Replies

“So quit putting words in my mouth”

Your words:
“Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
In response to my observation that “You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that is was for ‘philosophical nonsense,” you replied, “Yes, thought meandering. Philosophical thought is only loosely related to logic” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
“I believe that philosophy was, in fact, an attempt at understanding the physical world--but it wasn't up to the task, and left people unsatisfied” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
“While philosophy was not a subject we studied in the graduate biochemistry program, I am not unaware of it.” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
“If you spend your whole life gathering information, and you fill up a warehouse of terabyte size disks with the information you gathered, you are still not engaging in science, because that information by itself is meaningless” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
“we don't delve into the existentialist nonsense that is typical of the subject philosophy” (#506, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert)
“Philosophy (the discipline) is almost the antithesis of what science is all about: a very lot of thought exercises, which have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. I have no use for it.”(#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
#149 – “The creation story is absolutely useless as a scientific methodology. It is also useless for cooking, architecture, civil engineering, musical composition and performance, etc.”

“In other words, you did not read allmendream's post in its entirety, and you are committing the same dishonest tactic that we can see used among the charlatans selling young earth creationism: using quotes out of context to try to "prove" scientists mean something different than what they actually said.”

Prove it. Provide the “context.” Quote amd’s own words. Cite the post #. Explain the relevance of your examples. I’ve been reading amd’s posts for five years. I could engage amd in virtually daily debates over these issues should I chose to waste my time on such an enterprise.

When you were reminded that you were quick to report that the Tuskegee Experiment had been terminated and that steps had been taken to assure that a repetition would not be allowed, you responded, “Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?” (#658,Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert) As though you regard Science as being superior and in opposition to Judeo-Christianity (existential nonsense). That true?

Some of your smoke screens:

#149 - "being a Christian is not contingent upon believing that every word in Genesis is literal."
I’ve not said they are (#155, my words - The some sixty-six odd books of the KJV translation all existed before anyone ever heard of a science textbook. As did the original transcripts from which the KJV was drawn, as well as the apocrypha, which was the task of one whole “company” of KJV translators, as well as the additional books of the RC bible. All are meant to convey the meaning of God’s Word and are to be interpreted literally, metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily. How are we to receive “Thou shalt not steal” if not literally?)
Try again.

#198 – “The question of how to conduct research ethically and humanely is still a huge topic of discussion. . . ”
Those outside the Science Community seemed to experience no difficulty with respect to the ethics and the humane conduct of the Tuskegee Experiment. Within the Science Community, public reaction came as a surprise? Or, as a scorned and detested reaction from a public of inferior quality best kept in the dark?
“--in PubMed, there are about 160,000 articles on “ethics” alone. The fact that we're still trying to come up with answers doesn't invalidate the effort.”
Who says it does? I thought “the subject never came up.”

#198 – “I have, very clearly and on several occasions, stated that the practitioner of science brings their values to the profession”
But none of these “values” were thought meandering? Existentialist nonsense? Whence come these values? Don’t try evasion; try citing a few examples.

Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #553 – “Their [Niels Bohr, Nicolaus Copernicus, René Descartes, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei Sir Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Aristotle] inclusion in an encyclopedia of philosophy does not make them philosophers. Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.”
You don’t know? You profess sufficient knowledge to declare them scientists, but suddenly it’s a new day and everything has gone blank. Close your eyes and open them anew. Maybe something else will come to you. Or, is your internet still buggy?

Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #549 – “The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists.”
Ibn al-Haytham, said by many to be the “inventor” of Science, came before the terms “Science” or “Scientist” even existed. Likewise Galileo Galilei, who practiced what was know as “Natural Philosophy” among other things. The first comprehensive documents categorizing and subdividing knowledge into different areas were done even earlier by Aristotle (physics, poetry, zoology, logic, rhetoric, politics, and biology), with whom you claim to be scarcely acquainted, little interested, and very dubious. So far as I know, Euclid (geometry) was, at most, a mathematician (or whatever they were called in his day). Roger Bacon, an English monk, described what came to be known as the Scientific Method, and René Descartes, for whom you express such disdain, first developed the Scientific Method. Sometime later the publishing of scholarly journals (1665) and “Peer review” (1675) was established, although King James commanded scholars to conduct what amounted to a book-by-book peer review of his Holy Bible KJV translation sometime earlier (in 1611). Even a Science Dummy like me knows that much.
You follow up by declaring “Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”
So you admit ignorance about the roots and origins of the discipline you so revere? Yet you declare the Scientific Method was developed by Scientists (before the term or the practice was even invented and gained currency)?

I have other issues:

You stated: in Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #668 – “Philosophical thought is only loosely related to logic.”
I asked, How would you know? The subject never came up.
Crickets.
“Just because it [Creationism] is useless for any number of human activities doesn't mean it is useless for its apparent intended purpose, which is to give us insight about our standing with God.”
Such as?

In Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #668 – “Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question.”
You profess to be a Christian, but have no clue where morality comes from?

You stated: #156 - “So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity?”
I asked, “Which obviates . . . what?”
Crickets.
For clarity I’ll add which proves what?

