Skip to comments.
Assault on Science Spreads
Objectivist Center ^
| 2/3/04
| Edward Hudgins
Posted on 02/03/2004 6:36:45 PM PST by RJCogburn
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-252 next last
To: Aquinasfan
The Objectivists can't tell the difference between science and philosophy. Before science was called "science" it was known as "natural philosophy," to distinguish it from theology. Both endeavors were embraced by the term "philosophy," and are distinguised by their epistemological techniques. Early scientists, like Galileo and Newton, were known as philosophers. Even as recently as Darwin's time, the term "philosopher" was used to describe him. Our word "scientist" is a relatively recent coinage. This is why, even today, the advanced academic degree in the sciences is known as a PhD -- doctor of philosophy.
41
posted on
02/04/2004 7:40:15 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Theory: a comprehensible, falsifiable, cause-and-effect explanation of verifiable facts.)
To: PatrickHenry
and are distinguised distinguished
42
posted on
02/04/2004 7:42:18 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Theory: a comprehensible, falsifiable, cause-and-effect explanation of verifiable facts.)
To: PatrickHenry
Several assumptions are necessary for modern science to operate, such as the following. Words represent real essences that are knowable to everyone. We can trust the evidence of our senses. These assumptions are undercut by Rand's materialist philosophy, making any scientific endeavor logically impossible.
43
posted on
02/04/2004 8:21:31 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: CobaltBlue
Hmmm...Some underlying racial motif to creationism?..Seems like a reach to me. I suspect it is more like conspiracy thinkers. They demand absolute complete evidence of the theory. When presented with 99.8% of the evidence they cite the 0.2% missing evidence as proof that the theory is wrong and then proceed to adopt a position that has ZERO evidence as correct and undeniably true.
I don't begrudge a man his faith. Faith is unarguable because it is not rooted in the observable and the measurable. I do begrudge anyone who attempts to label his faith as Science which IS rooted in the observable and the measurable.
44
posted on
02/04/2004 9:02:28 AM PST
by
tcuoohjohn
(Follow The Money)
To: cripplecreek
Personally i dont see evolution and creationism as being mutually exclusive of each other. teach both. But remember one goes in Science class and one goes in Comparative Religion.
To: CobaltBlue
Yes...it does have a certain obsessional quality to it. I have always wondered why there is a near universal belief in god theories among all cultures. Believers would say it is prima facie evidence of the existence of God. I would suggest it is evidence of a universal neurological basis for the god belief. Perhaps a deep brain function enhanced by cultural factors and behavioral principles.
46
posted on
02/04/2004 9:14:23 AM PST
by
tcuoohjohn
(Follow The Money)
To: Dimensio
Brilliant..
47
posted on
02/04/2004 9:17:31 AM PST
by
tcuoohjohn
(Follow The Money)
To: Aquinasfan
I have always considered Rand to be a neurotic rather than a philosopher.. What is " Objectivism" but a blatant rip off of German Rationalism and British Empiricism? She stitched up a quilt of patchwork philo and stuck her own name to it.." Objectivism"...she also coupled it with some of the most turgid prose since Kant.
48
posted on
02/04/2004 9:24:20 AM PST
by
tcuoohjohn
(Follow The Money)
To: tcuoohjohn
I've never been able to read Rand's stuff about objectivism, but like many conservatives had my eyes opened at an early age by reading her fiction. For that, I will always be grateful. Yes, the prose was a mite purple but for the times it read just fine.
I heard her last public speech, "The Sanction of the Victim", given in New Orleans in 1981, to a gold bug's convention, and it was excellent. She was riveting, electrifying. The audience leaped to its feet and just roared when she was done.
I don't agree with her 100%, because I believe that altruism can fulfill ones' own needs and thus ultimately is selfish, and self-fulfilling. But she is dead-on that collectivists victimize producers by preying on their sense of altruism.
