ID on Nova

[tjohnson]

Did anyone watch the show on Intelligent Design in Dover, Pennsylvania?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

One thing that doesn't bode well for Objectivism is noted in this excerpt from the " the wedge" document, emphasis mine;

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

This puts the belief of objective moral standards as something shared with creationists which is something I'm sure Objectivists would want to distance themselves from.

[tjohnson]

I was interested in some discussion about "what is science" and "what is fact" and "what is theory". I was pleased to hear one of the plaintiff's witnesses saying that theories are more important than facts because they integrate isolated facts into something coherent, something that can be worked with and modified over time. Some of the IDers were saying the theory of evolution is "just a theory", implying that theories are somehow not that important and that one is just as good as another, which totally contradicts science in general. Science is all about figuring out which theories are the best so all theories are not equal as creationists would have us believe. But I sometimes think that 'evolutionists' are a little to blame as well. I think they often present evolution as indisputable or , as the creationists claim, as "fact", and so the lines are drawn. We need to present evolution neither as "a fact" nor as "just a theory" but simply as "the best theory we currently have".

[kiaer.ts]

Is it objectively morally wrong to assert that there are objective moral truths?

This is a not a problem for Objectivists. The fact that fools exist is the fools' problem.

[BaalChatzaf]

Is it objectively morally wrong to assert that there are objective moral truths?

This is a not a problem for Objectivists. The fact that fools exist is the fools' problem.

Surely there are moral and ethical rule systems. That is a fact. And not one of them is a consequence of physical laws. Humans make them up as they go along. Like the rules for games. For example chess: the rules are clear, they are explicit, there is no doubt what they are and they are artifacts from beginning to end.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Is it objectively morally wrong to assert that there are objective moral truths?

The only things that are "objective" are things we can measure and agree on. Can you measure moral standards? The whole idea doesn't make sense except that it provides a platform to push your moral standards on someone else. This is indeed a problem with Objectivism if you want mainstream population to accept it because it will face the same kind of resistance that faces Creationism.

[Brant Gaede]

Is it objectively morally wrong to assert that there are objective moral truths?

The only things that are "objective" are things we can measure and agree on. Can you measure moral standards? The whole idea doesn't make sense except that it provides a platform to push your moral standards on someone else. This is indeed a problem with Objectivism if you want mainstream population to accept it because it will face the same kind of resistance that faces Creationism.

Everything existential is objective--i.e., true. The problem is getting there from here--"here" being what we think and think we know and know--for the sake of appropriate action and even no action. That's all. As for moral standards, people try to make their best choices, presumably, when and if they try. Imposing them in the moral context is wrong. In the political context we are talking about human rights and ideally the protection of same is imposed on the violators and would-be violators. If the initiators of force object they can kiss my keister. Thus I am no anarchist and justify the monopoly of force reflected in law by a government. The monopoly refers to law, not proper private use of force in self-defense.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Everything existential is objective--i.e., true. The problem is getting there from here--"here" being what we think and think we know and know--for the sake of appropriate action and even no action. That's all. As for moral standards, people try to make their best choices, presumably, when and if they try. Imposing them in the moral context is wrong. In the political context we are talking about human rights and ideally the protection of same is imposed on the violators and would-be violators. If the initiators of force object they can kiss my keister. Thus I am no anarchist and justify the monopoly of force reflected in law by a government. The monopoly refers to law, not proper private use of force in self-defense.

--Brant

The parts of Objectivism that I agree with (more or less) are the ideas of less government involvement in the economy and more individual rational behaviour and even the disdain of altruism, but any talk about morality turns me off completely. As soon as I hear the word 'morality' I think 'religion'. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.

[BaalChatzaf]

Did anyone watch the show on Intelligent Design in Dover, Pennsylvania?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Yes, I have seen this documentary several times. What is interesting is the Judge Jones, who is not a specialist in science, came out with a decision indicating that Intelligent Design is not a scientific hypothesis or theory, since it cannot be tested/falsified. He also excoriated the people from the Discovery Institute for mendacity and hypocricy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

But I sometimes think that 'evolutionists' are a little to blame as well. I think they often present evolution as indisputable or , as the creationists claim, as "fact", and so the lines are drawn. We need to present evolution neither as "a fact" nor as "just a theory" but simply as "the best theory we currently have".

I think you missed the point of what he was saying there. IIRC he was saying evolution is a "theory" like gravitation is a "theory", or the "theory" of the atom, or the spherical earth "theory". The common use/misuse of the word "theory" is the problem. Evolution is a theory, not because it's on shaky ground whatsoever, it's indeed much more powerful than a fact. It explains the facts - so well that molecular biology and genetics confirm evolution in incredible detail. Branches of science that didn't even exist in Darwin's time are confirming details of his theory with very little, if any evidence against. "Theory" is just used as recognition that everything in science is always open to question. The "Theory" of evolution has about as much chance to be refuted as the heliocentric solar system "theory".

