Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

[ScottL]

I think you've confused Islamic extremism that thrives on dull witted individuals throughout the middle-east/central asia for Islam, which is a fairly peaceful religion. Extremism in any form, Islamic, Christian, Judaism, etc, is a bad thing.

I agree with your post except to note that your friends who seem so normal, whom we might call "moderate Muslims" or some such, though they might be in the majority where you work, are not in the majority on the planet, and indeed; Islam does have built into it extreme violence and intolerance. All of the worst stuff in Islam comes straight out of their scripture. For instance, they are not permitted according to their scriptures, to have you as a friend, to have you in their homes or to share a meal with you. The Koran is nothing like any other religious text and there are reasons why it stands out as the most violent religion in history. It is continually characterized by such violence, misogyny, honor killings of one's own family, religious imperialism, and complete lack of tolerance of any sort toward any other belief systems. If your friends are good people, its only because they're not good Muslims.

If you don't believe this, pick up a Koran.

The behavior Diogenes described is fairly rampant in the United States via Christians as well. Domestic violence and rape are far higher here per capita if you check the numbers, but we don't apply those bigotted generalizations to ourselves. Actually if you're Christian and are good people, you're probably not good Christians. If you don't believe me, pick up the bible, it's not a book of wholesome stories.

[choff]

A lot of respectable scientists used to believe in eugenics, and a lot of people think what they promote now is called 'soft kill eugenics'. I've read the climate gate emails, they weren't taken out of context, not when they repeat the same theme hundreds of times.

The current attitude of the AGW group is ' well yes we fudged the numbers and suppressed data and tried to shut people up, but we've rechecked our figures and have new data to support our old conclusions, so you can trust us now'.

Does it not occur to you that if they lied before we can reasonably conclude they're lying now.

I'm not going to address AGW arguments on this thread. It would go on forever and be OT.

As for "scientists believing in eugenics" I was not aware that eugenics was a scientific theory? But if it is you had better expand.

I thought it was a politically motivated breeding program.

I'm not saying scientists are any different from others when it comes to nasty politics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... early-days

If it wasn't for scientists backing the eugenics movement the politicians could never have made it into law, and not just a few. It had to have a broad base of support within the scientific community, with naysayers relegated to crackpot status, not unlike the global warming debates of today.

[GIThruster]

I want to make it clear by saying again, I am not anti-science, nor anti-scientist. My point was and is only that when someone's foundational beliefs are questioned, this causes angst and anger. This is what we observe and can understand as a simple cause/effect relation that demonstrates one way our emotions are connected to our beliefs. I do not think scientists have more of an issue here than the average man, though what counts as "foundational" may be different for many scientists.

Skippy, "foundational" beliefs is a relative term that considers how close to properly basic a belief is. In some forms of epistemology it refers to beliefs that cannot be adjusted or amended without a conversion like experience. If someone shows QM is wrong, I can promise you this will prove an exceedingly emotional issue for most scientists who understand what QM is, so QM is a foundational belief.

Whether or not a belief is foundational has nothing to do with whether it's a religious belief or not.

A "properly basic" belief is even more specific, and refers to those things that ought to be self apparent and cannot be proven. G.E.Moore is famous for the "This is my hand" argument. His point was that when he held up his hand and claimed it is his hand, that only an idiot would argue with him because this is a properly basic belief. Other things, like what is yellow and goodness are considered by common sense philosophers as properly basic because any attempt to define them simply shifts the burden of definition to something else.

Common Sense philosophy like this is really a polar response to the skeptics, who want to argue we don't and can't know anything. Given the way they define the problem of knowledge, they always win this argument. What they call "justification" for knowledge ensures we cannot ever know anything. Moore's point is really that we're best off to ignore such people and I agree. Of course, the fact my instructor for epistemology was a skeptic didn't make this an easy task.

Alvin Plantinga's contribution extends Moore's work to precise how it is we apprehend truths and facts, including but not limited to those that are properly basic. His contention is that it is through the "proper function" of our noetic faculties that we apprehend truth and fact, and goes on to draw from the reformed tradition to explain what is necessary for this "proper function". Some of it is obvious. It takes a madman to deny his hand is his hand.