You stated: #149 - “I do not appreciate the fact that scientists are routinely called liars, accused of fabricating data, accused of following some oddball “Darwinism” religion . . . ”
I asked, When have I done those things?
Crickets.
#137 “As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.”
Meaning what? That anything not associated with science is useless?
Crickets.
from: Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #553, “Cogito ergo sum doesn't even come close to being a scientific concept.”
Meaning what? That anything not associated with science is useless?
Crickets.
“Cogito ergo sum answers one of the most disingenuous examples of the “thought meandering” for which you express so much scorn.
“Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.”
Meaning what? That anything not associated with science is useless?
Crickets.

“Science simply cannot function as an ideological support tool.”
Depends on the ideology.

“I have to repeat it, since you apparently did not (and still don't) understand the context.”

An assertion does not prove the fact. Repeating the assertion does not add to its credibility. Repeating the naked assertion a second time is a confession of intellectual poverty.

“No, that's not philosophy [referring to the old saw, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,  Courage to change the things I can,  And wisdom to know the difference”], and neither is the statement “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.” Those are sayings--short statements illustrating pieces of wisdom, formulated from people's empirical observations of human behavior.

“State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings.”
. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ME, Vol 5, pg 257)

Be they “sayings” (such as all men are created equal), or statements of longer duration, it's clear the intent of the quotes I’ve been throwing out is that they were meant to direct our affections and inform our values (something this writer humbly proposes to be the task of philosophy).

Definitions and “sayings” are supposed to facilitate communication, by contributing to the clarification or perfection of one’s understanding of things and ideas (philosophy). Instead they are too often used to denigrate; the intent not being clarification, but ambiguity. We see this in attempts to tie the failed social, economic and governmental theories of Marxism to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Those who “see” the connection have the burden of establishing the connection. The record would seem to indicate that Darwin neither intended nor saw any such connection, but that Marx & Engels did (as did many of their acolytes, even to this present day). Likewise, we see attempts to denigrate Christianity by describing any of its characteristics deemed objectionable as “Creationism,” and by attempting to shrink the concept down to “the Creation Story” (a technique otherwise known as Reductionist Deconstruction). The motive in neither of these two cases would hardly appear to be clarification, and the first casualty is usually communication in a blatant defiance of all the norms and conventions of meaning and human association. For example, when a call for surrender is made more palatable by renaming surrender a “compromise.”

The prostitution of meaning and human communication. In this forum an early manifestation of troll droppings.

For clarification, from #155, my words:
“When Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (the most famous words since the words of Christ), he was not speaking only his thoughts, but the thoughts of a whole people. God, the creator of Natural Law; God the giver of law to Man; the equality of all Men the gift of The Creator; unalienable rights the gift of The Creator. The Founding Fathers make it undeniably clear that the Creationist philosophy of Judeo-Christianity is central to their public and private perspectives regarding liberty. Look up the etymology of the word “Creator” (with a capital “C”), and its development following the printing of the KJV of the Holy Bible. It is said that that the KJV changed a nation, a language, and a culture.
“To rip out Creationism from Judeo-Christianity is to rip out the heart of the religion and leave only a husk. If God is not the creator of Mankind and of the Universe, then why is He worshiped by over two billion followers? And, why do one and a half billion more people try to piggyback their faith on the early events precipitated by the Judeo-Christian Creator?
“Creationism is not a religion . . . in the context we are discussing here, it is the most fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian religion – that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of Mankind and the Universe. Creationism does not inform the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is the Judeo-Christian religion that informs Creationism.”

Earlier I referenced your observation that “philosophy was, in fact, an attempt at understanding the physical world--but it wasn't up to the task, and left people unsatisfied.” Philosophy is about a whole lot more than “an attempt at understanding the physical world” but here’s the sticker: a totally naturalistic explanation cannot be proposed without “killing” God. Either Mankind and the Universe “like Topsy just growed” or it is a product of a Creation and a Creator. To propose Creation to somehow be antipathetic to Science is to propose a falsity.

All of these issues involve opinion and are a matter of value judgment. In the process, they render an obscenity the idea of a moral neutrality based on scientific ‘objectivity’ pretending that they can be discussed in a values vacuum.

Our friend boop put it in perspective some time ago, when she wrote that, “just because science cannot engage such problems [problems of ethics and morality] given its methodology (which is perfectly well-suited to the investigation of the phenomena of the natural world), does not mean that such human problems go away.”

Some time ago I described to you a group of scientists, and a group who represented themselves as spokesmen for scientists, who cited Science, specifically evolution, as being sufficient cause to deny the existence of God. You denied any knowledge of such a group, repudiated any connection with them, and rejected any responsibility for their behavior. As well you should, if that being your opinion of their worth.
I’ve also raised the issue of another group, imminent scientists and philosophers (Niels Bohr, Nicolaus Copernicus, René Descartes, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei Sir Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Aristotle, and the redoubtable Karl Popper), about whom you expressed vagueness and skepticism, in some cases questioning their scientific qualities, and in all cases denying any knowledge of other than their scientific accomplishments. Subsequent (and prior) remarks of yours cast doubt on your representations about the above mentioned groups. You somehow possess just enough info to respond to the issues you wish, and beyond that you then become Sergeant Schultz, knowing nothing. Not credible.

Give it up dear Lady. You’re busted. Your arguments are vapid and evasive. Everyone can see through your circumventions. You think to avoid taking responsibility for your advocacy by declaring disengagement from “philosophy” will permit you to stand off at a distance and snipe. Take responsibility for your advocacy.