To: longshadow
Oooo! A Festival of Anti-Darwin Harpies AND Rand-Haters all in a single thread. Anti-Science meets anti-reason. Please check your brain at the door.
To: Jeff Gordon
Ignorance is bliss. Was that an impromptu confession?
51
posted on
02/04/2004 10:08:22 AM PST
by
_Jim
( <--- Ann C. and Rush L. speak on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
To: Modernman
What hair color does the mailman have? :-) I dunno ... uh, can you explain why you and your brothers and sisters all have tails, posses a penchant for 'fetching' newspapers and 'pant' when they get hot?
52
posted on
02/04/2004 10:11:32 AM PST
by
_Jim
( <--- Ann C. and Rush L. speak on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
To: Still Thinking
Your parents both carry the recessive gene for blondness. The gene is called ... So ... do the 'creationists' buy into to the presence of these genes and the effects differing genetics of 'father and mother' can have?
Or is that part of the dreaded 'evolutionist' agenda?
53
posted on
02/04/2004 10:23:51 AM PST
by
_Jim
( <--- Ann C. and Rush L. speak on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
To: Modernman; CobaltBlue
I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that if you scratch a creationist, this is what you'll find hidden in the deepest recesses of his or her mind.Creationist are racists now? Nice.
I love it. It's probably painful to a lot of fundamentalists that Jesus looked a lot more like the average Middleasterner than the average Midwesterner.
What you are suggesting is a complete contradiction of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists staunchly defend the Bible as the infallable word of God. Biblical accuracy is paramount to fundamentalism. The notion that fundamentalists would somehow prefer an anglo-saxon Jesus to a middle-eastern one goes against the very definition of the word.
54
posted on
02/04/2004 10:25:04 AM PST
by
agrace
To: _Jim
I don't think they associate the role of genes with evolution.
To: Still Thinking
I don't think they associate the role of genes with evolution.How 'locked in' are they on pure 'creationism' - do they acknowledge the role that cell division, reproduction and furthermore, the reproductive process which involves passing half the genes from the male and female to the offspring of our species plays?
56
posted on
02/04/2004 10:35:47 AM PST
by
_Jim
( <--- Ann C. and Rush L. speak on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
To: tcuoohjohn
I have always considered Rand to be a neurotic rather than a philosopher... That's it in a nutshell.
She stitched up a quilt of patchwork philo and stuck her own name to it.."
That's my take on it too.
57
posted on
02/04/2004 10:45:16 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: Jeff Gordon
Very funny. Well, let's look at the verses you cited. Hmm, seems to me that the woman sets herself apart for those 7 days, so that others know that she is unclean. If you were an Israelite of the time of Moses, no doubt you didn't have to ask, as it was probably a non-issue around the neighborhood. Mom maybe stayed inside during her time of the month so as to limit interaction with others. Family members who did interact with her followed cleanliness instructions so they could leave the house in the morning. Ancient hygiene 101.
And speaking of unclean, a number of the Hebrew laws dealt with cleanliness issues from which we have no real danger in today's world of refrigeration, decontamination and antibacterial soap. As a result, you "deal with this particular code" every day. Bathing, laundry and proper disposal of waste material...hey, just like the ancient Hebrews. Imagine that.
58
posted on
02/04/2004 10:47:40 AM PST
by
agrace
To: agrace
Well, there is the little matter of Bob Jones University's ban on interracial dating, which, yes I know, have since been rescinded due to public pressure, but it was there for quite a while.
There is a very large overlap between fundamentalists and members of the KKK and/or Christian Identity groups and/or Aryan Nation. Most Klan members are Southern Baptists, but of course not all Southern Baptists are Klan members. Not anymore, anyway.
Being in the Klan used to be the way to get ahead in the South, everybody who was anybody was in the Klan, unless, of course, you were a Catholic or a Jew or some other "inferior" religion.
To: RJCogburn
Hell, NASA went all the way to Mars in search of a couple of drops of water and nobody's mad at them.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-252 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson