After a revolt among students and alumni, comedian and game show host Ben Stein has withdrawn as the paid spring commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary degree. Critics have cited Stein’s attacks on the theory of evolution and controversial views of science. He was to be paid $7500 for the speech.
UVM President Dan Fogel was obviously relieved by the withdrawal of Stein: “Commencement obviously is an occasion where we celebrate the achievements of our graduates and it should bring people together, it shouldn’t present a speaker who divides the community amidst heated controversy.”
Stein, 64, has denounced the theory of evolution and championed the intelligent design model. He has also tied the rise of the theory of evolution to eugenics and the Nazi movement.
As graduate of Yale Law School and former trial lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission, Stein served as a
speechwriter for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. His most notable gigs, however, were as the host of the Comedy Central game show “Win Ben Stein’s Money,” or as the dry school teacher in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” Now that Ben Stein has a day off, it is not clear who the UVM will ask to serve as his replacement.
For the full story, click here.
Mr. Turley thank you from the bottom of my heart. People like yourself make America great.
Article from Human Events by Arthur Robinson
A hidden effect of the November 4 elections and the national events that preceded them during this past year is perhaps best called the “John Galt Effect” in honor of Ayn Rand’s famous character in Atlas Shrugged. It is occurring to a very significant extent.
Our technological civilization stands upon the shoulders of many generations of free Americans and the great accomplishments that they bequeathed to us. Among those Americans and their counterparts in other countries have been a small special group of people whose unusual genius, work ethic, and love for their specialties were especially outstanding. These men, by their examples, their creations, and their leadership of free enterprises, have led our civilization upward. One of the greatest privileges of my life has been to know a few such people.
Without this small group of people, the technological attainments of their generations would not have taken place. We know the names of a few of them, but there were many more — constituting perhaps one person in a thousand. Ayn Rand called these people the “men of the mind.” In Atlas Shrugged, under the leadership of John Galt, they withdrew their services. They would only work in freedom. They would not work under tyranny.
In reality, most men of the mind never withdraw. They love their work too much to stop and — most of them — love their fellow men too much to desert them. The forces of tyranny depend upon this. Without these people, even the small technological advances required by Marxist and Socialist societies would not occur. Yet, while the men of the mind do not fully withdraw, they have families and other loved ones for whom they are responsible and to whom they are more devoted than to the state.
As the pendulum of politics now swings toward tyranny in the United States and dangers to those whom they love increase, these men and women partially turn their talents more toward their personal responsibilities. Part of their thoughts, efforts, and ingenuity are lost to society — and this loss cannot be recovered by either negative or positive incentives.
Throughout our country today, the men of the mind ( women, too) are watching the awful scene in Washington and its reflection in state and local capitals throughout the United States. They understand the consequences of the government oppression that has dogged their own footsteps for many years and that will grow much worse in the near future. So, they are taking actions to protect themselves and their families.
We have no way to measure the societal effects of this distraction of the men of the mind. There are immediate effects upon our well being and long term effects from the things that they are no longer working full time to create.
What is the cost of the distraction of our real leaders — of the men of the mind — of the John Galts among us? I estimate that it is greater than the trillions of dollars being lost on government printing presses. Call this Y2009K — and this time it is very real.
Our existing power plants are still operating; our petrochemical plants are still producing; our military defense is still performing; our food supplies are still flowing; and the rest of the technological infrastructure upon which our lives depend is largely still in place. But the key people — not those we see but those we do not see because they are constantly engaged in real work — are seriously distracted and now partially engaged in personal survival.
Of one thing we can be certain. When the essentials of our civilization begin to seriously falter and this causes real harm, those who would be our masters and their fellow travelers in the media, academia, business, and politics will cast blame upon some of these men of the mind — and drag them before us for punishment. Our John Galts know this, too, and it is a further distraction for them.
Some of these people are leading great enterprises. Others are in the basements of our power plants and other heavy industries. Some are closeted away in universities quietly at work on the next generations of possible advances in science and engineering. They are easily recognized — by their genius and by the love of their work that permeates their whole beings.
One way to recognize them is that they constantly talk about their work to anyone who will listen.
Now they are distracted.
What are they talking about today?
Good. Ben Stein’s been a prick since he worked for Nixon.
I think Mr. Stein is a very smart man.
I’m with him on intelligent design.
Good for him for sticking to what he knows is right
“Intelligent design” is the ultimate ecclesiastical oxymoron.
I dont know FFLEO, everything does seem to fit together in a pretty orderly way. Is it because of intelligent design/God or is it just because it has to be that way for existence to exist?
Some of the stuff that theoretical physics is involved in today is pretty wild, multiple universes, parallel universes, expanding and contracting universes. I even saw something that postulates the universe(s) is/are infinitely old and have been expanding and contracting, in other words infinite genesis and destruction.
So it could come down to at least once in that infinite progression you get the right set of conditions to have man evolve or the other possibility which is the intelligent design/God created it all/set in motion the requirements for life.
Statistical probability or intelligent desing?
Sally,
Intelligent design is a false flag argument, Sally. I’ll tell you why. The only difference between intelligent design and evolution is
1) Time – ID relies on a time frame created by belief. Evolution relies on a time frame created by scientifically verifiable methods. 7 days or millions of years is irrelevant. Why? Because the net outcome is the same. The choice is do you want verifiable fact as a basis for examination or belief when teaching science.
