http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

My first thoughts? WTF. Second thoughts, how does this article end up there?

Quote :

"* October 2, 2004- Christian terrorist group kills 44 Hindus, wounds 118 in Northeast India. [1] * January 16, 1997- Christian Identity terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph bombs nightclub.[2] * July 27, 1996- Christian Identity terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph bombs Centennial Olympic Park. Kills 1, wounds 111. * 1983- Posse Comitatus militia member Gordon Kahl kills two Federal marshals in North Dakota. Three others are wounded. * 1978- Christian cult "the Peoples' Temple" leader Jim Jones orchestrates the death of 913 people with cyanide-laced Kool Aid. People trying to escape the compound are shot. * 1969-2001- over 3000 people are killed in Ireland as a result of bombings and other violent acts between Catholics and Protestants. More than 1800 of those killed in "The Troubles" are civilians. * 1940s- Terrorist organization Christian Identity is formed on the West Coast of the United States. Followers believe Armageddon will take place as a race war between Aryans, the "pure" people, against Jews, Muslims, and non-whites."

That's enough to persuade me that at minimum, Cherokee's points about our ancestors encountering Native Americans are not what you guys have ever argued about at all. At all.

Make his argument more relevant my equalizing the historical pressures acting on society and factor in their relative alignment of resources and power. What he is ultimately saying can be true, and so can what you are saying. There are only very trivial reasons what he's saying isn't true. The only problem is that anyone says any analogy has to be perfect in order to be considered.

Instead of simply pointing out its inconsistencies like an Intelligent Design advocate, and a philosophical midget compared to whomever you're arguing with someday (eventually), point out what's wrong with the analogy instead. Scientists tend to be quite aware that people's theories often break down when put under rational, logical scrutiny. One has to wonder why fewer people apply their principles to their understandings of history and judgments about it.

If you want to treat analogies like scientists treat scientific models, you need to construct them logically. If Cherokee were to say that modern day radical Muslims are acting very much like say, the United States would, if its burgeoning theologically persuadably society were in possession of a suddenly important geopolitical or even geopsychological, or geoeconomical resource when scientific information about its limited supply began to emerge and gain credibility, I'd say, you've got a hypothetically sound premise.

Blame Bill Clinton

Not "true." Not "false." Hypothetically sound. It's fundamentally the difference between "The Jews carried out 9/11" and "I have no fucking idea who carried out 9/11," or "The Jews know who God is" and "Christians know who God is." Or even, "The Christians know who God is," and "The Muslims know who God is." I'll thank Bill Clinton for the snickering in the back row.

Historical Analogy?

In many respects, our Founding Fathers denied an entire nation--Britain--a producing and consuming marketplace a long time ago by effectively telling them that we were going to effectively nationalize our tobacco and cotton fields. We weren't going to take their monetary taxation, or simply put, ideological influence over our way of life anymore. We got upset with some taxes, threw out some tea, mobbed some soldiers, and all hell broke loose. These were our people, folks. Like it or not.

Fundamentally, the analogy is not that different from those who are our current ideological opposites. Understanding them is a difficult, but I'd argue, necessary part of being an adult. Otherwise we fall into stupid debates about base topics like who's evil and who isn't. That's the way salisburyboy-like folks go. I'll argue differently that evil is less definable than even religion. Or obscenity.

So What's Evil?

Evil appears to be what happens when folks manipulate information to their own advantage, and not the common advantage of the most humans by applying to that information to children by reinforcement through force based upon our own poorly informed understanding about what causes the unknown to occur in the world. The premise upon which we are poor trainers of children is usually founded on an individual's poor understanding of logic, reason, his own own access to historically accurate information, or generally a lack of knowledge about specific driving forces behind events confirmed recently by scientists in many varying fields. Typically informed or misinformed the same way.

There are plenty of reasons it could be true. Plenty of reasons some could point out that it's not. But if the basic tenants stand up to the most indicting criticisms, what does it say about us?

I'd say, in some might argue a somewhat Nerdchick-like fashion, that science is being given a very harsh stomp on the throat compared with other societal institutions that tend to rapidly advance our lives in some way, but usually not as quickly. In this country, and in those foreign countries that hate us.

But That's Like the Terrorists!

In fact, I'd even go as far as to posit (obviously on my own) that on some level, that most of our societal power structures (terrorists, governments, corporations, religious institutions, etc.) center around magically claiming and receiving credence from society for the advancements of science or at least scientific thought than of any products specifically created by those institutions in-and-of-themselves, their hierarchies, or their ideological operating methods. I can't wait to hear the ways Soap Boxers ignore reading that one.

Governments, like corporations, other religions, some parents, and other gangs of ideological "boogeymen" are equally guilty of this unfortunate consequence of essentially random information assimilation by human beings. Fact is, people generally like to see more things around that make their lives easier to understand than this phenomena afford them the capacity to.

Most will attribute it to God if religious authorities are in power, government if it's governmental authorities, and commercial forces if it's economic forces that seem to be at work. I'll argue that what exactly they're attributing boils down to their emotional experiences of reality--stuff like the first new car they ever drove, the first video game console they ever played on, the first computer they turned on, the first time they played a game, or kissed the right girl. Could be the first time they were ever beat to shit by a policeman, though. Or a smacked by a nun. Or robbed by a black person. Or spit on by a white person. Just some food for thought.

Logical Leap of Faith

Some are influenced by pure experience moreso by emotional experience than others like to admit. (This is where Academics tend to stick with me.) Even scientists. (This is ultimately the ideological territory of Intelligent Designers, Religious folks, and other non-ideologically neutral people I don't identify with usually, and thus, I'm incredibly crazy for making a leap of faith seemingly on their behalf.)

Naturally though, when it comes down to whom to trust, I'd go with Scientists far more often than anyone of any other persuasion. That's why I like to ask questions about what people believe, usually evidenced more by the words they use than they realize, and ask them more questions about what those words mean. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to begin arguments with people this way. And win them, or at least make them laugh.

You'd also be amazed at its capacity to advance technology. Everything you own that you couldn't build yourself went through a similar process to the philosophical underpinnings of this particular philosophy. That's what we owe to science more directly than any political ideology, ethnic identification, national allegiance, or really anything else. That much, I'd argue, is at least more objectively correct than most could prove.

Justified?

Scientists seem play the role of "trustworthy arbiters of truth" in the world, despite their influences from the entities that fund them. That's why study after study fails to provide the ideological backing for our Drug War: not that there's anything inherently evil or even dangerous about smoking a joint. At least not as much as there is associated with smoking cigarettes. They've proven recently, with your money, that smoking marijuana is not only unlikely to cause you cancer, but is more likely to prevent lung cancer in your lungs.

Is science incorruptible? Absolutely not. It's usually the femine element of our society that is usually raped or otherwise dominated by the more masculine elements of society like governance, corporatism, and other forms of absolutist ideology. Hijacked, most of the time, in order to attempt to establish a firm conclusion that is based on poor assumption, than it is rationally applied to our worlds for our own benefit.

Science is continually the more effective ideological institution for disseminating accurate information than government. Commercial entity. Or religious institution. Even if scientifically or historically accurate information can and has been passed through each of those institutions.

But wait. I hear most of you say.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 12:43:35 AM

Aren't those the same assholes trying to boogeyman us into being horrified at the prospect of terrorism--to the extent we'll sign up and work for the Pentagon to meet their struggling (but adequately met) recruitment goals--instead of boogeymanning us into being more horrified at the prospect of people dying in automobile accidents?

The same folks we ideologically insulate from skepticism who recently declassified proof that they bullshitted the public into believing in the Gulf of Tonkin Myth in order to escalate a conflict on morally ambiguous grounds?

The same assholes who want us to believe Water was magically turned to Wine by a historical magician? That there's something inherently untasty about one food, and so we ought to eat brand X for dinner instead of any other?

Yes. The same ones who when election time comes around, have to look for a way to explain Iraq to you. Of every political persuasion.

What does that mean?

How we believe people act plays a lot more importantly in the world than we like to admit.

Science has also proven many other inconvenient facts on your behalf, like the one about humans being unable to properly discern relative lengths between a set of lines in which only one stands out as being of different length. This study was conducted by good scientists, and its theories are a lot less challengeable than Darwin's. Their implications are, purely scientifically speaking, no less dramatic than his. But why do so few people take it into account when viewing history? Or themselves?

Likewise, science is receiving very harsh treatment in other nations of the world. We all agree to this point. I'd speculate beyond the data by saying this is a common element between the United States and many of her enemies abroad. The free flow of scientifically establishable truth, is a healthy element of any society. Any society that lacks proper disclosure gives the appearance of favoring an autocratic secrecy over a truly, philosophically democratic openness.

This is why the son of a scientist never trusts the government, or governors, of any society that seeks to bury (or sustain a policy based on a lack of) accurate information through illegal, unethical, illogical, or other irrational means.

Governments like to claim the advancements of science. So do corporations. Even religions do it. I'd argue few are as trustworthy as peer-reviewed journals. And even other scientists like to "stand on the shoulders" of other scientists, often to their own scientifically-oriented ideological peril. But nonetheless, everyone claims their work, but none stand up for how its work is perverted.

This is what led even Einstein to worry about the atomic bomb. Even try and be hippie-like, banning the bomb and all that ideological dogma. All due to the brainchild that escaped his control. A literal Frankenstein in this man's conscience. Look it up. I'll freely speculate that his fear of a deterministic universe colored his perceptions in such a way that he literally could not accept a non-deterministic view of the world. With slightly less certainty, I'd say he was afraid--as are most--that the nuclear bomb might be the proverbial chance event that ends Life on Earth.

So? Smart People Believe Bullshit Sometimes

That is fundamentally my point.

Can you imagine living the life of a man of science, not of politics, who believed he'd actually given birth to the atomic bomb, if he actually could accept a deterministic view of the world? He would've gone insane. He'd have seen, as Oppenheimer did, that what the technology built on his genius had unleashed was nothing short of the End Game of Human History. Many people form belief systems that center largely around denying the validity of this idea. Few are less speculative than religions, frankly.

Remember that I recently unearthed a study showing you that people's views of God largely color their beliefs. Moreso than any other perception they measured. This study was conducted on members of a random sample of Americans. Ideologically, its conclusions should be cross-cultural. In other terms, no less true in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or America, or France, or anywhere than it is to scientists. Or politicians. Keep this in mind when you determine who you go around trusting when they offer speculations to you about phenomena you do not understand.

Especially in November.

I'd like to create my own ideological dichotomy to discern types of people. Since so many other social institutions find it convenient to do so, so will I:

Magicians and Logicians

Magicians, or as we know them now, politicians and religious figures, who ask us to accept basic premises based on our ignorance about the future.

And Logicians, or as we know them now, scientists and ideologically netural people (or anyone, technically, who can tell you something about "The Truth" that we live within, that of experience).

Magicians can be disguised as clever Logicians sometimes. I'll argue that within history, it becomes pretty obvious when you look at it, that most of them are. But usually Logicians we refer to as "Scientists" shy away from being labelled Magicians because of this principle known as "refusing to speculate beyond the data." If we asked them, or asked their psychologists, I'll bet we could find out why.

Most of this is born out of the underlying premises of Werner Von Heisenberg, who proved that we affect our understandings of science as much as the science itself does. This is why most scientists are required at the end of their papers to state how much or how little they believe their hypothesis was correct when applied to the problem stated as a "given" in the beginning.

This is why I argue we ought to extend the premise to the Soap Box. And effectively, into our own society and those of the rest of the world. Only methods of arriving at truth that have been filtered through similar non-ethnocentric paradigms ought to be the ones we export through violent means, if ever such a thing be justified. Otherwise we run the risk of being simply less violent forms of our ancestors than the ones who some Native Americans in South America mistook for Gods upon their arrival.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 12:44:03 AM

OH MY GOD

SO MANY WORDS

9/19/2006 12:48:07 AM

quod erat demonstrandum

Only civil debate below please.

9/19/2006 12:50:04 AM

Ignore it if you want to.

I consider the fear of complexity to be a sign of intellectual weakness. This might as well be considered a thread about that idea.

9/19/2006 12:50:25 AM

^

9/19/2006 12:52:10 AM

This was the first time I actually read a post in TSB.

I hope you haven't wasted your time.

9/19/2006 12:55:39 AM

If you convince more people that this is worth reading, and I convince enough of them that such a concept is worth reading about, I think it wouldn't be a waste of my time.

In other words, I'll go ahead and self-FroshKiller.

I'm not that stupid fucking college freshman faggot. I'm even worse. I'm that same kid who never did resolve the conflict, or claim to, despite the ramblings and balance of argument in the Soap Box. And I'm no closer to really having a stone-cut hypothesis on how to solve the world's problems than religion, or any intellectually-retarded college freshman who can create a radical idea based on people's uncertainties about the world.

