Posted on 09/18/2007 10:23:38 AM PDT by spirited irish
No problem when stated this way.
The pejorative sense of the word comes from defending the indefensible.
The threatened torture of Galileo, for example. Or the Inquisition. Or opposition to science in general.
Then it follows that some neo-Darwinists are apologists.
BTW, Plato gives Socrates' "apology" -- in the sense of "taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations" -- in its classical form.
However, Wikipedia -- not surprisingly -- gets it wrong when they say that "'being deceptive', or 'whitewashing' their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones **," are "the techniques of classical rhetoric." Nothing could be farther from the truth: They are the techniques of sophism, against which Socrates and Plato waged unremitting war -- in defense of classical reason. Indeed, it would be unexceptional to state that the reason the "gadfly" Socrates was accused of "impiety" and "contributing to the delinquency of minors" (charges that convicted him and led to his death) was because he offended too many sophists and their politically ambitious followers....
Hello! and greetings to Virginia-American and longshadow, your fellow "brothers in pondscum." Nice try, but it doesn't wash.
It is interesting that so many science threads end up with sidebars on semantics. As in so many other cases, the term "apologist" can be delivered academically or pejoratively.
I can prove to you that I never threatened torture of Galileo, , or was involved in the Inquisition, nor shown opposition to science in general. ;-)
Now, I have had a few choice words I would have said to the person who developed Differential Equations, but we don’t need to go there.
Then it follows that some neo-Darwinists are apologists.
***Yup, and you stole the wind from my sails — that’s where I was headed. I was going to drop that one on Coyoteman, but he of course could see it coming from a mile away. That’s probably why he didn’t want to answer the yes or no question.
LOLOL!
Ooooopppps, Kevmo -- I didn't mean to! Either way, our tag-teaming friends from "far away" are "hoist on their own petard".... :^)
Indeed. LOLOL!
Walter Mondale
2-HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS
3-WALTER MONDALE ~ Flo Certified as Humanist Counselor
As it is, evolutionary humanists do in fact reason, theorize, propose, presuppose, assume, hypothesize, count, weigh, measure, and practice science. They simply cannot give a philosophically principled account of how they “know” to do these things. All of which highlights the glaring dialectical tensions (i.e., hypocrisy, revisionism, deceptions, self-delusions, outright lying, mysticism) which of necessity are endemic to the humanist worldview.
Yet despite its colossal intellectual and moral failings, Evolutionary Humanism is now the dominant worldview in our secularized schools, colleges, universities, and government at every level. Additionally, it has made inroads into Christian schools, seminaries, and churches.
Regarding education in America, its’ direction can be seen as a downward spiral from Jonathan Edwards (1750) and the Christian influence, down to Horace Mann (1842) and the Unitarian influence, and yet further down to John Dewey (1933) and the evolutionary humanist take-over of our education institutions.
In the words of Charles F. Potter, signatory of the first Humanist Manifesto, 1933,
“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teachings?”
Today, our classrooms are but transmission belts for the weird moral fetishes of humanist indoctrination; a mind-befogging and immorality-inducing process that leads to the adoption of atheism, materialism, politically correct ‘new morality,’ inhumanity, evolutionism, Cultural Marxism, New World Orderism, multiculturalism, sexual egalitarianism (hedonism/androgyny), cruelty, and other destructive anti-traditional views. As a consequence, Americans (and Christians) are walking away from America’s founding worldview — as well as God and their inalienable rights — due to the teaching of Evolutionary Humanism.
After being befuddled, filled with unreasoning hatred and paranoid fear of God, Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and traditional-values America, Americans’ become their own worst enemies. For as they mindlessly destroy traditional-values America in pursuit of universal peace, tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, they are unknowingly setting the stage for their own eventual enslavement and perhaps even death, as Evolutionary Humanism has a proven track-record of mass murder (genocide).
A brief comparison of our founding worldview versus Evolutionary Humanism’s three major permutations — Secular Humanism, Leninism-Marxism, and Post Modernism, will show us why this is occurring.