2) The scientific method abhors non-verifiable facts but has a method for dealing with them. An Austrian-American mathematician, Kurt Gödel, is famous for developing his Incompleteness Theorems. The math is a bit much for blogging, but the the theories combined basically states that in any given system (he used set theory) there is no way to build a comprehensive set of axioms. In other words, you can’t prove EVERYTHING. It’s impossible. Scientists know this (and in the 30’s when Kurt proposed this, many MANY scientists of the “Newtonian Clockwork” variety were appalled and outraged, none of which invalidated Mr. G’s math). But often people who back ID feel that science is a threat to belief. It follows that science is only a threat if it can totally eliminate belief. It can’t. Gödel has proven that. So why the insistence on putting religion in a science class? Fear, misunderstanding and a religious political agenda perhaps? However, you run the risk of ruining the training of future minds of science by corrupting their proven methodology by inserting a topic more fit for theological studies than science. Would we have penicillin today if Alexander Fleming had decided that people dying from infection was “God’s Will”? Probably not. We wouldn’t have it if Flemming had practiced sanitary lab procedures either, but that’s another story.
3) ID is simply a way to argue the universe is run with purpose (a belief) when facts tend to show that while the universe may have order, the purpose is irrelevant – what we see as reality in physical totality is really just the interplay of overlapping systems as they interact over time. We are all essentially trapped in differential equations. How those systems work is the business of science. Whether some being sat down and made the conscious decision that E=mc^2 or that mankind is in “His” image is irrelevant. Why? Because since everything cannot be proven, it’s not important to the operation of science – it has no impact on observation, formulating theory, testing, or verification. Prove what you can, let the theologists and philosophers sort out the rest. THAT’S science. ID is, at best, a subject for philosophy – probably theology, but science it ain’t. It RELIES on the unprovable where science seeks to LIMIT the unprovable which leads to . . .
4) ID also runs into cosmology. It seeks to assign a set value to an action that would have had to take place in those brief seconds before the formation of the observable universe where physics and other scientific laws do not apply – by science’s own admission and proofs. Ask Stephen Hawking or Roger Penrose. Not only is that value impossible to define scientifically, it’s anthropomorphic – a huge logical fallacy in it’s own right on top of the rest of ID being counter to scientific method.
That makes ID not a proper topic to teach in a science class. Period. ID is NOT science. ID is a belief masquerading as a science to hide a political agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. You want it taught? Fine. Schools should be the market place of diverse ideas. But it needs to go into the curriculum in the right spot. That spot is not in a science class. It’s just as inappropriate to teach ID in a science class as it is to teach evolution in a theology class or teach sewing in shop class. As Marcus Aurelius advised, “Ask of each and everything, what is it in itself.” Definitions are important.
I think you’re a nice person, Sally. You often speak kindness when none is merited and you are never vicious. This isn’t an attack on you and I hope you didn’t perceive it that way, but I do take exception to the notion of ID as valid science when it is demonstrably not science. ID’s validity as a theological or philosophical theory is another subject all together.
“ecclesiastical oxymoron”
I’m telling you right now, FFLEO. I’m going to be using that one.
“Now that Ben Stein has a day off, it is not clear who the UVM will ask to serve as his replacement.”
***************
I suggest Richard Dawkins.
Sally:
If you want to see the defenders of intelligent design in action, I suggest you review Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District. A PBS special on the subject is available or you can see the original sources at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/doverkitzmiller_v_dover.html
You will find the defenders dogmatic, unyielding, and downright deceptive as the trial transcript proves. If this is what it takes to buttress religion from it’s critics, I suggest the whole notion is corrupt.
Sally,
Beyond Buddha’s points and moving back to the theological. The biggest problem with ID is that it relies on the creation myth in Exodus as being actual history. If you read the first few pages of Exodus it is obvious that creation as described there is a metaphor and I believe it was understood to be as such by those living at the time of Exodus creation. There are clearly two cobbled together streams in Exodus pages 1 & 2 and they are somewhat at odds with each other. An easy example is that if Adam & Eve were the first humans, who did Cain and Abel marry? Clearly the creation was a metaphor for the belief that God made the world and was not meant as a historically accurate account.
Does this have to conflict with your religious faith, absolutely not. The history presented in the Torah and in the Gospels is much less important than the moral messages provided. Religious leaders who focus on the history, rather than the message, are not to be trusted. As a Jew the story of Abraham and Isaac is not based on whether Abraham being willing to kill his only child for God, but on God decreeing that human sacrifice was not pleasing to the creator. Abraham, although considered a patriarch by us Jews (and Islam) was really not an exemplary figure if one read his whole story. That is the point being made: God does not demand perfection of belief, but the sincere attempt to live a moral life based on certain eternal precepts.
For Christians the Gospels, rather than Paul’s writings, deal with Jesus’ actual life and teachings. Jesus taught by actions such as: casting the moneychangers out of the temple; eating with the publicans; saving the prostitute about to be stoned. etc . His message as embodied in the “Golden Rule” is central to his teachings. The miracles performed by Jesus are interesting only as possible proof of his power and divinity, but whether or not they happened is not central to the message.
This is true by the way for other beliefs also, Buddha being tempted as he sits under the World Tree for instance, serves as a teaching metaphor and its’ historical truth is irrelevant.