We need a society of freer disclosure, and better dissemination of accurate information. Whoever has the wheels of power needs to get on that...

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 1:00:13 AM

kkk
nazis
etcetcetc

9/19/2006 1:08:07 AM

No need to ideologically illustrate it by naming names until people want to cry over the analogy.

9/19/2006 1:10:06 AM

Froshkiller uses double spacing =P

9/19/2006 7:47:21 AM

You need to clearly state what you are claiming n the beginning... it takes to long to figure out where the fuck you are going with this so it comes across as rambling/driftng thoughts.

9/19/2006 10:22:46 AM

a lot of those just happen to be christians whose motivations werent religion

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 10:25 AM. Reason : and jim jones wasnt a christian]

9/19/2006 10:24:37 AM

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1_9lR9EpM

9/19/2006 10:37:15 AM

So? Its not something specific to only Christianity. I hate seeing these sort of actions regardless of the faith or ideology pushing it. Personally, I think the way I was raised in a moderate home with good principles and allowed to exlpore beliefs on my own gave me a much stronger foundation for faith. Going from Atheist for the first 20+ years to Christian gives a mch needed perspective that I think so many "lifers" fail to understand (which explains their complete lack of perception and understandiung for society in general).

9/19/2006 11:10:48 AM

Bad grammar and run-on sentences make it difficult to grasp the point youre trying to make.

9/19/2006 11:14:10 AM

Quote :

"Gamecat: I consider the fear of complexity to be a sign of intellectual weakness. This might as well be considered a thread about that idea."

Doesn't get any simpler.

Also, a deterministic viewpoint led Einstein to believe in the inevitability of human destruction by what he considered "his" brainchild.

1) Who holds a deterministic viewpoint about the future of human society? American society? Religious society? Scientific society?

2) What are those viewpoints?

3) To what extents to you believe or not believe in their veracity?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 11:31:30 AM

so you want us to be liberal.


WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY SO

9/19/2006 12:45:21 PM

youd think being so thoughful as to write all that, youd think it would hit you, thats not an acceptable post length for tww.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 12:55 PM. Reason : 34]

9/19/2006 12:55:29 PM

Quote :

"Science is continually the more effective ideological institution for disseminating accurate information than government. Commercial entity. Or religious institution. Even if scientifically or historically accurate information can and has been passed through each of those institutions. But wait. I hear most of you say. ... Aren't those the same assholes trying to boogeyman us into being horrified at the prospect of terrorism--to the extent we'll sign up and work for the Pentagon to meet their struggling (but adequately met) recruitment goals--instead of boogeymanning us into being more horrified at the prospect of people dying in automobile accidents?... "

Why do you go from talking about scientists and researches to talking about politicians and the religious?

Quote :

"Their implications are, purely scientifically speaking, no less dramatic than his. But why do so few people take it into account when viewing history? Or themselves?"

I believe you answered that question earlier, about people being affected by emotions/experiences/whatever they're affected by (i also believe biology, but you didn't talk about that explicitly). The typical person never has reason or desire in their life to analyze their own shortsightedness, thus they never do, and probably lose the ability after a certain age.

Quote :

"This is why I argue we ought to extend the premise to the Soap Box. And effectively, into our own society and those of the rest of the world. Only methods of arriving at truth that have been filtered through similar non-ethnocentric paradigms ought to be the ones we export through violent means, if ever such a thing be justified. Otherwise we run the risk of being simply less violent forms of our ancestors than the ones who some Native Americans in South America mistook for Gods upon their arrival. "

I don't believe this goal can be met by words, even if you were able to force everyone in the country to read your little essay. I think this would be because most people wouldn't be able to comprehend it because they either don't care about politics/the world/people that aren't them, or they are too dumb. The ones that would understand it would agree, but those types of people already believe that they analyze information with some deference to The Truth™. Just look at people like Salisburyboy or Randy who thinks their beliefs are rational and scientific. Being Soap Box posters, this can't be due to lack of information or exposure to rational alternatives, this is something that goes deeper that would require extensive personal reeducation to correct, measure we don't have the time and resources for. The only practical means to bring about the change so that we aren't just violent forms of our ancestors is to let time sort it out (because as a society, we're supposed to be getting smarter) or to somehow subversively take over the gov. with like-minded individuals, that share the idea of The Truth™, which would probably involve some unsavory, anti-Truth actions.

