Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Martinus]

I disagree. In science (even social science), method counts as much as the final result. The quality of the method determines how rigid or flexible the system is, and how receptive it is to improvements. The CSS method allows for much better debate than "what does the Bible really say" (not to mention the latter is quite ridiculous for anyone who does not consider the Bible to be divinely inspired, whereas the CSS is interface compatible with "atheistic" sciences).

Edit: this was in response to Beeb.

[Martinus]

it does not dwells too much on those parts of the Bible that are not consistent with it.

Well it would be very difficult to find something that is consistent throughout the entire Bible.  Just as I pointed out the entire basis of its morality changes at various points as people change the conception of who is 'us' and their relationship to 'God'.  I find it a bit fascinating that when some new writer would write something they just added it to the Canon and did not appear to go back and update the past material to make it consistent.  I guess once people decided to combine it into one giant work it was already too late for that.

The last of the books was written several centuries before it was combined, you know.

[Valmy]

The last of the books was written several centuries before it was combined, you know.

I know but by that point the previous stuff was already sacred scripture.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, one can read Artistotle or Plato if one wants to study the history of philosophy (and I guess it is a good stepping stone for more complex philosophical ideas) but noone is "interpreting" them as a part of modern philosophy.

Where do you get this idea? Plenty of people are revisiting, and reinterpreting Aristotle and Plato today.

I commend you.  I stopped reading his post when he said he agreed with Viking although Viking never actually made the argument Marti said he was agreeing with.

I stopped reading Vikings posts when he said starting creating positions nobody has taken in this thread.  Viking is off having an debate with himself and Marti is in agreement with Viking with points Viking never raised.

This has become a classic Languish thread.

[Martinus]

The last of the books was written several centuries before it was combined, you know.

I know but by that point the previous stuff was already sacred scripture.

Yes and no. There are many books which were not included in the Bible - so consistency was not a particularly important thing. The better question is why the Nicean Council included contradictory books in the holy scripture.

[garbon]

I would have like to see the long answer. You know what hermeneutics and positivism is and you use both words correctly in the sentences you use.

Hmm, Viking really is a condescending git, isn't he?

[The Brain]

The last of the books was written several centuries before it was combined, you know.

I know but by that point the previous stuff was already sacred scripture.

Yes and no. There are many books which were not included in the Bible - so consistency was not a particularly important thing. The better question is why the Nicean Council included contradictory books in the holy scripture.

Have you ever tried getting a Bible through Council? Niggas amend like crazy.

[Viking]

I agree with Viking

Viking loses

I'm glad that I scrolled down before I posted that.

So Viking, how do you respond to this total devastation of all your arguments?

God save me from my friends, I can protect myself from my enemies.

[Viking]

Also we are talking about the humanities not the sciences here.  Whether or not Michel Foucault is a more advanced and more truthful philosophy than his predecessors is a matter of opinion.

And we can have an opinion, even if it is a poor one of the ancient ones. Proving Foucault wrong means we can ignore him. Apparently, proving the Bible to be wrong does not have that effect. In my view this puts christians in the same bin of moral honesty as post-modernists.

[Viking]

Yeah, one can read Artistotle or Plato if one wants to study the history of philosophy (and I guess it is a good stepping stone for more complex philosophical ideas) but noone is "interpreting" them as a part of modern philosophy.

Where do you get this idea? Plenty of people are revisiting, and reinterpreting Aristotle and Plato today.

Revisiting yes, reinterpreting not so much. Aristotle and Plato don't have value in and of themselves and figuring out what they really meant in line XXX means nothing. Their ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.

Newton saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

[Valmy]

Yes and no. There are many books which were not included in the Bible - so consistency was not a particularly important thing. The better question is why the Nicean Council included contradictory books in the holy scripture.

The better question is how the Nicean Council included books in the Holy Scripture when that was never discussed at any point during that council (not to be cheeky but man one would think Christianity was invented at Nicea considering how much it gets credit for things that had nothing to do with it).  How and where exactly the Biblical Canon was decided on is a bit of mystery AFAIK.

[Valmy]

And we can have an opinion, even if it is a poor one of the ancient ones. Proving Foucault wrong means we can ignore him. Apparently, proving the Bible to be wrong does not have that effect. In my view this puts christians in the same bin of moral honesty as post-modernists.

How exactly could we prove Foucault wrong?  And if we could, could some of his writings be wrong and others not be wrong?  Or must he either be entirely right or not right at all?

[crazy canuck]

Revisiting yes, reinterpreting not so much. Aristotle and Plato don't have value in and of themselves and figuring out what they really meant in line XXX means nothing. Their ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.

Newton saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Do you have any particular support for this rather surprising assertion.

[crazy canuck]

Yes and no. There are many books which were not included in the Bible - so consistency was not a particularly important thing. The better question is why the Nicean Council included contradictory books in the holy scripture.

The better question is how the Nicean Council included books in the Holy Scripture when that was never discussed at any point during that council (not to be cheeky but man one would think Christianity was invented at Nicea considering how much it gets credit for things that had nothing to do with it).  How and where exactly the Biblical Canon was decided on is a bit of mystery AFAIK.

Yes and no.  Biblican canon wasnt decided at the Nicean Council in the sense that the books were not selected there.  But the Nicean Council - along with a serious of such Council in that period did debate and decide on the nature of Jesus and God which then become "Canon" for the Church or at least part of it.

How the books were selected is not much of a mystery.  We have good sources for that and modern scholars who have written extensively on the topic - See Ehrman as a good example.

[Valmy]

Yes and no.  Biblican canon wasnt decided at the Nicean Council in the sense that the books were not selected there.  But the Nicean Council - along with a serious of such Council in that period did debate and decide on the nature of Jesus and God which then become "Canon" for the Church or at least part of it.

Yeah but the issue they debated is really obscure and arcane except to history and theology nerds.