Most backers of ID, however, are more interested in presenting Exodus as history and the world as much younger than it has proven to be. That is why its’ teachings in schools is invalid. It is not a “science.” It is a marginally clever way of trying to dress up religious belief as science, to slip it into secular education.
Are there problems to the entire theory of evolution? Yes there are numerous problems, but it overall is not only a valid working theory, the physical record of an Earth aged many millions of years is irrefutable.
Mike S.,
You speak with the wisdom of a Rabbi. My hat is off . . . or should I put it back on when discussing Judaism?
Just kidding. About the hats. The other thing I meant.
Thank you Buddha I consider that a real compliment. My son-in-law who is qualified to be a Rabbi, in actuality has urged me to go back to school and become one. Two major problems exist towards that. The first is that as a adult Jew I of course can read Hebrew, but due to a poor Hebrew education in my youth and my lack of sincere study, I read it poorly. Secondly, although I practice Judaism (Holidays, occasional going to Shul) it is more for meditation. Theologically I am a deist and I’d have to fake it in my sermons. There is a small branch of Judaism called Reconstructionism where deism would fit comfortably, but I’m not enamored with their teachings. Whether your hat’s on or off while discussing Judaism is actually a function of the sect you believe in. Seriously though, thank you.
Buddha and Mike S., great summation of the intelligent design as science issue. The PBS program on the Dover case was excellent as well. The proponents of ID are unreceptive to reason because they understand neither science nor biblical scholarship. Darwin’s work caused a sensation in his time. Christian fundamentalism is actually a reaction to Darwin’s writings and, like much else in current evangelical politics, is fear-based. I’m sure everyone has seen the bumper sticker: “Evolution is just a theory. You know, like gravity.”
Sally,
I agree with Buddha that you seem like a very nice person. You know many of us here don’t agree with ID (as shown above!) and I would like to ask you why ID does makes sense to you.
Mike Appleton:
If we teach evolution as mere theory and ID along with it to “give kids a chance to decide,” must we then not teach stork delivery as equal theory to human biological reproduction for the same reason?
Thanks for this discussion, folks. I appreciate that Sally was treated respectfully while you were making your excellent arguments. That’s why I read this blog.
Jukesgrrl,
For my part, you are welcome. One lives to be of service. If one unwritten law seems to apply here it’s that respect is earned not due and that if you act with respect, you’ll get treated that way no matter what side you end up landing on. Mere disagreement is not a recipe for animosity. Lies, distortions, unnecessary provocation and propaganda on the other hand, usually get smacked down pretty hard (and not just by me). It can get a little ugly, but I think the net value of the conversations here outweigh the ugly by a long shot. I don’t think I’m out of line when I say “That’s just how this playground rolls.”
Jukesgrrl:
they politely called her a nut. In their universe there is no possibility for the existence of a creator. And using the same line of thinking you could just as easily say there is a creator.
My favorite line is from Mespo about the storks. He takes a self evident biological fact and compares it to a mythology that we teach little children prior to the “talk”. This is a strategy used to dismiss discussion and pat the person on the head.
Even Buddha admitted the possibility in his opening argument and then goes on to say the opposite. From the things I have read a lot of scientists admit the possibility of a creator and so why not teach intelligent design. How badly does that scare them? Although I do agree that the evidence is pretty clear that man and dinosaurs were not contemporarys, but a prime mover setting all things in motion maybe so. My question is you have the big bang but where did all of the matter come from?
So until either God comes down from heaven or someone proves there is no God the debate will go on.
Just out of curiosity why are atheists so riled up about the possibility of the existence of God? Its as bad as the evangelicals proclaiming Gods existence. Anyone thoughts?
“There are four kingdoms to reality. The kingdom of earth, that of the underground, that under the sea, and that of the heavens.
The kingdom of the heavens was ruled by Thunderbird. When he opened his eyes the sun shone, when he ruffled his feathers the wind blew, when he waved his great wings the colours would flash and we would call it lightning, and when he slapped his wings together came the noise we call thunder.”
This is from the creation story of the Nootka people in British Columbia. It was kept secret when the christians came and forced the conversion of their people. They only more recently felt safe to write down their oral traditions. A collection of these traditions is found in the book: Daughters of Copper Woman by Anne Cameron.
I would love to see the schools teach the creation stories of the peoples of earth. What a wonderful thing to learn about! It could dispel much ignorance. It would be perfect for a class called, “Comparative Religions”.
How about giving Sally a chance to answer Jill’s question? Sally is NOT a nut. No one, NO ONE, said she was. The only person who said that is YOU and you didn’t have the balls to take attribution but instead tried to pass it off on others. I’ll insult people for myself, thanks – your “assistance” is not needed, wanted or required. Again, SALLY IS NOT NUTS. You on the other hand . . . well, it’s pretty self-evident at this point that you’re stored in vacuum sealed cans and stored near the chips and dips.
Jill,
When in college, I found the comparative religion courses that I took to be of great value and wished I’d had the chance to take them in high school. It’s a fascinating area of study.
Bron98,
I can’t – and won’t – speak for any of the other atheists here, but I am not riled up about the possibility of God’s existence. Nor am I riled up about the possibility of millions of gods existing.
The mere possibility of the existence of a supernatural creator is no reason to allow it to be taught as science.
Should the existence of God/gods be factored into meteorology? What plays more into the projected path of a hurricane: atmospheric conditions, or what city along the Gulf Coast has incurred God’s wrath?