Quote :

"In fact, I'd even go as far as to posit (obviously on my own) that on some level, that most of our societal power structures (terrorists, governments, corporations, religious institutions, etc.) center around magically claiming and receiving credence from society for the advancements of science or at least scientific thought than of any products specifically created by those institutions in-and-of-themselves, their hierarchies, or their ideological operating methods. I can't wait to hear the ways Soap Boxers ignore reading that one. "

Also, I think you might be missing words in that one, but I can't quite comprehend what you are meaning. Are you saying that institutions claim more credit for good things than they deserve? Why would anyone want to ignore reading that, isn't that a given?

9/19/2006 12:56:19 PM

Quote :

"youd think being so thoughful as to write all that, youd think it would hit you, thats not an acceptable post length for tww."

I don't think he gives a shit.

The type of people who he wants discourse with will still read it and reply.

The type that won't couldn't argue with him anyway.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 12:57:53 PM

interesting thread

similar to what we talked about

9/19/2006 1:22:02 PM

Quote :

"AxlBonBach: so you want us to be liberal. WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY SO"

An interesting hypothesis. What led to your conclusions?

---

Quote :

"moron: Why do you go from talking about scientists and researches to talking about politicians and the religious?"

I swear I'd answer with shorter words and sentences if the answers weren't so complicated.

Scientists can be political. And religious. At once. Religious people can be scientifically methodical, and political in their behaviors. Politicians can incorporate religious ideas into their policy for even basic, scientifically well-grounded reasons.

Individuals can be any combination of the three. Anywhere on Earth. At any given time.

Mind, this is just a wide net into which most people fall. There are of course other factors at play within an individual, but I'd argue these are the big ones. We can add and subtract from here.

Individuals are not exclusively religious, political, logical, or historically informed entities. Neither are institutions. None are exclusively anything. But they're all guilty of subordinating many of their actions and beliefs within the context of those institutions.

But why?

That seems to lie at the heart of every political, theological, and otherwise philosophical debate entertained by the Soap Box.

Quote :

"moron: I believe you answered that question earlier, about people being affected by emotions/experiences/whatever they're affected by (i also believe biology, but you didn't talk about that explicitly). The typical person never has reason or desire in their life to analyze their own shortsightedness, thus they never do, and probably lose the ability after a certain age."

I salute your adventure into the realm of rational speculation. It's truly liberating, and dangerous if done wrong. Just make sure from this point you internalize whatever you want to, and make sure you know why you internalize it.

You've formed a testable hypothesis that after many years, a typical person has no reason or desire to analyze his or her own shortsightedness, and thus never do and lose the ability after some period of time.

The underlying assumption of it is that biology affects belief. Plain and simple. Our limbic systems color what we remember, and how we contextualize our memories. Odd then, that it's also inextricably linked to our brain's emotional center.

Frankly, I don't know enough to speculate on that one. At least not enough to establish an acceptable degree of veracity in my mind. What I do believe is that it'd be worth investigating Empirically.

What I'm still attempting to established through my On Anecdotes thread (my current conclusions of which I'm still happy to disavow at any time) is that the distinctions individuals make between their truth and other truth are rarely examined, and why people believe that is.

My hypothesis is that it's due to socially constructed, socially reinforced methods of encouraging others to make specific distinctions. Biology enables us to make them, social forces do the work.

Quote :

"moron: I don't believe this goal can be met by words, even if you were able to force everyone in the country to read your little essay."

I agree. That's why I do more than write essays.

Quote :

"moron: I think this would be because most people wouldn't be able to comprehend it because they either don't care about politics/the world/people that aren't them, or they are too dumb."

Careful with the language. What makes them dumb? Why not misinformed? Why not uncurious? Why not simply disrespectful? Or selfish even? Why dumb?

Charges of being "dumb" sound philosophically equivalent to charges of being a "witch" or intellectual heretic at least.

Quote :

"moron: The ones that would understand it would agree, but those types of people already believe that they analyze information with some deference to The Truth™. Just look at people like Salisburyboy or Randy who thinks their beliefs are rational and scientific. Being Soap Box posters, this can't be due to lack of information or exposure to rational alternatives, this is something that goes deeper that would require extensive personal reeducation to correct, measure we don't have the time and resources for."

