what to do?

There: A religion, still. And a sort of monotheistic one, too.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> And that's the difference between science and religion. Science says "this
>> is what is."  Religion says "this is what you should do."  That *is* the
>> difference, and that *is* why science isn't religion.
> 
> "Thou shalt not be irrational."

Science doesn't tell you not to be irrational. Science is a technique for 
getting to the answers of how the world works. It's not proscriptive, but 
descriptive.

Science doesn't say "don't be irrational."  Science says "if you're 
irrational, you'll have less luck figuring out how the world works, and you 
won't be doing science."

I haven't seen any scientist tell you not to fall in love at first sight 
*because* it would be unscientific to do so.

> There: A religion, still. And a sort of monotheistic one, too.

Nice try, but no cigar.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an incredible lot
>>> of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on darwinism,
>> Uh, no? There was neither natural selection involved, nor change over
>> several generations. Why was it based more on darwinism than invading Russia
>> was?
> 
> As you mention it - yes, invading eastern Europe and later Russia was along the
> same lines. "Lebensraum im Osten" ("room to live in the east") was the motto of
> that.

Neither had anything to do with Darwin or evolution. Nazis merely claimed 
they did. Nazis lied. What a surprise.

>> Darwin talked about natural selection and changes between generations.
>> How does that equate to killing millions of people based on their religion?
> 
> Jesus talked about holding the other cheek. Still the crusades are commonly
> associated with the religion he founded. Why should science be treated any
> different in this respect?

I've noticed you've carefully avoided actually answering the question.

Because it wasn't the scientific leaders of the world saying it was 
scientific to invade Russia?  It was the politicians, using the buzzwords of 
science. And that's called an "et tu" fallacy, thanks.

When the scientists generally agree that natural variation and selection 
causes evolution, and then that causes some sort of result, that's science. 
When some pope says that jesus would want you to invade a foreign country, 
that's religion, even if it isn't *jesus's* religion. When some *scientist* 
says you should invade a foreign country, that isn't science unless you 
follow the scientific method in determining that you should.

I don't think anyone blames the crusades on Jesus. They just blame them on 
religion. Why are you blaming the Nazi's on Darwin if you're not blaming the 
crusades on Jesus?  And how do you *know* Jesus didn't want the crusades? He 
*did* mention it to the pope, after all.

> That's actually hypocrisy.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Science is about how the world works regardless of peoples' emotions. 
Religion is about peoples' emotions and how to work them.

>> Again, just because the nazis claimed it was science doesn't mean it was any
>> more science than throwing witches in the lake to see if they sink was
>> scientific.
> 
> .... neither do I find any reference in the Bible of Jesus mention anything of
> throwing witches in lakes,

Who's talking about Jesus? I'm talking about Salem, and how drowning people 
isn't a scientific method for detecting witches, no matter the propaganda. 
The religious leaders who were drowning the witches weren't practicing 
science in doing so any more than the nazis invading russia were practicing 
science in doing so.

> and still the middle ages are frequently taken as an
> argument against christianity.

I've lost track of what you're trying to say. Are you saying the middle ages 
were not bad? I think I'd disagree with that. Are you saying the church 
wasn't a major factor in the social and scientific environment during the 
middle ages? I think I'd disagree with that as well.

> If actions committed with reference to christian teachings are considered valid
> evidence against christianity, then actions committed with reference to
> scientific teaching must be considered valid evidence against science - or am I
> missing some important point here?

You're missing the important point of who is telling you about the 
teachings.  If Sam Jones next door tells me about what Jesus wants Catholics 
to do, I'm going to take it as less authoritative than if the Pope does.

Hitler didn't do any science. Pope Gregory did inquisitions. Hitler did, 
however, control the nazis. I think if you tried to argue that Hitler wasn't 
to blame for the invasion of russia, but only his army was, I'd have to 
wonder if you're playing silly buggers with me or something. But Hitler 
blaming the holocaust on Darwin is like Gregory blaming the inquisitions on 
Jesus.

Here's two more points you're missing:

1) That someone blames the Catholics for the inquisition doesn't mean 
science is a religion, even if it does some of the same things. (Which you 
haven't convinced me it does.)

2) Science is, by design, susceptible to peer review. You don't have 
"authoritative" scientists whose opinions are accepted in spite of contrary 
evidence. There is no scientist who will tell you what the right answer is 
that you cannot confirm or dispute for yourself. Why? Because science is 
grounded in reality, and religion is grounded in authority.



> I'm quite sure that Hitler got Darwin's teachings perfectly wrong, but I'm sure
> the crusaders and witch hunters din't get Jesus' teachings perfectly right
> either.

Oddly enough, that's why science wins. When Hitler gets Darwin wrong, we can 
look at it and say "Gee, that's not science."  When Pope Gregory gets Jesus' 
teachings wrong, we can't say "Gee, that's not catholicism."  See the 
difference?