Intelligent Design is bad science not because of any supposed atheistic hostility towards god; it’s because, by definition, god is supernatural and has no place in science, which is a method of explaining the natural world.
It is my understanding that there are many devout Christians who see Intelligent Design not just as bad science, but it also bad theology. After all, God doesn’t design, He creates.
Jack,
That was very well said.
Buddha,
I love creation stories! I’ve read them since I was a child and I would have loved those classes in high school as well.
Has anyone seen this? http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2009/01/skeptic-etiquette.html
It’s an entertaining (and relatively short) read. I think that most of us here agree with this quote “I have friends who believe LOTS of things I don’t, and … I guess I try to honor other people’s crazy and quirks the way I’d like them to honor mine.”
Sure seemed like it to me, and personally I dont think she is nuts I thought it was a legitimate question and why not teach ID as a seperate science course?
Personally there are some questions I have about evolution, like why does a coelecanth still look as it did oh what 150-200 million years ago ditto for crocs, what not enough environmental pressure? And how does evolution take place anyway, personally I think environmental pressure may change a birds feather color or the spots on a newt or a toad but how do you get wholesale species change? Viruses, genetic mutations over 1000’s of generations
what causes it? Fruit Flys dont mutate into other insects through hundreds of generations. And studying the effects of the atomic bomb blast in Japan and in the pacific has turned up a couple of genetic mutations but nothing significant yet.
Buddha how come you did not show her the math? Probably because you dont understand it yourself, you are a putz. Or more likely you dont have the gray matter to do it. Ohh I would show it to you but I opps I mean you arent bright enough to figure it out.
He is insincere and a distraction.
The thought suddenly struck me that this is another case of how when it comes to religion in this country people talk in terms of Christian (which usually means Bible literalist) and Atheist, ignoring all the alternatives.
I think Ebert put it best in his review of Stein’s movie, “By his premise no secularists believe in Intelligent Design, and no people with religious beliefs subscribe to Darwin’s theory. If there are people with religious beliefs who agree with Darwin (Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, for example) they are mistaken because they do not subscribe to A. Logan Craft’s religious beliefs.”
JackB:
I am not talking about meterology or chemistry, or biology, I am thinking of the beginning how did it all start where did the universe(s) come from, that type of stuff.
I dont a god(s) make(s) the wind blow or the tides rise, etc.
one must first design before one can create ask any architect or engineer, granted that is in the human realm but it is the progression we know.
No, you tool, I didn’t show the math because it was not needed. You want to argue math?
http://math-blog.com/
Knock yourself out, sport. It’s been proven that one of us (namely, all of us) knows what he is (we are) talking about and the other doesn’t (namely you). So how about you going on over to the Math Blog and you tell them how wrong Gödel is.
P(G(P)) = \forall y\, q(y,G(P))
You’ll need to understand that to start. Good luck.
You’ll also want to read “Gödel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid” by Douglas Hoffsteader, too. If you think we’re unkind to inaccuracy here, you’ll really love arguing math.
Gyges:
that is a good thought, how do you work out the issues on each side?
can you be a christian and believe in evolution personally I think you can but I think its harder on the atheist side to consider an alternative to the big bang. A christian can always have God at the core and it still makes sense to them even if you take away Adam and Eve and 6 days to create the world.
Bron,
The word in the quote is secularist, not atheist. There’s a world of difference.
To answer your question: Of course you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. You just can’t be a Bible Literalist, that that was the one of the points of the quote.
As to your assumption that all atheist believe in the big bang, there’s several different cosmological models that involve no divine influence most of which involve a big bang, but a sizable chunk of which don’t.
Here’s a good place to start on the cosmology.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
Buddha:
that looks like a good book I will pick it up at the book store.
as far as the math goes why are you using that particular function? I think you may want to check it and try again.
Gyges,
What’s your preference in model? Inflationary or oscillating? Sure, how dark matter figures into that is still up discussion, but I find both ideas interesting even if the inflationary model is a little depressing.
Buddha,
Aesthetically I like Linde’s model, but since it’s not really falsifiable…
My math is fine. That, however, is not my math. I wish that it was. It’s Gödel’s. The only difference is I couldn’t use the forall symbol with WordPress (looks like an inverted A).
Is it just me or does that remind anyone of Peter Seller’s Clouseau asking “Does your dog bite?”
Gyges,
Good response to Bron on the issue of whether a Christian can believe in evolution. As a Catholic growing up, we were taught the bible was not literally true, but that it was used to educate people about God’s words. That was one of the few things that I agreed with the good Sisters on.
Buddha,
“It is not my dog!”
Bron98,
If you’re talking about evolution, you’re talking about biology. If you’re talking about biology, then you’re talking about science?
If meteorology needn’t concern itself with supernatural explanations, then why should biology?
Besides, the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of the universe (that’s the field of cosmology). Nor does it address the origin of life; it addresses the origin of species.
This is not meant to offend believers in God in any way, but “God did it” is just as scientific as “it’s turtles all the way down.”
Buddha said:
“I’m telling you right now, FFLEO. I’m going to be using that one.”
You are welcome to use it Sir. However, if you write a book and make a million…..
FFLEO,
Consider it done. If I cash out on it, your royalty check is in the mail.
Hmmm . . . maybe I should write a book.
