quote:

Originally posted by Lira Precisely. If the American legal system, which exists to serve the American people, doesn't see a problem, then let them be.

WWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhaaaattttttt

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It hurts the proponents themselves. But, for all I care, if they want to take swimming lessons in a pool with acid, I'm not going to stop them. But, does the existence of this theme-park hurt anyone that isn't already a creationist?

of course it hurts other people. it undermines the credibility of science. one day its scientists being wrong by a factor of a billion regarding the age of the universe, and the next day its scientists being wrong about vaccines, global warming, AIDS etc. its a cesspool that spreads woo all over the place. it indoctrinates children who probably already had an uphill battle to get out of the cesspool. it forms part of the overall political climate where people think its ok for christianity to be a/the foundation of the public sphere (the more extreme US states have all but banned abortion for instance).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/view/

quote:

Originally posted by Lira The way I see it, and the way I think the legislators apparently see it as well, this would be a problem if the church was interfering with the law. However, the problem here is much much more subtle than that.

because legislators in kentucky wouldn't be theistic cretins at all, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On WWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhaaaattttttt

I pretty much expect the legal system to keep social cohesion as the governed society sees fit. If that's really the case, however, that's a whole different story: mind you, I said it exists for that reason, not that it does what's expected from it

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN of course it hurts other people. it undermines the credibility of science. one day its scientists being wrong by a factor of a billion regarding the age of the universe, and the next day its scientists being wrong about vaccines, global warming, AIDS etc. its a cesspool that spreads woo all over the place. it indoctrinates children who probably already had an uphill battle to get out of the cesspool. it forms part of the overall political climate where people think its ok for christianity to be a/the foundation of the public sphere (the more extreme US states have all but banned abortion for instance). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/view/

You know what? That's actually a good point, and I don't have anything to counter it right now except for my Millian liberalism that says we shouldn't suppress ideas that may be useful in the future even if it's just to show us why we're right. I'm going to ponder about this for a while because I did already have to deal with this issue tonight (but off-line).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN because legislators in kentucky wouldn't be theistic cretins at all, right?

I never expected them to be enlightened individuals: The place is known for its chicken, not for its geniuses

(No offence, Jori and Nick, I guess you know what I mean).

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

In retribution for your criticism,
here's something I think you'll like:



Click to enbiggen

All right, PKC, here's what vexes me about a possible over-reliance in science and why I don't feel comfortable with suppressing ideas just "because we're right".

• Religion -> Philosophy: I know you've got nothing but disdain for philosophy, but science wasn't created in a vacuum, and we've got to thank philosophers for that. And, the point is, when a systematised analytic philosophy appeared in Ancient Greece, an overconfidence in the local religion led to the suppression of the best intellectual tool they had (namely, philosophy) and Socrates was executed. Later, religion once again hampered the efforts of philosophers by suppressing Aristotle's body of work until some sort of syncretism emerged in the Middle Ages, making the otherwise pagan philosophy more Jesus-friendly. Here we learned that relying on religion too much was an awful idea. Those who knew they were right turned out to be horribly wrong.
  
  
• Philosophy -> Science: Philosophy helped develop science, but it didn't do so without giving the poor natural philosophers some headache. When Galileo made his discoveries, the Church wasn't the only institution that gave him trouble. Francesco Sizzi, a Florentine astronomer, showed some of the arguments (now considered stupendously stupid) against his discoveries of moons in other planets: "There are seven windows in the head - two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth; so in the heavens there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury alone undecided and indifferent. From which and many other similar phenomena of nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven. Moreover, the satellites are invisible to the naked eye, and therefore can have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist". As you can see, he was placing reason before empirical evidence (something philosopher often do) reason why Gali whined to Kepler saying that "the professor of philosophy at Pisa labor[ed] before the Grand Duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm the new planets out of the sky". Even in Einstein's day, philosophers would often complain because Brt's system didn't fit their worldviews and was therefore wrong. Once again, those who knew they were right turned out to be horribly wrong.
  
  
• Science -> ???: Mind you, it need not be something other than science, but the established belief against a novel revolution. What is to keep us from making the very same mistake theologians and philosophers have made in the past?

I'm not sure this is something you care about, and I wouldn't be surprised if you just said "Fuck them, scientists know what they're doing". However, this is a problem I actually have to deal with in my life, reason why I probably give it way more thought than most people

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Last edited by Lira on Jan-29-2011 at 05:13

quote:

Originally posted by Lira If anything, it should be a blessing (lol, pun intended!) for all of us because those nutters will all be in one place far from anything remotely sane.

You mean like this guy getting to a place "far from anything remotely sane"?

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5080201686.html

Stupid Lira & his posts giving me boners.

___________________
When a wise man gives thee better counsel, give me mine again: I would have none but knaves follow it, since a fool gives it.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose It's spelled criticise.

war of the worlds lol

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin You mean like this guy getting to a place "far from anything remotely sane"?

What?