America’s Founding Judao-Christian Worldview
1. Theology: biblical theism
2. Philosophy: God/supernaturalism/metaphysics
3. Ethics: moral absolutes/Ten Commandments/sanctity of life
4. Biology: Creation
5. Psychology: mind/body dualism
6. Sociology: traditional family, church, state
7. Law: Divine/Natural Law
8. Politics: inalienable rights, individual freedom, justice, order
9. Economics: stewardship of property (private property), free markets
Secular Humanism, Marxism-Leninism, Post Modernism
1. Theology: atheism, atheism, atheism
2. Philosophy: naturalism, dialectical materialism, anti-realism
3. Ethics: moral relativism, proletariat morality, moral and cultural relativism
4. Biology: neo-Darwinism, punctuated evolution, punctuated evolution
5. Psychology: monism (self-actualization), monism (behaviorism), monism (socially constructed selves)
6. Sociology: alternative lifestyles and State control of children, classless society and State control of children, sexual egalitarianism and State control of children
7. Law: positive law, proletariat law, critical legal studies
8. Politics: secular world government, communist world government, secular world government
9. Economics: state control of resources, scientific socialism, state control of resources
As can be seen by this brief comparison, Evolutionary Humanism is not just the antithesis of our founding worldview, it is completely destructive of it as well.
Observes William F. Buckley on the disintegration of traditional-values America:
“The most influential educators of our time — John Dewey, William Kilpatrick, George Counts, Harold Rugg, and the lot — are out to build a New Social Order. There is not enough room...for...religion (Christianity). It clearly won’t do...to foster within some schools a respect for an absolute, intractable God, a divine intelligence who is utterly unconcerned with other people’s versions of truth... It won’t do to tolerate a competitor for the allegiance of man. The State prefers a secure monopoly for itself... Religion (Christianity), then, must go... The fight is being won. Academic freedom is entrenched. Religion (Christianity) is outlawed in public schools. The New Social Order is larruping along.” (”Let Us Talk of Many Things,” p. 9-10)
I will readily concede that many science writers are incompetent or incautious.
I will concede that some competent scientists write rubbish outside their field of training.
I would tend to apply the term apologetics to criticisms of science based on writings rather than on primary data or on widely affirmed theoretical interpretations.
In the words of Charles F. Potter, signatory of the first Humanist Manifesto, 1933,
“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teachings?”
***Bump for later reference so I don’t have to remember who wrote this.
[statement B]What math and science both have that philosophy and theology lack is a combination of usefulness, internal consistency, and cross cultural consensus.
That was something you said, ostensibly as a clarification of:
[statement A]Logic is of little value when you set up your definitions so you can’t lose an argument.
Now, you have clarified statement B with the summation:
[statement C]Both math and science are judged primarily by their usefulness.
I think it is fair enough to conclude your statement A was a was not worthy of what seems to be a more reasonable view on your part. Whether you own up or not, let us proceed as if it were a misstatement.
As I understand it, the original motivation behind statement A was that philosophy and theology were too "convenient" in the way they were set up. But that seems rather close to the criteria you say we judge science and math on: usefulness. Where "convenience" is bad, and "usefulness" is good.
I will grant you there may be a difference between the two, but it seems you are a hair's breadth from supporting some philosophies on the same grounds that you show disdain for others. Perhaps you should flesh out this difference a little. Might it be that you would have to consider some theology "useful"? From a Darwinian view, why else would our species have evolved a positive disposition to it?
Alas, I'm even afraid the problem with an original causality argument that set all this off, is not just that it was too "convenient", but that it was too "convenient" at what it was "used" for. Specifically to debunk naturalism.
Now if that is not a use one likes, then I suppose one should reject such arguments for not being "useful". And indeed some cultures will probably be prone to reject it more then others, although acceptance and rejection of such is probably more closely tied to subcultures. For instance rejection among naturalists and atheists might be almost universal. For them a good argument against their belief system has very little use.