Jack,
Or for that matter, my favorite cosmological theory.
The literalist approach to reading the Bible has no basis in traditional theology; it is actually part of the modern fundamentalist movement. By rejecting the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, literalists ignore history, culture, literature, language and all of the other elements that provide a context. Thus fundamentalism is intellectually naive and consciously anti-science. It is essentially reactionary. Before anyone explodes, I am not personally attacking individuals who may have adopted fundamentalist views. But it should be understood that the observations of Darwin and his successors are no more a threat to informed Christian belief than were the observations of Copernicus and Galileo. The Catholic Church and mainstream Protestant denominations have matured tremendously in matters of science. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who regard Darwin the same way the Catholic Church once regarded Galileo, as a heretic. Since Darwinists cannot be burned at the stake, an effort has been made to demonize them by re-branding creationism, a religious belief, as intelligent design, a species of pseudo-science. Therefore, the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the classroom is a effort to promote a very narrow and specific theology in the public schools. It is unconstitutional for that reason alone.
At the risk of appearing dogmatic, anyone who disagrees with what I just wrote is wrong and, in a perfectly just world, would be shot.
MA
Don’t taze me bro.
roflmao
Mike A.
I have my gun and I’ll see ya in church!
Jill
Is your concealed carry permit up to date?
You could be in a world of hurt with Pastor if it isn’t!
Buddha,
I do realize that with Linde’s our universe could be either of those two options. I haven’t really been keeping up with that particular field, so I have no idea what the current findings seem to confirm.
CCD,
You can believe it is. I was in Oklahoma when they first got concealed carry rights. The churches opened at 12:00 a.m. for permits. People were lined up out the door. I am right with Pastor!!!
Gyges,
I’m a little out of date myself. Last thing I read was a calculation of dark matter mass as being insufficient to cause contraction, but dark matter study evolves fast, I know there’s new stuff out there I haven’t read. So many books, so little time.
Mike Appleton:
…
“Therefore, the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the classroom is a effort to promote a very narrow and specific theology in the public schools. It is unconstitutional for that reason alone.”
…
“At the risk of appearing dogmatic, anyone who disagrees with what I just wrote is wrong and, in a perfectly just world, would be shot.”
I Kant understand a word…
“THE ANTINOMY OF PURE REASON A452 B480 FOURTH CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS
Thesis
There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary.
Proof
The sensible world, as the sum-total of all appearances, contains a series of alterations. For without such a series even the representation of serial time, as a condition of the possibility of the sensible world, would not be given us. ++ Time, as the formal condition of the possibility of changes, is indeed objectively prior to them; subjectively, however, in actual consciousness, the representation of time, like every other, is given only in connection with perceptions.
P 415a
Antithesis
An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.
Proof
If we assume that the world itself is necessary, or that a necessary being exists in it, there are then two alternatives. Either there is a beginning in the series of alterations which is absolutely necessary, and therefore without a cause, or the series itself is without any beginning, and although contingent and P 416a
conditioned in all its parts, none the less, as a whole, is absolutely necessary and unconditioned.
P 415 But every alteration stands under its condition, which precedes it in time and renders P 416 it necessary. Now every
conditioned that is given presupposes, in respect of its existence, a complete series of conditions up to the unconditioned, which alone is absolutely necessary. Alteration thus existing as a consequence of the absolutely necessary, the existence of something
absolutely necessary must be granted. But this necessary existence itself belongs to the sensible world. For if it existed outside that world, the series of alterations in the world would derive its beginning from a necessary cause which would not itself belong A454 B482 to the sensible world. This, however, is impossible. For
since the beginning of a series in time can be determined only by that which precedes it in time, the highest condition of the beginning of a series of changes must exist in the time when the series as yet was not (for a beginning is an existence preceded
by a time in which the thing that begins did not yet exist).”
…
http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/cprframe.pl?query=16ant1-4.htm,415
“Try? There is no try. There is only can and Kant.”
Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back, Draft 1
My heavens Bob, I have enough trouble keeping up with the intellects commenting here, and those attorneys like yourself who show my why my flunking out of Law School was a necessity. Now I have to decipher Kant’s logic? It’s too much for my old brain to do. Have mercy on this old social worker.
Mike S.,
If it’s any consolation, it’s been by experience that Kant causes even the most ferocious of intellects to reach for the aspirin. Most quit reading him when once it’s no longer a class requirement unless they are linguistic masochists. And knock out the “false” modesty, buddy, you hang in just fine for an “old social worker”.
Gyges & Buddha,
If Kant wasn’t enough I have to also deal with Cosmology and theories of the creation of the Universe. What’s next? A discussion of the 11 dimensions posited by some string theorists? When I was in High School the Periodic Table had only three lines of elements and the model of the atom was a lot more stable. The only saving grace for me since then is my addiction to SF and the Science Channel.
Mike A.,
To sort of get back on topic you make an excellent point in that today’s fundamentalism, across all religions, is essentially not in line with traditional theology or theological history. In Islam, Wahabism is less than 200 years old; Jewish Hassidism is slightly older; Christian fundamentalism ignores older theological thought and Roman Catholic intellectualism; The Book of Morman is about 180 years old and there have been at least two more fundamentalist schisms there; While I’m on shakier ground I assume there is a strain of fundamentalist Hinduism that has also morphed away from traditional thought; and so it goes.