[choff]

Here's a good essay on the subject.

http://www.crichton-official.com/essay- ... erous.html

[happyjack27]

Disclaimer: I've only read the original post. It and the title are interesting enough to respond to alone. I think there are two streams of thought involved here: that which is postmodernism and that which is definitely not
but would like to be mistaken for such because they sense that postmodernism is thought of as having substance, and that's what they would like, but they don't want to work for it, and after all, what they have is superficially similar to pomo, isn't Pomo all about superficialism?

First off, he'll f'in no! Pomo starts with science and builds off of it. And you can't truly start with something with out first getting to it. so does Pomo contradict any scientific principles? That's a retarded question. Scientific principles cannot be refuted. If you don't understand why that's true, you don't understand what science is. Here's a shortcut to understanding: take all tours doubts and skepticism about what science is: your doubts and skepticism about what science is, is what science actually is: those doubts nd skepticisms.

Okay, so now pomo. Pomo does not refute science. It cannot. Pomo looks for quicker and more scientific ways of doing
science. For instance, shotgun gene sequenceing. That is an excellent example of postmodernism. You don't have to do things sequentially, just make darn sure math works out.

[Skipjack]

If it wasn't for scientists backing the eugenics movement the politicians could never have made it into law, and not just a few. It had to have a broad base of support within the scientific community, with naysayers relegated to crackpot status, not unlike the global warming debates of today.

Eugenics was most of all morally wrong. Morals back then were different than they are today. Dont forget that at the time it was still common for the English Gentleman to go hunting for Aborigenees in Australia. Luckily our moral understanding has changed and we neither find Eugenics acceptable, nor do we find hunting the native people of some continent or country.

[MSimon]

My viewpoint here is not in any way anti-religion. I'm just anti-religion pretending to be science. Most theologists would agree I think.

I place no reliance on virgin or pigeon. My method is science my aim is religion.

It is my opinion that religion lies mostly in the amygdala.

[GIThruster]

Here's a good essay on the subject.

http://www.crichton-official.com/essay- ... erous.html

The best essay I've read in many months. Excellent stuff.

[choff]

If it wasn't for scientists backing the eugenics movement the politicians could never have made it into law, and not just a few. It had to have a broad base of support within the scientific community, with naysayers relegated to crackpot status, not unlike the global warming debates of today.

Eugenics was most of all morally wrong. Morals back then were different than they are today. Dont forget that at the time it was still common for the English Gentleman to go hunting for Aborigenees in Australia. Luckily our moral understanding has changed and we neither find Eugenics acceptable, nor do we find hunting the native people of some continent or country.

Quite right, we don`t hunt aborigenees anymore, we dupe poor countries into taking on loans with crushing interest rates, that way we can starve them to death.

If TC really though about it, his disapproval of what GIT has said is more a case of slaying the messanger because he doesn`t like the message.

[303]

These 'poor' countries are the ones asking for the loans in the first place, and accept the conditions.
Choff, isnt it moral relativism to attach blame to the money lenders, who could just tell these poor countries to swivel and leave them to rot.

[tomclarke]

If it wasn't for scientists backing the eugenics movement the politicians could never have made it into law, and not just a few. It had to have a broad base of support within the scientific community, with naysayers relegated to crackpot status, not unlike the global warming debates of today.

Eugenics was most of all morally wrong. Morals back then were different than they are today. Dont forget that at the time it was still common for the English Gentleman to go hunting for Aborigenees in Australia. Luckily our moral understanding has changed and we neither find Eugenics acceptable, nor do we find hunting the native people of some continent or country.

Quite right, we don`t hunt aborigenees anymore, we dupe poor countries into taking on loans with crushing interest rates, that way we can starve them to death.

If TC really though about it, his disapproval of what GIT has said is more a case of slaying the messanger because he doesn`t like the message.

If (as GIT now says) he is not specifically saying scientists are specially corrupt then that is OK. Everyone is human. Large sections of most populations have had objectionable (to us) political views. Objectionable (to us) politics does not make bad, or good science. It is separate.

There is an argument about the politically proper use of science, and whether that is scientists's responsibility -= but that is now way OT.

Just some random points:
"Islam is horrible". No, Islamic cultures are often horrible, having direct cultural connection to patriarchal, oppressive to women, honour-bound and violent, nomadic cultures.

The prophet (if you read) was for his time and culture remarkably moderate. The Qu'ran can be read to justify anything, as can the Bible, but the NT and the Prophet are broadly enlightened whereas the OT is just unpleasant (you know, Lot commended for willingness to give his daughteRs to strangers for sex etc). So lets not exchange Qu'ranic or Biblical quotes. There are lots.