With that, I'm afraid the fork should be stuck in this one. Its done.
I will readily concede that many science writers are incompetent or incautious.
***OK, makes sense.
I will concede that some competent scientists write rubbish outside their field of training.
***OK again, makes sense.
I would tend to apply the term apologetics to criticisms of science based on writings rather than on primary data or on widely affirmed theoretical interpretations.
***What? Here it appears to me that you’re trying to stick to a connotative meaning of the word “apologetics”, am I right? In your own words, “The pejorative sense of the word comes from defending the indefensible.” Why not just drop the useless word and substitute what you really mean, like I was asking of Coyoteman? The insinuation coming from evolutionists appears to be “You seem to be doing pure ‘defense of religious beliefs.’”
...to criticisms of science based on writings rather than on primary data or on widely affirmed theoretical interpretations.
***Please have a look at post #185 and show me where I have criticized science, or ignored primary data. That whole comment on “widely affirmed theoretical interpretations” is pretty much what this thread is about. The first guys to propose continental drift theory were going against “widely affirmed theoretical interpretations” at the time, but exactly what science was being disregarded? NONE. The fact that most scientists at the time didn’t accept the proposal is an indicator that using this as a measure is unacceptably wrongheaded. Science is not a popularity contest.
I know a fair amount about the history of this, because I took Physical Geology just a couple of years before plate tectonics was announced. The opposition to continental drift as based on the lack of a mechanism making it possible. Most geologists believed it happened; they just didn't know how. My class presented all the known supporting evidence (of which there was a lot).
Continental drift accounted for a lot of data, but didn't explain what was going on. Science was correct to be agnostic about a hypothesis that appeared to defy physics.
I don't spend a lot of time arguing about word usage, because words don't change facts on the ground. If you don't approve someone's use of the term apologetics, that's fine with me. I merely described what I think is going on. Anti-evolutionists throw up a huge smoke screen of arguments from consequence and arguments from misquotation to hide the fact that all available evidence is compatible with common descent.
Useful is a loaded word. Evolution describes how inherited characteristics affect reproductive success. Not all "useful" traits involve physical prowess. Some, like peacock feathers and verbal fluency, just increase a male's chances of getting laid. I wouldn't be surprised if religious behavior fell into this category, but such speculations are cheap, and worth every penny.
I have found the scientific response to continental drift to be instructive in terms of how science deals with controversies. When scientism adherents fall back on the “most scientists believe” argument, it rings hollow with me.
Again I ask you to please look at #185 and let us know what science has been overlooked or disregarded.
Some Wikipedia notes on Continental Drift and the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
One of the main problems with Wegener’s theory was that he believed that the continents “plowed” through the rocks of the ocean basins. Most geologists did not believe that this could be possible. In fact, the biggest objection to Wegener was that he did not have an acceptable theory of the forces that caused the continents to drift. He also ignored counter-arguments and evidence contrary to his theory and seemed too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence as being favorable to his theory.[4] For their part, the geologists ignored Wegener’s copious body of evidence, allowing their adherence to a theory to override the actual data, when the scientific method would seem to demand the reverse approach.
....snip....
However, acceptance was gradual. Nowadays it is universally supported; but even in 1977 a textbook could write the relatively weak: “a poll of geologists now would probably show a substantial majority who favor the idea of drift” and devote a section to a serious consideration of the objections to the theory.[6]
Good grief! Was it not "usefulness" that you just declared was an important distinction between math and science vs philosophy and theology?
Whose side of the argument are you on? Mine? Are you trying to demonstrate that your early statement was wanting?
Perhaps the author of this 'manifesto' should speak for himself. He may be a barnacle. . .I've never met him.
The word useful can have different technical meanings in different contexts.
I'm sure the adherents of any particular religion find it useful, but my comments concerned the union set of useful and cross cultural.
Science and math have controversies at their leading edges, but generate consensus as ideas are tested and confirmed. Religion and philosophy have no methods or track record for creating consensus. The record is one of generating schisms, sects, heresies, denominations.
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.