tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post2404131852813192015..comments2023-08-03T07:34:18.047-07:00Comments on indiepundit: Derbyshire v SteinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-89554633878810162952009-01-04T07:18:00.000-08:002009-01-04T07:18:00.000-08:00It's a stimulating topic. I can't recall the time...It's a stimulating topic. I can't recall the times I've debated the possibility of evolution working in congruence with God...E.D. Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883664120993134334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-48107762779726701582009-01-04T00:36:00.000-08:002009-01-04T00:36:00.000-08:00sure, I suppose. I guess I just got over-stimulat...sure, I suppose. I guess I just got over-stimulated by the topic, as I've never really understood how it *couldn't* be about Darwinism.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737864007540876542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-16155248540828156952009-01-03T19:58:00.000-08:002009-01-03T19:58:00.000-08:00Max,Indeed--but like so many philosophers it's not...Max,<BR/><BR/>Indeed--but like so many philosophers it's not necessarily what they themselves think, but how their words influence others that counts most...<BR/><BR/>Thanks!E.D. Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883664120993134334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-84364194778716151622009-01-03T15:21:00.000-08:002009-01-03T15:21:00.000-08:00quibble: Nietzche himself explicitly denies that h...quibble: Nietzche himself explicitly denies that his doctrine of the over-man has anything to do with Darwinian thought. in fact he seemed to consider Darwin a bit of a blockhead. cf. Will to Power (1st section I think)Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737864007540876542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-6551569008542534072009-01-02T14:38:00.000-08:002009-01-02T14:38:00.000-08:00I see...well, I'm not worried about the same thing...I see...well, I'm not worried about the same thing. I intended that last line or two to sum up the major rift between Stein's concern and mine:<BR/><BR/><I>"Where he strays is to imply that the problem lies with the science, which is merely the tool--Raskolnikov's axe, as it were.<BR/><BR/>The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves..."</I>E.D. Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883664120993134334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-54050897514562841822009-01-02T14:35:00.000-08:002009-01-02T14:35:00.000-08:00I agree with your larger point, about the ethical ...I agree with your larger point, about the ethical lemmas posed by scientific discovery and technological advancement. I have no easy answer to those concerns. I guess, as the old saying goes, "We'll cross that bridge when we get there."<BR/><BR/>I suppose my quibble is claiming that what you're worried about and what Ben Stein is "worried" about are the same thing.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11548537903012973391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-9219505153348633962009-01-02T14:26:00.000-08:002009-01-02T14:26:00.000-08:00JTP, thanks for commenting. You raise a fair poin...JTP, thanks for commenting. You raise a fair point about honesty, though I would argue that honesty is really not the question here. One can be "honest" and respected by their peers in the scientific community and still be developing dangerous science. If eugenics were embraced in the larger culture, for instance, honest scientists would likely participate in the genetic "shaping" of society. One can be honest and still be part of a larger foolishness...<BR/><BR/>Regarding Stein--I just don't know what to think. He's a bright guy, and has some economic sense in his head, but this whole God vs. Science thing drives me crazy. We can have both, you know...E.D. Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883664120993134334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-22921142376216243352009-01-02T14:22:00.000-08:002009-01-02T14:22:00.000-08:00Scientists are people, just like Ben Stein is. How...Scientists are people, just like Ben Stein is. However, unlike Ben Stein, intellectually honesty is a requirement of their profession. A dishonest scientist will find himself or herself out of a job. Even the <I>incorrect</I> perception of dishonestly (ask David Baltimore) can severely compromise a scientist's career.<BR/><BR/>Ben Stein is disingenuous at best, a lunatic at worst. But for this behavior, he's rewarded: movie deals, cable news spots, guest editorials. It's not much of a leap, from where I stand, to assert that said dishonesty is <I>required</I> for Stein's continued success.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11548537903012973391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-4149435106554688012009-01-02T12:51:00.000-08:002009-01-02T12:51:00.000-08:00Wellsy, you're quite right. I think there is some...Wellsy, you're quite right. I think there is some merit to the days when humankind moved forward under the guidance of a strong power--a moral code, or some Authority larger than themselves. Nowadays all our actions and pursuits spin through time detached from one another, rag-tag, motley, with very little eye to the future. I suppose this protects us from Authority when it is on the wrong side of history, but it certainly leaves us to the whims of any number of evils and mistakes.<BR/><BR/>Competition can be a good thing, but as you noted with the Atom bomb, it can also lead to hurry and lack of consideration. Just look at how our companies are valued--not in their long-term success, or the treatment of workers, or the quality of goods--but quarterly profits. Quarterly valuations. It's sad, really.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for commenting.E.D. Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883664120993134334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244402908742446011.post-37147653439558240852009-01-02T12:22:00.000-08:002009-01-02T12:22:00.000-08:00Science is 100% a tool. Knowledge gained is entire...Science is 100% a tool. Knowledge gained is entirely neutral; the application of that knowledge is what can be used for good or bad. There are scientists who dedicate their entire careers to creating bombs that kill more people more efficiently. There are scientists who have focused solely on new technologies that can render an enemy defenseless. The argument that we must remain one step ahead of our enemy is not an argument presented in any Bible I've ever read. <BR/><BR/>But anyway, many of these scientists are drawing on feelings of patriotism and Western tradition. I doubt all of them are atheists, either. It is as Martin Luther King Jr. described: "We have guided missiles and unguided men." <BR/><BR/>The dilemma, at least for me, rears its ugly head when I begin to consider if the pros outweigh the cons. Was our discovery of atomic theory and all the amazing technologies that sprung from it worth Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Even while our knowledge of embryology has grown to allow screening for more diseases with greater sensitivity, it has also allowed us to develop means of quick and safe abortions. Pros and cons, pros and cons.<BR/><BR/>The funny thing is it doesn't seem to me that any collective body is making decisions here. No one weighed in and said, let's proceed with the study of atomic theory with the utmost caution, knowing that what we find may be used to construct weapons of even greater destruction. It's just that the technology becomes available so we use it. It's as if the will of society steamrolls the will of the individual.Wellsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11819379667669157095noreply@blogger.com