Posted on 04/29/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Postmodernism At Work
The following two statements are parts of comments made on the Free Republic forum in response to Pamela Hewitt's "Problems of Evolution."
"Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data." (—allmendream)
All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved! (—Coyoteman)
Normally, I would not bother with such mindless statements, but they just happen to perfectly exemplify the post-modernist nonsense that is being taught in today's colleges and universities. It is why we are living in the age of gullibility. Do not suppose this is just ignorance, however. These things are being taught with a purpose. The idea is, if you convince people nothing is ever certain, proved, or absolute, you can then put over just anything and call it science.
If "nothing in science is ever proven:"
I must assume these two have "living wills" specifying that cardioversion or defibrillation is not to be used on them since the principle of using electricity to convert a fibrillaing heart to a sinus rhythm has never been proved.
I am going to feel very sorry for these two if they ever need an operation, since the efficacy of anesthesia (once a great scientific controversy) has never been proved.
And they must really be missing out on all those television programs and phone calls transmitted by satellites launched into orbit around the earth's equator at a distance of about 22,300 miles which maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour, because, according to them, the physical principles such satellites are based on have never been proved.
They must only use electricity if it does not come from nuclear power plants, since the scientific principles describing a sustained chain nuclear reaction have never been proved. (Maybe they use no electricity at all, since they are sure the theory of combustion and Ohm's law have never been proved either.)
Nor must they use computers, or any other electronic devices that would not and could not work if the theories of electronics and quantum mechanics they are based on were not proved. They must avoid all Sky Scrapers because the laws of physics which are the basis of their engineering from the materials used to the structural design would fail if those physical principles were mere unproven hypotheses which, according to them, they are.
I do not know what planet these two live on, but on this planet the principle of an electric current being generated simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire discovered by Michael Faraday, who was considered a charlatan by his contemporaries, has been proved. The unbelieved assertions by Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi that wireless communication is possible, has been proved.
What kind of demented mind can insist that nothing in science has been proved? One that assumes things without evidence, based on nothing more than the fact someone does not accept their particular faith. Here is the evidence (a concept totally foreign to such second-hand minds).
"Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. ... Nothing better than an educated layman."
The fact that the "nurse" happens to be a degreed geneticist who has both worked in the field and lectured in it as well, these dimwits did not bother to discover. Evidence is not something they care about, since their cherished faith is being threatened by objective questions their little minds are incapable of answering.
They are dripping with hubris and patent snobbery, exactly like those "scientists" who were publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible while two laymen, who were obviously not educated well enough to learn what they were doing was "scientifically" impossible, were too busy flying to notice. According to these two jokers, the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has never been proved. They're still waiting for, "further data."
If you believe nothing in science has been proved, it makes it easy to swallow totally made up stories such as the following:
"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;" [From Rutgers University]
What's the difference between "unequivocally established" and "proved?" In normal English, even as spoken by scientists, there is no difference; but these story tellers can always say they never said it was "proved" we all came from a common ancestor. It's meant to deceive and gain unquestioned acceptance.
And it's pure fiction. There is no way such a thing could possibly be established. If evolution could happen once, there is nothing in reason or evidence that even suggests it could not happen more than once or even hundreds or thousands of times; but it's happening more than once would not fit their story, so just ignore that fact and present your story as, "unequivocally established," and all the gullible academics will swallow it whole.
Nice try.
But if you are accusing me of having a "beginners mind" like a 21-year-old I take that as a compliment, though I am sure you didn't mean it that way.
Yes, Hank, I agree with your comments about how this site has been taken over and swamped out with people very different to those who used to be here.
I gave up on it when I realised it no longer supported the American Constitution - read the responses to Ilana Mercers article about the wrong being done to a religious sect in Texas.
And after reading the disgusting filth hurled at Ron Paul at this site, I really knew the leftie luvver greenie post modern idiots had swamped the place and left.
I only returned to read this thread after you bringing it to my attention.
I doubt I’ll ever be back though. Who’d want to start their day reading this sort of abusive revolting stuff?
Cheers and all the best
Very interesting article and thread. Thanks to all contributors.
I have to tell you, I so totally enjoyed your post that I don’t even care that I do not agree with one thing you said. Russell, Whitehead (the total mystic) and Wittgenstein (the repressed pedophile) were perhaps the most dangerous philosophers since Hume and Kant, but you at least know when you are spouting nonsense, they never did.
Thank you so much for your intelligent and erudite, though I think mistaken, comments.
Hank
“most dangerous philosophers since Hume and Kant”
Do you object to Berkley and Hegel as well?
:-)
It is a point of national pride that we are second to nobody in the world in particle Physics, and we can do the research right here in the U.S.A.. Moreover particle accelerator technology has improved our knowledge and use of magnetics and super-conduction as well as Physics. The rail gun is probably directly attributable to accelerator technology.
And I do agree with Wilson about the greatness of Science as a pursuit in and of itself; without regard to its applicability to making bullets or bombs.
I do not know to what extent I am for government spending on any of the things that make our Nation great (art, poetry, music, science); but the moon shot and a major particle accelerator are two endeavors that would wait possibly forever for private industry; if not for visionary Statesmen who also saw it as a point of National pride to have these things accomplished by America.
Our government spends over a trillion a year nowadays, at lest we have a few things to show for it; Scientific accomplishments like putting men on the moon, and particle accelerators not being the least of it. After all we shouldn't spend it ALL on graft, welfare, Medicaid, social security, foreign aid, and national defense.
Ms. Hewitt has said she will make comments regarding her post, but only on The Autonomist.
http://theautonomist.com/home/
due to an oversight the post no. 62 addressed to weatherwax is actually addressed to you.
Keep me on...
Maybe you are just confused.
Confused. Way Confused.
Here is a hint. Fire melts steel. ;) Go tell it to Rosie O’Doughnut and Ron Paul. Or is Ron Paul still too busy publishing a Neo-Nazi newsletter under his name?
“Here rests in Honored Glory
An American Soldier
Known But to God”
Unfortunately, I am at the stage where the information I am looking for is not yet in print.
I usually research a “Protein of Interest” only to find that all the things that I want to know about it are “awaiting publication”.
This is what you think science is?
“Science IS debate. You make an assertion and back it with logic and evidence. Your opponent makes a counter assertion an hopefully has logical reasoning and evidence to back their claim. Science evolves through the filter (natural selection) of logic and evidence. Hypotheses that canot (sic) survive logic and evidence perish; those that can, propagate”
You think there are “opponents” in science? Is it some kind of game to you? Do you not know real scientists are all allies in the search for the truth of the nature of reality?
Hank
You really have to ask?
Object, is not exactly the right word, though, It's just that they were wrong about so much, which would not matter, if their influence was not so great. (Actually, I believe Hegel was demented.)
I've not reached them yet, but if you are interested, I have some comments on Hume, who begin all the "skepticism" that led to the destruction of philosophy that was just beginning to get back on track with Locke (read Aristotle).
10. Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 1 of 4
11. Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 2 of 4
12. Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 3 of 4
13. Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 4 of 4
If you bother with these (a part of an uncompleted series of article) you will at least understand the reasoning behind much of what I've said on this thread. Hank
I tried to register for Hewitt’s preferred debate site, but for some reason I get no response.
I wish it were true. But the global warming debate is an obvious example of where you are wrong. The history of science has been one of competing schools making competing claims. Evidence and logic tipped the balance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.