How can you know if the witch hunters got Jesus' teaching right? He *did* 
say to murder witches. How can you tell whether they're right, or you're 
right, 1600 years after he's dead, and all you have left is contradictory 
quotations?

>> But religion (in general) doesn't provide moral guidance either.
> 
> Even leaving aside that this is far from true for virtually all religions I know
> of, it would in no way contradict my point.

Religions don't provide moral guidance. They merely tell you what to do.

> It seems to me that you think I'm trying to defend religion against science, but
> I'm not at all. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that science possesses
> all traits of a religion as well.

Except for the faith part, the telling you how to behave part, and the 
authority figures, and the supernatural events.

I'll grant that *some* religions are closer to science than others.

>> It just
>> states "this is good, that is bad" without saying how to achieve that
>> goodness, how to avoid the badness, or why anything would be good or bad. It
>> gives a fiat as to how you should behave without explanation or evidence.
>>
>> Science isn't good or bad. It's a way of figuring out how the world works.
>> You have to decide whether it's good or bad.  Unfortunately, religion isn't
>> the way to do this, since it's irrational and therefore ungrounded in
>> reality. Once you ground it in reality, it is *ta daaah* science.
> 
> Why is irrationality bad and rationality good?

Who said it is? Not science or scientists. Irrationality is only bad *for 
doing science*.

 > What makes you think knowing that
> doing X will get you from A to B is superior to just knowing that doing X (or
> maybe actually Y) is the right thing to do?

How do you know that doing X is the right thing to do in situation A unless 
you know it'll get you to situation B instead of situation C?

Look, OK, let's say your religion tells you that getting to B is good, and 
you're at A. And getting to C is a bad thing. OK?

Now, does your religion tell you how to get to B from A? If not, what good 
is telling you that you want to be at B? How do you avoid going to C if you 
don't know how to get to B? Why would you trust someone who doesn't know how 
to get to B from A and isn't at B to tell you how to get there yourself? If 
bringing happiness to many people is "good" according to your religion, how 
do you know that (say) executing gay people is or isn't making them happier? 
If going to heaven is tremendously good, doesn't that offset a bit of 
torture now to get people to convert?

Does it tell you *why* being at B is good? If not, what good is your 
religion? You're just accepting what someone else tells you is good for no 
reason. How do you apply that same reasoning to many different situations?

"Turn the other cheek." Why? What good does it do? Or is it intrinsically 
"good" because you told me so? Just like the faithful like asking "why" 
until the scientist says "we don't know", it's easy to ask "why" about 
goodness until the faithful says "we don't know."

> If nobody can tell you whether
> being at B is really a good thing, knowing how to get there doesn't seem to add
> much substantial benefit.

Yes? And? Or by "nobody" do you mean "no scientists"? Or "no faithful"?

 > Maybe being busy finding out how to get to B may
> instead actually distract you from the question whether you really want to go
> to B?

Why would you be researching how to get to B if you didn't want to go to B?

> I think the disciples of science employ a circular argument regarding the
> alleged superiority of rationality.

It's only superior for figuring out how the world works. If you're 
uninterested in controlling your own fate, improving the lot of yourself or 
others, and uninterested in knowing *how* to do the good your religion tells 
you to do, then you don't need to be rational at all.

Rationality is certainly superior for learning about how the world works. It 
tells you little about what is good or bad morally speaking. It's possible 
your religion tells you that pain and suffering is good (because it's a test 
of faith, perhaps), that slavery is beneficial, that people of dark skin are 
subhuman, women are evil, everything good in your life comes from without, 
every failure in your life is your personal fault and something to be 
ashamed of, and so on.

Science can't tell you how to be good. It can only tell you how to be happy 
(or at least happier than you'd likely be without science). If healthy and 
happy is bad, then it's not going to help. If healthy and happy is good, 
then science certainly is superior to religion.

> I'll stick with it: From what I see, science possesses every feature of a
> religion. 

It lacks faith, morality (by your own words), deities, prophets, authority 
figures (to be distinguished from experts, mind), prayer, and elitism. 
Science says *nothing* about "good" or "bad", but only measures what is or 
is not. People who commit evil in the name of science are doing so in the 
name of science, or while performing science. But it's not science to say 
something is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense, and evil scientists don't 
make science itself evil.

Caveat: Evolution says things can be "good" for a species, like adaptability 
and a tendency not to eat all your own babies, for example. Not "morally" 
good, tho.

Caveat: Some scientific experiments can be evil, such as some of the 
*actual* science the nazis did (like measuring how hard you can hit someone 
on the head before they get brain damage, etc). That doesn't mean science is 
evil, but that scientists are doing something evil. Just like a bishop 
raping an alter boy (probably) isn't doing it for religious purposes, but 
merely is an evil religious person.