I have a combination life science/hard science (physics) background. I am moderately well-educated in this area, but certainly not an expert but even to me, questioning evolution is like claiming the earth is flat.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

The "best theory we currently have" is always the theory we currently have.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

One thing I can say with surety is that always way too slowly, but surely enough, my personal evolution has steadily allowed me to evolve around re-entering discourses that I have, along with others, pounded into the pavement.

Like this thread, for instance--my subconscious apparently kept me off it long enough to not get more involved than I will now, and that's probably it. It kept me out of it long enough to at least, upon finally re-entering, do so with brevity. This is another ID discussion, specifically about one of the more recent high-profile situations involving socio-politically active morons next door to my state. And yes, I saw that thing on Nova, etc.

ID is enough of a theory that it became competitive, profile-wise. But theory is theory, meaning it can only be treated as that.

Often, more irritating than theories themselves are what certain people do with them. You don't even need a theory to be an asshole--there are organized religion/ecclesiastical world assholes, there are scientific community assholes...an endless selection of assholes. You become an asshole the second you start pushing an agenda like this thing here. Actually, you become a fascist.

And let me clarify that statement... I do "judge," of course, or I would be inefficacious. And, my style is to judge on the side of allowing for ignorance--first, I try to view it as an educational issue. BUT, if you are smart enough to get enough of a theory and then run around using it to fuck with people to further your own fears, your own lack of sense-of-completion, need for surety itself in a dynamicallly changing universe, then you are automatically an asshole when you start trying to create dogma. And I don't care what flavor, you're a dick. Don't confuse the dickheads with the theories, generally...that's a good place to start when evaluating such fiascos.

That, and the fact that on the other end of theory (meaning, reasonable, nice people that discuss them), you often end up finding out that common ground is hit more than not; the real difference being contextual or linguistic issues in describing what in the end is the same thing, or lack of thing found.

When Michael (MSK) says "stick to the ideas," there is more reason behind him saying so than even just being a responsible moderator. I like that way of discourse.

End-sum-net is simply that we are never short of scary dickheads, since the beginning of conscious thought, only a minority have grasped that elementary concept.

Yeah. That's enough for me on it. The last four rounds were a while ago, and they got about as far as this one will.

r

Edited February 13, 2009 by Rich Engle

[tjohnson]

... questioning evolution is like claiming the earth is flat.

No, questioning evolution is just that - questioning evolution. As far as the shape of the earth goes, that is a whole field in itself (geodesy) and it is constantly being questioned, although I don't think many in the field are putting forth the flat model.

[Brant Gaede]

... questioning evolution is like claiming the earth is flat.

No, questioning evolution is just that - questioning evolution. As far as the shape of the earth goes, that is a whole field in itself (geodesy) and it is constantly being questioned, although I don't think many in the field are putting forth the flat model.

Good one, GS.

Just don't question the revolution!

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Guess I'm back in this muck again, again...

Look: there are really good academics that come from the theological side that don't see any conflict between evolution theory and spiritual belief, in general. In fact, if you discourse with these people, what you get out of it, often, is they say that both actually tend to support each other.

Basic, Fundamentalist-style Creationism, well, that's just a way of explaining something to people that haven't done all the homework first. This distinction is a non-issue for big thinkers, on both sides of the fence. I can't account for ignorance.

I am dearth to boil it down to simple terms, but let's just say GOD (theism, guy in the sky...whatever). Why wouldn't GOD consider evolving creatures? This is no more than a long term employee development plan, if you think of it that way. You have to get people up to speed first, in some case that takes aeons... That's not my theory, but it's sensible enough for your basic theist. Why question God's plan, or why he grew something, for how long? Don''t you go to H for that shit, or something?

I know that kind of God is supposed to be perfect on first-rip, and all, but certainly that's not how composers usually work. So, he started with something crawling out of the slime? Maybe he was busy working on other God-related stuff (GRS). It's all context. Evolution is very sensible, in general, even to an informed theist. Most people haven't even read Darwin, because it takes too long to even get a bit of it. It's mostly biology.

rde

I'm just saying.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Rich Engle

[BaalChatzaf]

... questioning evolution is like claiming the earth is flat.

No, questioning evolution is just that - questioning evolution. As far as the shape of the earth goes, that is a whole field in itself (geodesy) and it is constantly being questioned, although I don't think many in the field are putting forth the flat model.

We know the Earth is not a perfect sphere or even a perfect oblate spheroid. The corrections made by geodesy are somewhere around the 6th decimal place. No one in his right mind thinks the Earth is hollow or flat.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

If the current theory of evolution (genetics + molecular biology + natural selection) is ever replaced or greatly modified it will be replaced by another naturalistic/materialist theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

I got some good ones! Saying evolution "is just a theory" is like saying Tiger Woods "is just a golfer" or the Rolls Royce "is just a car".