This seems to stem from a fear of a rapidly changing world and a person’s inability to keep up with change. As someone in my 60’s I understand how this can lead to fear, confusion and a desire to return to a simpler time and mode of thought. Unfortunately, this returns us to Darwinian thought in that the species that survive are able to adapt to a rapidly changing environment, surviving and prospering from it. We humans face a complexity of change in all areas and if we are to survive and grow, we must learn to adapt.
Mike,
If you want, I can also explain a little bit of jazz theory to you.
Mike S.,
I’m glad you mentioned adaptation. It has been my thought for some time that the next step in evolution is the conscious abandonment of a competitive model and adopting a cooperative model for human interaction and building civilization. If this means we have to eliminate the “overly competitive” from political process and positions that impact other’s lives, so be it. Hence my insistence that the Neocons must be excised from the body politic like a cancer and corporate greed put on a short (very short) leash. Hyper-competitive behavior is a function of ego and we all know what that means. It’s also outmoded as a survival mechanism. We need to consciously walk away from instincts that may have served well on the savanna, but are killing us as a species right now. We simply aren’t physically evolving fast enough in the face of technology and uncontrolled population growth. Our instincts are geared for hunting mammoth and fighting cave bears with pointed sticks while keeping those guys from over the hill from stealing or raping the women. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen any Pleistocene critters roaming about KC or anywhere else. And Facebook seems to have replaced the club and drag method of exercising “The Booty Call”. Our next leap must be a conscious decision using the “wetware” and “software” we already have. After all, it’s our mental capacities that differentiates us from animals, not the ability to feel emotion. Dogs love, dogs hate, but they don’t build nuclear weapons. Chimps love, chimps hate, chimps use tools, but they don’t know how to weaponize anthrax. We need as a species to make this choice and we need to make soon or the stars will most certainly not be our destination.
“We need to consciously walk away from instincts that may have served well on the savanna, but are killing us as a species right now.”
Buddha,
Great comment in its’ entirety. It is obvious to many that this is what is endangering the future of humanity. This is the issue though how do we humanely accomplish it? My only answer, not necessarily the
best is that first we increase our personal self awareness to identify that within us that is controlled by the atavism of the savanna. We then learn to control it within ourselves, easier said and done. We find kindred spirits to ally with in trying to persuade humanity of the need and of course we teach proper behavior to our children. Facile to expostulate, but enormously difficult to accomplish within the flux of an ever more complicated environment.
Gyges,
Thanks on the Jazz theory but although I’ve got good ears and taste, I’m functionally illiterate musically. I suspect though that you’d appreciate my Jazz mentors which start with Luis Armstrong from the 20’s and 30’s, the Count, The Duke, Benny G.,
Dizzy, Miles and Monk.
Mike,
Three of my four favorites are on that list. To be honest I always thought Mile’s claim to fame was the company he kept. I like Mingus’s response when asked about Miles during his fusion years (I can’t find the original so this is probably a little inaccurate), “Miles, that cat that played with Dizzy and Trane? Isn’t he dead?”
If you don’t mind a little advice, check out “Money Jungle” it’s a trio led by Ellington, with Mingus and Max Roach. It’s an eye-opener as to just how phenomenal of a piano player Ellington was (that tends to get overlooked).
If I could play piano like Duke Ellington, I’d never leave the house. Except to tour.
Gyges,
Forgot to mention Mingus. I once had a drink with him at a bar in the East Village in the early 70’s, which was a down period for him. Didn’t know who the nice guy was sitting next to me and talking at the bar, I’d never seen him perform. So I was blown away when he got up to play for the 15 or so people who were there and like me were drawn by his legend. Monkey Jungle sounds familiar to me, but I’m a sloppy musicologist. I’ll check it out and yes even to a musical illiterate like me Ellington seemed a great piano player. In that respect I also didn’t mention George Shearing, who I learned about from reading “On The Road.” My favorite female Jazz singers by the way are Lady Day, Ella and Anita O’Day. What gets crazy is that there are so many great musicians, singers and musical idioms. I’m also into The Grateful Dead, Willie Nelson, Frank, Mel, Tony, Bobby, Judy, Bob Wills, Bluegrass, Cajun, Zydeco, Queen, Springsteen, Dylan, Van, Neil, CCR and of course the Fab Four. It’s too much to keep track of and I don’t. Damn though, it enriches my life and makes me feel so good.
As physicians, I think it would be boring to explain everything we are able to accomplish scientifically, and the height of arrogance to take credit for the ‘miracles’ we see happen everyday.
Here’s just a couple of quotes from Einstein on ‘religion’…
‘Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.’
(Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954, p. 46.)
Once in answer to the question “Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?” Einstein replied as follows:
“I can’t answer with a simple yes or no. I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.”
(Denis Brian, Einstein, A Life, New York, 1996, p. 186.)
Patty,
I’m sorry, but I find knowing how things work fascinating. I appreciate things much more when I know the complexity that goes into them. I guess it’s my personality type.
I don’t know any scientist who thinks that science is responsible for everything that happens. They think that science just happens to be the best way to go about figuring out what exactly happened and how it happened.
Gyges, you’re not unusual in that regard. Most patients at least require some demonstration that a physician knows what she/he is doing.
My point is that not everything we do is explainable scientifically.