I'm appealing to the minds of people who think on that level, but can go one leap further and recognize that the shitty smell of experience may come from more than one source. IOW -- people of every intellectual capacity fail to recognize when their own ideologically warped definitions of The Truth™ stink to shit in many of the same ways the people they disagree with, even themselves.

True of me, Randy, salisburyboy, the President, every individual I've ever met. I'm inviting a debate without a particular preference for any agenda that maligns truth. But those agendas are inviting themselves fervently into the debate.

Quote :

"moron: The only practical means to bring about the change so that we aren't just violent forms of our ancestors is to let time sort it out (because as a society, we're supposed to be getting smarter) or to somehow subversively take over the gov. with like-minded individuals, that share the idea of The Truth™, which would probably involve some unsavory, anti-Truth actions."

I shy away from "only" as a linguistic device most of the time, but I have few qualms with most of what you say regardless of that. Ghandi subversively took over India, and it still led to an imperfect system. We've watched a British colony allow varying degrees of slow and rapid subversion to turn it into America, also imperfect. I'll add that letting time work it out allowed both instances to occur.

I'm not sure time sorts it out. How else could we fundamentally resemble our less culturally-informed, or at least culturally-distinguished ancestors? Not to say that we "are" our ancestors or anything stupid like that. We clearly aren't. But why is the resemblence still present?

I personally think it's a distinction between the credibility that the interplay between societal and individual forces extend to different sources of information. Ultimately philosophical, and ultimately random (or arbitrary) in nature. I think it's worth pointing out in the context of the thread. Otherwise, we're going to see the same devolution of debate on here that Republicans, Democrats, Religious people. Philosophical people, and Scientific people all argue about as being stupid and unproductive.

Obviously the debate their ideas create hasn't gotten us anywhere new or ideologically fresh.

I say to make no, or few presumptions. That's why I ask annoying lists of questions. I'm seeking to understand, through asking others what they "know" and where what they "know" came from. I'm not sitting here making absolute value judgments about it. I can internalize their ideas, or not internalize their ideas according to my own whims. As we all know, anecdotes are not exactly a great way to form socially credible hypotheses. Right? So I could just be curious and inviting others to educate me about what they believe.

Quote :

"moron: Are you saying that institutions claim more credit for good things than they deserve? Why would anyone want to ignore reading that, isn't that a given?"

1) Yes.

2) They'd ignore it for a lack of seeing the long term impacts of our historical capacity, and preferences to use that capacity, on their current situations. Think of it in Soap Box terminology. How easily could such a statement be met and diminished with the following argumentative devices: "Relevance = -0-" or "What do A & B have to do with one another?"

Quote :

"Sayer: I don't think he gives a shit. The type of people who he wants discourse with will still read it and reply."

Relevance: 100%

I don't believe people can't argue with me. Just that they are unlikely to have the conviction of their beliefs to do so. Nobody wants to be called dumb or made to look dumb, even if they know other people wandering around believing they are. I think we're all varying degrees of dumb. Including myself, and Sayer knows this pretty well.

9/19/2006 2:34:08 PM

I'd like to see you edit the original post some -- if you had a clearer structure to it, I think it'd have a lot more impact. This is not due to some inability on my part to comprehend what I read -- I'm accustomed to reading remarkably dense philosophical papers. This is an issue of presentation.

However, I am having a question pop-up over some of the content as well --

What about determinism suggests that the atomic bomb will be the end of life on earth?
Edit: Or rather -- how does the existence of the atomic bomb somehow suggest, under a deterministic interpretation, that life on earth will end as a result?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 4:14:30 PM

Quote :

" "moron: Why do you go from talking about scientists and researches to talking about politicians and the religious?" ... Individuals are not exclusively religious, political, logical, or historically informed entities. Neither are institutions. None are exclusively anything. But they're all guilty of subordinating many of their actions and beliefs within the context of those institutions. "

I understand all that. But I still don't see what you were getting at in your original post in that section...

First, you are saying science is viewed as being the arbiter of truth (loose paraphrase), then you say they are the boogeymen. The 2 statements seem contrary. Now you seem to want to clarify that by saying that politicians/religious/scientist can be viewed as each role. I think this is true to an extent, but I don't think it's meaningful, if you are trying to illuminate the mechanisms of society.

