Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Viking]

I am being serious.  You are the one saying idiotic shit like how we can ignore ancient stuff because...it seems every single thing said was proven wrong?  How?  By whom?  When?  And further I will ask again how does one prove Foucault wrong on any topic?

I'm not saying that all ancient stuff was wrong. I'm saying we have more knowledge than the ancients on every topic and thus the best source for knowledge on any topic, morality and ethics included, is not the ancients, it is the moderns.

I'm saying the field of ethics and morality as of today is much more developed than the field of ethics and morality was in classical greece and syria.

How this leads people to insist that I think asocial mental wrecks who worked in the nature of knowledge like Wittgenstein and postmodernists like Foucault are moral paragons or have some special expertise in morality is beyond me. Einstein was a smart guy, but he didn't know shit about animal husbandry. Just because we know more about animal husbandry today than we did 2000 years ago does not mean that every single living person today is better at it than any random herdsman from 2000 years ago.

The experts of today know more about morality and ethics than the experts of 2000 years ago.

[Martinus]

Again, I can understand perfectly what Viking is saying.

The totality of modern knowledge is greater than ancient knowledge (and unless you are a Van Daeniken nut, probably we have not "lost" any knowledge of the ancients). So on every topic, it is better to read a modern book than an acient one. It does not mean that modern books are not wrong - but you can find a modern book that is better than any ancient book, in terms of knowledge included in it.

[Viking]

We know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.

I am not obfuscating at all. My job is trying to understand these things in past societies - and I fear it is neither objective, nor testable - especially if you consider that such categories have histories -- and therefore social consequences from their very existence. The fact that you are brushing them away does not make them more easily attainable, and "sensible" definitions of happiness will precisely underscore philosophical differences, hence making the circular argument very difficult to breach into. In other words, by having a positivistic view of history, you create categories which are vindicated by their apparition, and fulfillment, in our own time. For example, if your "sensible" definitions of happiness and peacefulness happen to correspond to the kind of happiness and peacefulness which exist today, and which correspond to our moral preferences, it should not be surprising to see that it actually manifesting itself more and more through time. This is a basic fallacy.

Oex, I fully appreciate that you and I do not share whole lot of common opinions on certain topics, but after reading your posts in this thread I have a complete man-crush on you for the night.

Wow just wow Viking.  You do know what Oex does for a living right?

Anyway, I will sit back and await Oex's response which btw I am sure everyone but you will understand.

Given that obviously neither one of you can show that either the bible is a satisfactory source of moral knowledge and/or explain why, if interpretation matters, Huck Finn or any other obviously more moral book than the bible cannot be used in it's place to better effect.

Oex isn't arguing your case at all. He is arguing against my contention that there is better moral knowledge, that moral knowledge can be identified, that moral knowledge is in today's corpus of work and that secular western humanist moral standards are superior. Ask him what he thinks of the bible as a source of moral knowledge and teaching. Oex already argued to me that I could make my atheist point by mere conceding that the bible could be a useful (as useful as any other) source of moral teaching. You just like him right now because he is disagreeing with me. I'd suggest that in this discussion you two are on my side of it given that you don't think that all morality is completely subjective.   

[Martinus]

Wow just wow Viking.  You do know what Oex does for a living right?

I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.

[PDH]

Wow just wow Viking.  You do know what Oex does for a living right?

I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.

Won't work. History professor is a million times more prestigious than a lawyer. Just ask beeb.

[Neil]

Wow just wow Viking.  You do know what Oex does for a living right?

I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.

Allegedly.

[The Brain]

General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.

[Martinus]

General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.

What do you do for a living?

[The Brain]

General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.

What do you do for a living?

Whatever I have to.

[Barrister]

Wow just wow Viking.  You do know what Oex does for a living right?

I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.

Won't work. History professor is a million times more prestigious than a lawyer. Just ask beeb.

It's only a thousand times more prestigious.

[Oexmelin]

General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.

What an amazing piece of wisdom. You should write for the Bible.

[Viking]

For those who thought ID was a serious attempt at science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=player_embedded#!

Ken Miller, Catholic Biologist and expert witness one the side of Science at the Pennsylvania ID trial at Dover explains in a clear and unambigious way that ID is wrong. It might be a sign of the difficulty of the problem that it takes 2 hours. But, after those two hours you will not think that ID is a serious attempt at science.

The outcome of the Dover trial did conclude that ID was not science and if only the school board had appealed we could have had a supreme court ruling on this.. but they were all voted out.

[Barrister]

For those who thought ID was a serious attempt at science.

Viking, you're shadowboxing again.  No one on Languish has argued against evolution.

[HVC]

For those who thought ID was a serious attempt at science.

Viking, you're shadowboxing again.  No one on Languish has argued against evolution.

did we ever have a poster who did that. Seige doesn't count becasue he thinks the moon landing is a hoax too. Did Fahdiz during his religious years?

[PDH]

Siege watched Mythbusters and now thinks the moon landings are legit.