Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Nothing to say...

Expand Messages
  • gluadys
    ... To be sure. That is why Christian theology needed to be rebuilt after Darwin, just as after Copernicus. ... Which is just the opposite of allowing one s
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 31, 2009
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > NOTHING TO SAY...
      >

      >
      > "Many scientific theories affect ways of living more profoundly than evolution did; but none have had a greater impact on ways of thinking and believing. In this respect, the space age does not promise even remotely to match it. Indeed, in all modern history there have been only a few scientific theories whose intellectual consequences have gone far beyond the internal development of science as a system of knowledge to revolutionize the fundamental patterns of thought. Discoveries of this magnitude shatter old beliefs and philosophies; they suggest (indeed often impose) the necessity of building new ones. They raise the promise - to some men infinitely alluring - of new and more complete systematizations of knowledge. They command so much interest and acquire so much prestige within the literate community that almost everyone feels obliged at the very least to bring his world-outlook into harmony with their findings,.....
      >
      >



      To be sure. That is why Christian theology needed to be rebuilt after Darwin, just as after Copernicus.



      >
      >
      ..... while some thinkers eagerly seize upon and enlist them in the formulation and propogation of their own views quite remote from science. (This is precisely what the Nazis did with Darwinism: they enlisted the theory in the service of their racial philosohy and their genocidal project.)....
      >
      >


      Which is just the opposite of allowing one's thought to be informed and influenced by the science. This is just grabbing a handy label to give a veneer of legitimacy to the "propagation of their own views" which were, as stated, "quite remote from science."
    • Jim Goff
      NOTHING TO SAY... Hofstadter: ..... while some thinkers eagerly seize upon and enlist them in the formulation and propogation of their own views quite remote
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 1, 2009
        NOTHING TO SAY...

        Hofstadter: "..... while some thinkers eagerly seize upon and enlist them in the formulation and propogation of their own views quite remote from science. (This is precisely what the Nazis did with Darwinism: they enlisted the theory in the service of their racial philosohy and their genocidal project.)"
        gluadys: "Which is just the opposite of allowing one's thought to be informed and influenced by the science."

        No, a person's views can be informed and shaped by science while the views themselves are "quite remote from science," that is to say, unscientific in their own right. There was nothing scientific per se about the Nazis' racial philosophy and their genocidal project, but it is nonetheless a historical reality that they enlisted Darwin's theory in the service of both. That's why Hess referred to Nazism as "applied biology." It would be hard to defend the Nazis' applications of biology (in particular, Darwin's theory) as truly scientific, but it would be fatuous to argue that Darwin's theory - filtered by Social Darwinists - was not instrumental in shaping their racial philosophy and their genocidal project.

        Jim in Vermont





        _________________________________________________________________
        Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
        http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
        http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • gluadys
        ... Deforming the science to validate a policy is not the same as allowing the science to shape/inform a policy. One can say with equal correctness and a lot
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 2, 2009
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > NOTHING TO SAY...
          >
          > Hofstadter: "..... while some thinkers eagerly seize upon and enlist them in the formulation and propogation of their own views quite remote from science. (This is precisely what the Nazis did with Darwinism: they enlisted the theory in the service of their racial philosohy and their genocidal project.)"
          > gluadys: "Which is just the opposite of allowing one's thought to be informed and influenced by the science."
          >
          > No, a person's views can be informed and shaped by science while the views themselves are "quite remote from science," that is to say, unscientific in their own right. There was nothing scientific per se about the Nazis' racial philosophy and their genocidal project, but it is nonetheless a historical reality that they enlisted Darwin's theory in the service of both. That's why Hess referred to Nazism as "applied biology." It would be hard to defend the Nazis' applications of biology (in particular, Darwin's theory) as truly scientific, but it would be fatuous to argue that Darwin's theory - filtered by Social Darwinists - was not instrumental in shaping their racial philosophy and their genocidal project.
          >
          > Jim in Vermont
          >



          Deforming the science to validate a policy is not the same as allowing the science to shape/inform a policy. One can say with equal correctness and a lot more evidence that it is a historical reality that the Nazis enlisted Christianity, filtered through Martin Luther, et al, in shaping their policy. But did they really allow Christian teaching to inform their policy or did they reshape Christian teaching to fit their policy?

          The Holocaust is no more applied biology than it is applied gospel.
        • Pasha
          Hofstadter: ..... while some thinkers eagerly seize upon and enlist them in the formulation and propogation of their own views quite remote from science.
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 2, 2009
            Hofstadter: "..... while some thinkers eagerly seize upon and enlist
            them in the formulation and propogation of their own views quite remote
            from science. (This is precisely what the Nazis did with Darwinism: they enlisted the theory in the service of their racial philosohy and their genocidal project.)"


            gluadys: "Which is just the opposite of allowing one's thought to be informed and influenced by the science."



            Engelbert Abdelkarim Karuizawa (in Vermont) responded:  No, a person's views can be informed and shaped by science while the
            views themselves are "quite remote from science," that is to say,
            unscientific in their own right. There was nothing scientific per se
            about the Nazis' racial philosophy and their genocidal project, but it
            is nonetheless a historical reality that they enlisted Darwin's theory
            in the service of both. That's why Hess referred to Nazism
            as "applied biology." It would be hard to defend the Nazis'
            applications of biology (in particular, Darwin's theory) as truly
            scientific, but it would be fatuous to argue that Darwin's theory -
            filtered by Social Darwinists - was not instrumental in shaping their
            racial philosophy and their genocidal project.


            Pasha responds:  Views informed and shaped by science are scientific.  Views that twist and distort science in support of themselves "are quite removed from science, that is to say, unscientific in their own right."  It is a historical reality the Nazis twisted and distorted a variation of Darwin's theory that Darwin himself rejected, "social darwinism," to support their genocidal program.  Their racial philosophy was in no way shaped by theory, rather theory was modified to fit the philosophy.  We've seen the same antics with many political organizations--modifying or outright suppressing scientific findings at odds with preset policy.  I can cite numerous examples of the Bush administrating engaged in exactly this behavior.  It is ludicrous to suggest the science politically suppressed (or modified) actually supported any of the policies it in reality contradicted.

            This all brings us back to the burning question--just what was it about the Jews that scientifically proved they were inferior and should be exterminated, per Darwin's theory?  NOT the Nazis perverted thought, but what Englebert (aka Jim) agrees was scientifically accurate about their philosophy?


            In astra lumina, Veritas!






















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.