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Click to enbiggen All right, PKC, here's what vexes me about a possible over-reliance in science and why I don't feel comfortable with suppressing ideas just "because we're right".

yeah we've had this discussion before and i still feel you are complete bonkers if you think we should tolerate (even fund!) stuff like creationist museums for the infinitesimally small chance it would ever actually have something to offer. not when we can look at the various negative impacts it or other woo has right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*]Religion -> Philosophy: I know you've got nothing but disdain for philosophy, but science wasn't created in a vacuum, and we've got to thank philosophers for that.

yeah, i probably overstate it because its the internet. basically what it boils down to is i fucking hated studying it even if it was at times really fun and informative (and of course underpinned virtually everything that i was actually interested in). i do like to tease you though

and i think you're conflating philosophy and woo, when woo is illogical, dishonest, lacking in evidence etc. ie its everything that philosophy opposes. thinking outside the box is fine until you're pissing away tax dollars on theme parks for liars and frauds. this of course from the 'small government, low taxation, low spending' wankers as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And, the point is, when a systematised analytic philosophy appeared in Ancient Greece, an overconfidence in the local religion led to the suppression of the best intellectual tool they had (namely, philosophy) and Socrates was executed. Later, religion once again hampered the efforts of philosophers by suppressing Aristotle's body of work until some sort of syncretism emerged in the Middle Ages, making the otherwise pagan philosophy more Jesus-friendly. Here we learned that relying on religion too much was an awful idea. Those who knew they were right turned out to be horribly wrong.

socrates and plato sucked each other's wangs.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*]Philosophy -> Science: Philosophy helped develop science, but it didn't do so without giving the poor natural philosophers some headache.

true, but learning how to make tools or light fires probably trumps existentialism for first contributions to mankind. it was also way easier for early man to look at the stars and wonder 'who am i?' or 'where did i come from?' than it was for him to build the combustion engine or paint the periodic table on his cave's loungeroom.

none of that, of course, is relevant to woo apologism under the guise of intellectual tolerance or philosophical enquiry.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*]Science -> ???: Mind you, it need not be something other than science,

well at least we agree on something. as long as science is putting food on the table, games onto hard drives, music into speakers, i see no reasons to go off into fantasy land chasing non-falsifiable nonsense, in some misguided wankathon against demonstrable reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira What is to keep us from making the very same mistake theologians and philosophers have made in the past?I'm not sure this is something you care about, and I wouldn't be surprised if you just said "Fuck them, scientists know what they're doing". However, this is a problem I actually have to deal with in my life, reason why I probably give it way more thought than most people

no guarantees, but that's a price we should be willing to pay to stamp out mistakes we know are going on right now.

again, i must draw your attention to the topic of this thread, and it would aid your argument greatly if you could demonstrate some stellar contributions to humanity provided by the philosophy of creationism.

Wasn't the USA founded as a secular country? lol

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah we've had this discussion before and i still feel you are complete bonkers if you think we should tolerate (even fund!) stuff like creationist museums for the infinitesimally small chance it would ever actually have something to offer. not when we can look at the various negative impacts it or other woo has right now.

This is what makes me feel I might have to change my mind. Seeing the impact of woo around here, it seems to stifle progress more than anything else. Yesterday I heard scientist can't tell how humans evolved, whereas the spiritual world provided us with much more reliable answers.

And this is the most scientifically-friendly woo in my country.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, i probably overstate it because its the internet. basically what it boils down to is i fucking hated studying it even if it was at times really fun and informative (and of course underpinned virtually everything that i was actually interested in). i do like to tease you though

Hah!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and i think you're conflating philosophy and woo, when woo is illogical, dishonest, lacking in evidence etc. ie its everything that philosophy opposes. thinking outside the box is fine until you're pissing away tax dollars on theme parks for liars and frauds. this of course from the 'small government, low taxation, low spending' wankers as well.

No, no, I'm not even taking woo into consideration here.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN socrates and plato sucked each other's wangs.

And shoved it up their bums. Them faggy Greeks...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN true, but learning how to make tools or light fires probably trumps existentialism for first contributions to mankind. it was also way easier for early man to look at the stars and wonder 'who am i?' or 'where did i come from?' than it was for him to build the combustion engine or paint the periodic table on his cave's loungeroom.

It's unfair to compare them because Existentialism doesn't even seek to answer the same problems scientists do. Most woo, on the other hand, claims to be either above or with science... though it doesn't seem to occur to them that if scientists are not playing along with you, there's probably something wrong with the game you brought to the table.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN none of that, of course, is relevant to woo apologism under the guise of intellectual tolerance or philosophical enquiry.

Well, of course it is - Galileo was taken to be a woonatic in the very beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well at least we agree on something. as long as science is putting food on the table, games onto hard drives, music into speakers, i see no reasons to go off into fantasy land chasing non-falsifiable nonsense, in some misguided wankathon against demonstrable reality.

Sure, we do agree about that. It'd be pretty dishonest for me to study science and believe revelation is just equally as valuable.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN again, i must draw your attention to the topic of this thread, and it would aid your argument greatly if you could demonstrate some stellar contributions to humanity provided by the philosophy of creationism.

It's never contributed with anything. This, however, can't be a reason for dismissing ideas, because the atom, evolution, and heliocentrism were all conceived in Ancient Greece but waited millennia until something worthy came out of them. Though, of course, the contribution made by the original Greek thinkers is disputable, except in astronomy.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]