I don't think irrationality is morally bad. I don't think religion is 
morally bad. I think many of the faithful are also evil to a greater or 
lesser extent, generally greater the more they try to enforce their faith on 
others via violence.

> Not in the theories it develops, but in its very foundations.

THIS:

What do you think are the foundations of science? I suppose "knowledge is 
better than ignorance" might be one element taken on faith, in some sense, 
except that seems to be empirically true if you assume happiness is "better" 
than suffering. "Repeatability is better for gaining knowledge than 
anecdote" is another, but again it seems to be empirically true, as it leads 
to technology whereas anecdotes don't. "Non-falsifiable hypotheses are not 
useful" also seems to be born out by empirical evidence. "There's an actual 
universe out there" is something I guess you'd have to take on faith, altho 
Decartes thinks he solved that problem too and even came to the conclusion 
that the YHVH is out there looking out for him starting from the hypothesis 
of "I know nothing for sure."

So, what are you actually thinking is science's "very foundations"? 
Certainly not "technological progress is always good", since science isn't 
technology and I have heard of many scientists who (for example) regret 
having developed the atom bomb. Indeed, a great number of scientists right 
now think that global warming is a bad thing.

I think this is the source of our disagreement here. I'm looking at science 
as "the scientific method of observation and experimentation, falsifiable 
hypotheses, and peer review, and the body of knowledge gained therefrom."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Jesus talked about holding the other cheek. Still the crusades are commonly
> associated with the religion he founded. Why should science be treated any
> different in this respect?

Actually, I guess you might be asserting that you believe the pope, the 
cardinals, and the inquisitors weren't really religious after all, or that 
they were torturing people not because of any sort of religious belief. I 
think I'd ask you to actually provide some evidence that the pope *isn't* 
catholic, tho, to coin a phrase.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> while the key feature of religion is, "There is one right and true 
>> way, so failing to follow it is automatically wrong." 
> 
> Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.
> 
Ok, minor point, but not always true. Hindu isn't mono-theistic, yet it 
still manages to generate nuts that think the solution to catching up 
with the US is "Vedic Science" and "Alchemy", and that the western 
versions of science are all "wrong", because they don't embrace total BS.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> I would argue that, in most respects, it is worse. Why? Because the key
>> feature of science is, "You could be wrong.", while the key feature of
>> religion is, "There is one right and true way, so failing to follow it
>> is automatically wrong."
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> You may be right with some religions, and indeed most particularly with those we
> typically think of when we hear "religion": christianity, islam, and judaism.
> Most likely all monotheistic religions, for that matter.
> 
> From what I know, however, Buddhism for instance is quite a *lot* about *not*
> knowing answers, and I guess they're even a lot better than science at dealing
> with the concept of absence of an answer; they even have a dedicated word to
> represent a non-answer (somethig like "NULL" in C ;)): "Mu".
> 

Budhism would have been OK, except someone found a way to turn it into a 
monotheism and ignore the bits about "don't trust anything, not even 
these teachings."

> I'd also guess that so-called "natural religions" are much less focused on being
> right or wrong.
> 

Uh.. Yeah. Was tempted to look into those, and "some" of the concepts in 
them are not all that bad. The problem is, its religion for people that 
want to be half right, but deny hard realities, because it doesn't make 
them "feel" good to accept them. Case in point, there was one guy I knew 
who had the shit scared out of him in a ritual designed to make him 
"confront" his own inner demons. The method gives rise to sort of 
hallucinations, and any fool can tell you that, if the person isn't 
prepared to accept they have a problem, making them confront it is 
likely to have the opposite effect. In this case, he rejected his 
mothers religion, and started talking to the local Demon believing 
Christian group, who convinced him he had barely escaped Satan's 
clutches. In principle, the idea isn't unlike phobia therapy methods, 
which expose a person to the thing they fear, or other methods used to 
help them *get to* the point where they deal with the real issues. 
Problem is, its cloaked in magic rattles, wax candles, and what ever 
else, and if done wrong, the result is worse than the disease. But, try 
to tell any of them that, and...

> Also, I'm not talking about who was more effective at putting a man on the moon.
> I'm talking about science having led us to overcrowding, global warming,
> exploitation of any natural ressource we can get our hands on, radioactive
> waste we have no idea how to deal with the next few million years, and the
> like. And I'm asking the question whether the thing we're aiming for with
> science is really *good*.
> 
Science didn't lead to any of those things. Science has been telling 
people since the 20s that, "We will run out of oil.", "We need better 
energy sources.", "We need better vehicles.", "We need better public 
transportation.", "We need better methods of preserving and growing 
food.", etc. The **problem** has always been that the people seeking 
profit only listen when it makes them money, and when it doesn't, they 
find someone with poor understanding of their own science, or a 
willingness to be bribed, or belonging to the same religious cult (who 
insist that god gave them dominion, and would never allow 'man' to 
destroy the world), to give them a different, and *wrong* opinion. If 
someone tells you the well is poisoned, because he tested it in a lab, 
and it will kill you in five years, but you opt to find some moron that 
doesn't know how to do the correct tests, and they find no "known to 
them" poisons, and tell you, "It won't have any effect", then you opt to 
listen to the later one, because you are opening a bottling plant, then 
its "humanity" that has failed you, not the science.