For instance, I cultivate relationships with my patients. Being adept at explaining the science is just one part of what I do in addition to my training in procedures. Taking the time needed for my patients to feel comfortable is equally important.
Obviously, you have no first-hand experience in a hospital setting, as there are often instances where there is no scientific explanation for patients to have survived and yet they do.
Needless to say, there are many more instances, but for ‘faith’, a lot of people wouldn’t make it through the senselessness of it all on a lot of other days.
hmmmmm . . . complexity (drool)
Patty,
Not to quibble, but science isn’t a pool of knowledge, it’s a manner of getting knowledge. While you can say that there are things that happen that haven’t been explained by science, you can’t really say that something can’t ever be explained. Since our knowledge base is constantly expanding and changing, so is our ability to figure out certain things.
Mankind had known about heredity for years, but only recently have we begun to unlock the mechanisms that cause it. We had no scientific explanation for why people passed on certain traits, just the observation that they did. Finding the mechanisms for medical recoveries is problematic because there’s all sorts of ethical concerns. You can’t reproduce several serious head wound in a laboratory to study to see why some people come out of a coma but others don’t.
That aside, I would never say that knowledge is the only thing necessary to practice medicine in one form or another. It does however lead to better medicine.
As for faith, I acknowledge that it’s important to some people, but that doesn’t mean I have to share it.
Buddha Is Laughing:
“Try? There is no try. There is only can and Kant.” –Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back, Draft 1
“But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power converters…” -Luke Skywalker
Mike Spindell:
“Now I have to decipher Kant’s logic?”
Not really. I was just taunting Mike Appleton regarding his comments implying that empiricism is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes.
Empiricism can guarantee you neither certainty nor necessity.
And per the Intelligent Design debate, Kant illustrated more than two centuries ago how proving & disproving the existence of “an absolutely necessary being” is an antinomy. WARNING: Familiarity with this concept will force you to see Bill Maher in a less intellectual light. You might even end up despising Bill Maher for his arrogance and stupidity as many have come to despise Dennis Miller for his lack of both spine & integrity; right wing suckup that he is.
What can I say, 20 years ago, Kant changed the way I think and The Critique became my inertial frame of reference, so to speak, for my method of thinking.
SIYOM,
Bob
Not to quibble, but science isn’t a pool of knowledge, it’s a manner of getting knowledge.
—-
No, I think I’d call it quibbling.
By your own examples, the scientific method, of which observation, is but one of the major criteria, would likewise hardly require one to reproduce head injuries, in a lab experiment, to support any hypothesis of expected recovery from coma.
Indeed, outcomes are constantly measurable and rely on many factors.
“Science” from the Latin word “scire,” to know. Science is a state of knowledge. The scientific method is the process of acquiring the synthesized information as Patty C rightly points out. Science is one of those words so big, it defies the dictionary.
Mike:
Bob, Esq. is a long-time Kant-o-phile, and his musings about the limitations of our understanding based upon the limitations of our sensory perceptions are usually prescient. I do fault him for knowing so much more than me, but maybe that too is Kantian given I cannot possibly know if that is so given my own limited sensibilities. However, I do believe it to be the case, my cognitive shortcomings not withstanding.
Mespo: “Science” from the Latin word “scire,” to know.
Whereas epistemology is from the Greek ‘episteme’ meaning ‘knowledge.’
“No one attempts to establish a science unless he has an
idea upon which to base it.” — guess who?
Bob,Esq:
I know, I know. That’s why I said is was a “state.” And as we all know, you can’t tell you’re in a “state” just by looking around. Damn that metaphysical Kant!
Mespo,
Kant’s appeal lay not so much in his particular ideas, but in his methodology.
Here’s one of the best description of Kant’s method I’ve ever read:
From “Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”:
“A fragment of memory is preserved of [Phaedrus] sitting in a room at three and four in the morning with Immanuel Kant’s famous Critique of Pure Reason, studying it as a chess player studies the openings of the tournament masters, trying to test the line of development against his own judgment and skill, looking for contradictions and incongruities.
Phædrus is a bizarre person when contrasted to the twentieth-century
Midwestern Americans who surround him, but when he is seen studying Kant he is less strange. For this eighteenth-century German philosopher he feels a respect that rises not out of agreement but out of appreciation for Kant’s formidable logical fortification of his position. Kant is always superbly methodical, persistent, regular and meticulous as he scales that great snowy mountain of thought concerning what is in the mind and what is outside the mind. It is, for modern climbers, one of the highest peaks of all, and I want now to magnify this picture of Kant and show a little about how he thought and how Phædrus thought about him in order to give a clearer picture of what the high country of the mind is like and also to prepare the way for an understanding of Phædrus’ thoughts.” (R. Pirsig, ZATAOMM, pp. 129-130)
Btw, if I’d never read ‘The Critique’ I don’t think I ever would have figured out the Ninth Amendment.
SIYOM,
Bob
“Bob, Esq. is a long-time Kant-o-phile, and his musings about the limitations of our understanding based upon the limitations of our sensory perceptions are usually prescient.”
Bob and Mespo, eureka,
If this is what Kant is about I’m there. Our understanding is naturally limited by the limits of perceptions. Isn’t this referred to by Plato in his cave example, or by physics which posits that the result is affected by the observation. The format, intensity and length of the proof presented is what is what throws me off. However, I can understand one being enraptured by the logic of the process.