I know several people who are in science related field, and while they hold different political views, one thing that they have in common is that they are quite focused on their work only, and not really the political implications. Therefore, I don't believe it's the "scientist" that are the ones subordinating the work, but it's the politicians that manipulate this characteristic of scientists for their own goals. And the religious that manipulate this tendency of the politicians for their own goals (and by manipulate, it's not necessarily an active action, it could just be a function of their respective personalities). In this way, I can see though how someone can view the 3 roles as being somewhat interchangeable. I think if you read journal writeups in scientific journals, you'll find most of them lack analysis of political implications of their work.

This nitpick, I think, is relevant to your overall thoughts of this thread because you are wondering about the nature of religion, society, and extremism, something that I don't think science, at its core, is vulnerable to (but it's not impervious, as the South Korean-stem-cell fraud guys show).

Quote :

""moron: I think this would be because most people wouldn't be able to comprehend it because they either don't care about politics/the world/people that aren't them, or they are too dumb." Careful with the language. What makes them dumb? Why not misinformed? Why not uncurious? Why not simply disrespectful? Or selfish even? Why dumb? Charges of being "dumb" sound philosophically equivalent to charges of being a "witch" or intellectual heretic at least. "

Ha, I didn't mean "dumb" in the middle-school-playground sense, it was just the most succinct word to use. I mean anyone that is uncurious, willfully ambivalent, or just plain unable to comprehend enough information.

Quote :

" I'm appealing to the minds of people who think on that level..."

I see. Those are going to be the most difficult to convince though, more so than the "dumb" people.

Quote :

" I'm not sure time sorts it out. How else could we fundamentally resemble our less culturally-informed, or at least culturally-distinguished ancestors? Not to say that we "are" our ancestors or anything stupid like that. We clearly aren't. But why is the resemblence still present? "

I was actually referring to the Flynn Effect: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn_pr.html

This relates to my idea about biology (except Flynn validly pegs it on society) and Truth and stuff. Basically, smarter people are able to comprehend more information at a given time, which usually (but not always) means they can perceive things on a "truer" level. The clearest example is people who are absolutely against affirmative action. These people are unable to ponder the correlation between the pre-civil rights era, and how those actions affect conditions today. Often, once you spell it out for them (usually with diagrams and charts) it becomes clear to them. But on their own, they don't naturally desire to choose to delve in to the mechanisms that cause things to be the way they are. There are lots more intricate aspects to this idea that I don't feel like typing out, but that's the general idea. But, if you look at psychological observations done on gifted students vs. non-gifted students, the pathways that cause smarter people to understand things better are more elaborated on.

So, as people get smarter, there will be a point in time when enough people realize their lack of objectivity, and take steps to be more rational and empirical in the decisions that require it.


[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2006 6:38:41 PM

^ That's why I've been forced to appeal to bullshit. Everyone understands the people believe in someone else's bullshit. Whether it's the government's bullshit, corporate bullshit, academic bullshit, and religious bullshit.

Why we simplify one another within the context of extremism of philosophies is, I'd qualify, a problem. Whoever examines such things, if you feel it's you--it is, needs to get on that.

Oh, and scientific dogmatism exists in a very real way outlined by Intelligent Designers. I've had to fundamentally grant that on several occasions within debate. What you're saying is that it's less susceptible to maligning "absolute truth" over people than other organizational strucutres.

More on this some other time. It's dinnertime.

9/19/2006 6:51:56 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and scientific dogmatism exists in a very real way outlined by Intelligent Designers."

Those are religious people parading as scientists. Religious people and scientist alike recognize that.

9/19/2006 7:19:49 PM

That in no way incapacitates them from arriving at philosophical truth. It's not like their idea that God sits in heaven impairs their ability to see you on the street, or "know in some sense" that it's better to live than die.

9/19/2006 10:25:36 PM

Huh?

I separate IDers from other religious people. IDers (people who believe in Young Earth Creationism) are willfully dissonant about science and religion. I've never met someone like this (i've actually only corresponded with 1 single person that actually believed in YEC, and that was over the internet, i've never met a person IRL that I know of that really believed in YEC).

I don't disagree that just because someone may be religious, they can still find philosophical truths. It may even be a required stop along the way on the road to enlightenment. It's just that YEC-IDers are delusional.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2006 10:53:48 PM