> Maybe an "explanatory" model of the world that focuses on moral lessons instead
> of predictions might be of more benefit to mankind. Such a model would have no
> need for being perfectly rational. If such a model attributed spirits to each
> and everything to teach us respect for the world around us and each other, then
> that would be perfectly legitimate.
> 
No it wouldn't, since the moment someone worked out that spirits where 
not real, one of two things would happen. You "morally upstanding" kook 
would have the guy proving it put to death, to protect their position, 
or people would start questioning if any of it was valid at all, no 
matter how "moral" the system was that you came up with. Only something 
based on an understanding of what it is to be human, an animal, and what 
you *want* to make better, will give you a real moral system. Anything 
based on nonsense and invisible creatures falls prey to people making 
shit up that isn't moral, denying it *based* on the fact that the thing 
in question isn't real, or just flat out failing to come up with a moral 
system that is "actually" moral, even in the sense of what humans are.

Example: How many societies through history, with or without multiple 
gods, or one god, or no god, managed to recognize that being gay was 
"normal"? Maybe 5%? Why is ours any different? Because we have a lot of 
evidence that suggest its BS to consider it "not normal". Yet, some 
still attack the idea based, not on science, but on tradition, gut 
feelings about how they themselves are, and most commonly, religion.


> And if you look closely enough, science has actually led to what is commonly
> considered one of the greatest cruelties in history: The Nazi-German Holocaust
> - driven by belief in the concept of a "Herrenrasse", which was nothing than
> Darwinism gone radical-fundamentalist.
> 
Sigh.. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There was a belief that races where 
"superior" to each other long before Darwin. Darwin's own theory 
"disproved" the idea of such superiority, placing humans, never mind any 
races, not at the pinnacle of change, but just some more or less equally 
changed point, along with pigeons, fleas, rats, and cockroaches. There 
was a guy named Lemark, who "did" advocate such an "evolution advances 
towards a single goal", but like Hitler's version, it was based on the 
religious ideal that man was "above" everything else, not equal to it. 
In reality, Darwin had nothing to do with Hitler at all, the ideas 
Hitler followed where more like Lemark's than Darwin's, and they existed 
for centuries prior to either of them writing about evolution. But, and 
this is a key issue, Hitler was also a believer in some wacko Sci-Fi 
called "The Coming Man", which advocated a hollow earth, and people more 
advanced than surface dwellers, and possessed of a psychic power so 
great that "children" with it could theoretically destroy worlds with 
it. He believed that Atlantis was a colony of these people, and that 
Aryans where descendants of them. Worse, there is even evidence to 
suggest that many children of "lesser races", who disappeared in 
Germany, during his power, died in rituals intended to "generate" this 
Vril energy.

The guy was a nutcase, who surrounded himself with other nut cases, and 
he would have, given his beliefs, had he had the change, probably would 
have elevated Lemark to a high position, and had Darwin shot for calling 
him no better than a slightly different kind of monkey.

Science had nothing to do with driving this morons ideas, other than 
that it because a convenient tool for them. Same with the morons in the 
US with Eugenics. It was religions and belief in superiority of races 
*first*, and science only second. You might as well blame a knife for 
choosing to stab someone, instead of slicing bread. No one was listening 
to the science, except when they thought it said what they wanted it to. 
Nor where any of them willing to wait, to make sure it *did* say what 
they lept to claim it did.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an 
>>>> incredible lot
>>>> of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on 
>>>> darwinism,
>>> Uh, no? There was neither natural selection involved, nor change over
>>> several generations. Why was it based more on darwinism than invading 
>>> Russia
>>> was?
>>
>> As you mention it - yes, invading eastern Europe and later Russia was 
>> along the
>> same lines. "Lebensraum im Osten" ("room to live in the east") was the 
>> motto of
>> that.
> 
> Neither had anything to do with Darwin or evolution. Nazis merely 
> claimed they did. Nazis lied. What a surprise.
> 
Actually, as I said already some place else, no they didn't. Hitler was 
quite clear in the *one* speech that he made which actually mentions 
Darwin. He considered Darwin to be *wrong* because Darwin's ideas 
suggested that "fittest" was not the same as "most advanced", and he 
actually dared suggest in his book that black people might one day be 
the same as whites, and it was not evolution that made them live like 
they did, but circumstances.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message