If you say Islam is horrible, you should say Christianity is horrible. Worth noting that Christian fundamentalist sects often seem to be equally horrible. Also note that the Roman Catholic church has institutionalised the practice and cover-up of paedophilia for a long time.though we in the West may look at middle-eastern cultures with superiority we ourselves are but a century from equal abuses, and have our own now that we do not like to look at.

So how about saying people can be horrible, religious institutions can often abet this, and some cultures are more enlightened than others?

Having established that people can be horrible, the process by which scientific theories are improved (in spite of what the 4 irrationalists say it is improved) works pretty well. It does not have to select the "best" theory immediately. With hindsight we can do that, but things are usually unclear in the transition.

Look at dark matter/dark energy and mysterioius "inflation" in cosmology. We have reached a stage where it is clear the existing theory is broken, we just don't yet know which if any of the candidate replacements will pan out,

[tomclarke]

If it wasn't for scientists backing the eugenics movement the politicians could never have made it into law, and not just a few. It had to have a broad base of support within the scientific community, with naysayers relegated to crackpot status, not unlike the global warming debates of today.

Eugenics was most of all morally wrong. Morals back then were different than they are today. Dont forget that at the time it was still common for the English Gentleman to go hunting for Aborigenees in Australia. Luckily our moral understanding has changed and we neither find Eugenics acceptable, nor do we find hunting the native people of some continent or country.

Quite right, we don`t hunt aborigenees anymore, we dupe poor countries into taking on loans with crushing interest rates, that way we can starve them to death.

If TC really though about it, his disapproval of what GIT has said is more a case of slaying the messanger because he doesn`t like the message.

I was not claiming scientists are politically any better or worse than the rest of the population. Just that saying scientific institutions are broke because of corrupt practicses like sexual favours and power struggles is unfair. Of course wherever there is power you get power struggles and institutional politics, but scientists generally do this les than other people - they are selected not to want power, but to be curious about the world. And sexual favours are part of humanity's practice, not restricted to academia.

The context of GITs remarks is he was trying to claim that scientists have emotional problems that usually prevent the proper appreciation of new theories. Now maybe there was no connection, and he was merely noting that scientists like others have human vices, but I think more was intended. You should read the original thread for context.

[AcesHigh]

If you don't believe this, pick up a Koran.

have you ever read the bible? There are apologism to slavery, honor killings, rape, incest, obligatory religious wars, and so on.

[Betruger]

pick up the bible, it's not a book of wholesome stories.

All religions are steeped in violence this way.

[GIThruster]

If you say Islam is horrible, you should say Christianity is horrible. Worth noting that Christian fundamentalist sects often seem to be equally horrible.. . .

So how about saying people can be horrible, religious institutions can often abet this, and some cultures are more enlightened than others?

You missed the point, Tom. There is a difference in kind between Islam and all the other world religions. It is unique in many ways that you're glossing over. It is the only religion that in its core scripture, rationalizes all these things we're objecting to.

It's true there is probably some Christian sect somewhere that justifies misogynist attitudes from some special reading of the bible, but this would certainly require a very special reading, since the NT teaches that women are "joint heirs in the grace of life" and should be treated as equals. It is the teachings from the NT that produced equality between the sexes. The Koran teaches men to treat women as property in hundreds of places. There is a difference in kind here.

Likewise for political issues--the things that make Islam dangerous to the world. The NT tells followers of Christ to go out and spread the gospel to all the world, but they are told to leave all their baggage behind. The law of Moses is ended. No more circumcision (which we practice in the West for health reasons). No more dietary restrictions, etc. There is no intention whatsoever to promote one political system and in fact, primitive Christianity went to great pains to avoid all political connection. It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome that we see the church have any involvement in politics.

Islam is the reverse. It is deliberately political and has a mandate to be so. Instead of a mandate to spread a gospel message, it has a mandate to conquer nations by force and create theocracies, and eventually a single world theocracy. Islam has been since its inception, bent on world domination. To ignore this is to ingore what makes Islam so especially dangerous.

The obvious reading of the Koran leads to all the troubles we see inside Islam so it's a misleading generalization to suggest one ought to think or act as if all religions were the same, and especially that any religion is like Islam. Islam stands alone as the only religion in the world with a mandate to conquer the world by force.