My personal prejudice comes from a quote I heard many years ago that resonated with me and i paraphrase: “All of human philosophy and theology can be encapsulated by the thoughts in a person’s mind as they take a long Saturday night bath.” To wit as I see it: What is life? Why am I here? What am I to do about it? What significance does it all have?
This is not meant as a dismissal of philosophical thought, but merely reflects on my way of organizing my consciousness. I respect people who can do it differently and gain insight and pleasure from the experience. I think philosophy attempts to give people the blueprints for productive integration. Education is not equipped to show each child how to productively organize their consciousness and it is a hit and missed proposition with each of us.
Bob Esq:
How do you use reason to invalidate reason?
I am probably missing something and would appreciate any insight you have.
Turtle
Turtle,
If I may . . .
Reason is the application of logic. Logic is a tool, not an end in itself. Whether you use the tool for finding truth or obscuring it is up to the individual. Not all logics are correct. Example:
All UFO’s are beige.
All telephones are beige.
Therefore all telephones are UFOs.
That’s logically consistent and formally correct although completely erroneous in conclusion. The way to compensate for this is to use alternative logics to reach a conclusion that either confirms or refutes what observation shows to be the reality of a given situation and eliminating as many potential errors in interpretation and form as possible. That being said, it’s a given that error cannot be totally eliminated from ANY system of any degree of complexity – see chaos theory – but it can be reduced. This particular logic in the example fails for a variety of reasons – argument by generalization/non-sequitur/spurious similarity and the fallacies of composition and division to name a few. That’s hardly a comprehensive list of what’s wrong with this logic, but you get the idea. When used properly, logic/reason is a powerful tool to uncover the truth of what we see in the world around us. When misused, it’s a tool for self-deception or lying to others unable to dissect what you’d said. But logic is a tool you can use to diagnose itself. Just like a computer does.
“How do you use reason to invalidate reason?”
The theme of The Critique of Pure Reason is not to invalidate reason but to explore its facets and examine its limitations.
And I think that’s about the shortest summary I’ve ever written about that book.
“All UFO’s are beige.
All telephones are beige.
Therefore all telephones are UFOs.”
My favorite one is:
All celestial bodies are made of green cheese
The moon is a celestial body
Therefore the moon is made of green cheese
Bob,
I thought you might appreciate this quote, sorry I don’t recall the source, but I think it was Ian Ketterling.
“Logic is a way to go wrong with absolute certainty.”
Patty,
I would think that there’s a big difference between a process and the result. While the pool of knowledge is constantly changing and getting corrected, science itself stays the same. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to look up the relevant quotes from Shermer, Sagan, etc. but that is a pretty consistent theme running through the body of literature on science.
I admit we’re arguing semantics here, but I think the implication is major when we’re discussing a statement like “…not everything we do is explainable scientifically.” If we’re talking of science as a finite state of knowledge then that is accurate. If we’re talking about science as a process of gaining knowledge then I have to disagree. Do I think it’s possible for humanity to know everything? Nope. Do I think that science combined with the right knowledge base could in theory explain everything we observe? Yes.
I also think you misread my earlier post, I never implied that laboratory research was the only method of data gathering that science could use. I was just giving an example of how it is harder to research certain medical theories because of the ethics involved.
Patty, Gyges,
Maybe the issue is in using absolutes. A state of perfect knowledge isn’t mathematically possible. A reasonable “Theory of Everything” needs not be perfect to function as a working, predictive model. Just look at the huge numbers of theories that have had predictive value in application only to be later usurped by a later, more refined theory that produces “higher resolution” results? Even Newton and Einstein received later corrections. This in no way invalidates relativity or the still useful parts of Newtonian physics. Something to consider.
You’re the one attempting to argue. I’m the one with the degree.
I happen to know a smidge about research myself, having had full access to our own lab for several funded studies at my hospital. Harvard and ‘medical research’ are practically synonymous, don’t you know?
Yet another part of the scientific method is the integration of new information, as it becomes available…
Here’s another quote from Einstein you might appreciate:
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
–Albert Einstein
Stein’s insistence on promoting ID, got me reading more. I am currently enjoying an hilarious exchange between Sam Harris and an assortment of pseudo and actual intellectuals on the topic of the compatibility of science’s and religion’s claims about the universe. If anyone is interested,I suggest reading the brief comments seriatim and then enjoying Harris’ concluding tongue-in-cheek rejoinder, wherein he feigns an epiphany of divine revelatory truth at the expense of both his rationality and religious skepticism. Harris is fast becoming my favorite wordsmith for the quality of his writing style, and his joyous use of language to evince both humor and ethos. Here’s the link:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#rc
mespo,
My man, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks for the link. The Edge is now permanently bookmarked.
Buddha:
Glad you enjoyed it. I have re-read it several times and find something new or hilarious every time despite its brevity. I commend it to all the regulars and especially to the religious among us. It skewers the romantic notion that propositions may be judged by other than rationalist standards, on some higher plane of understanding. While that might be true (we bow to Kant here), it is incredibly naive to believe that higher plane consists of Iron Age superstition, and incredible leaps into fantasy.
Hi. I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Beef brisket on charcoal grill. I found only this – Charcoal grill lighter. The thought of many red meco charcoal grills sitting on the back porch of our homes in the neighborhood is sure to turn heads. Mla style citation roach, larry basics of charcoal grilling. With respect
, Paramesh from Senegal.