I was wondering why Vox Day, that lunatic, was asking me my definition of science—it turns out that that same day he posted the request, he was publishing a screed against science in WorldNutDaily. His lack of an adequate definition doesn't seem to have stopped him from condemning science, whatever he thinks it is.
For if all knowledge is inherently good, then it is a moral imperative to scientifically determine the relative intelligence of Asians and Zulus once and for all. But is everyone really comfortable with the possibility of determining that men are, in scientific fact, intellectually superior to women? Or vice-versa? The cowardice of scientists regarding such controversial subjects, their nominal dedication to absolute scientific truth nothwithstanding, is powerful evidence of their lack of faith in the inherent beneficence of science.
I don't think Day quite understands science here—he seems to think it is a foregone conclusion that men are "in scientific fact" superior to women. If we had some consensus on what "superior" actually means in this context (and we don't, which is really the reason work in this field makes many of us turn up our nose in disgust—it seems to really reflect a conditional bias rather than any kind of empirically testable measure), then maybe it would turn out that women are "superior". We don't know. It's probably a very bad question, an attempt to reduce an answer with multiple dimensions to a crude and grossly simplistic linear scale.
So no, we aren't afraid of the question. We think it is a stupid question.
If "religion" is to be held culpable for the Inquisitions and the jihads, "science" is certainly no less culpable for the historical ravages of scientific socialism, the gassings of World War I, the National Socialist Holocaust, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden and the American abortion atrocity, to say nothing of the possibility of nuclear devastation as well as the inconvenient perils of global warming.
Actually, I don't hold religion culpable — I hold people, the perpetrators, responsible. Religion, science, nationalism, preferences in cheese, whatever…people will find reasons to fight and kill each other, in the absence of ethical constraints on their behavior.
My gripe with religion is that it claims to provide such a sense of ethics, and it does no such thing. It's a failure. In fact, it's a distraction—too many people substitute church attendance for morality, and think they've fulfilled their social obligation to be good by listening to some ranting nitwit sermonize on how homosexuals will burn in hell.
Science does not claim to hold any moral weight. Arguing that it is bad because it doesn't impose behavioral guidelines on people is as silly as arguing that religion is bad because it doesn't help design better digital signal processing chips for cell phones. On the other hand, damning religion for moral irrelevance is a valid complaint, since "it leads us into moral behavior!" is one of the first excuses out of any apologist's mouth.
The other point that Day makes, and is actually, I think, his central argument, is an interesting one, and you'll be horrified to learn that I think there's a germ of truth in it (but only a germ—don't give him too much credit).
Sciencists (those who believe in science as a basis for dictating human behavior, as opposed to scientists, who merely engage in the method), like to posit that Man has evolved to a point where he is ready to move beyond religion. A more interesting and arguably more urgent question is whether science, having produced some genuinely positive results as well as some truly nightmarish evils, has outlived its usefulness to Mankind.
Man has survived millennia of religious faith, but if the prophets of over-population and global warming are correct, he may not survive a mere two centuries of science.
It is entirely true that living in a lower-density, more primitive, socially unadventurous state might very well lead to a more stable, longer-lived human species. Early agricultural societies dominated by a religious hierarchy were highly successful, and provided the foundation for our current culture, so sure, one could argue that stepping back into the pre-industrial period before science might well be a much more sustainable solution. Heck, why stop there—the hunter-gatherer lifestyle endured even longer, and has a much lower impact on the environment. From an evolutionary point of view, there isn't necessarily any particular advantage to being smarter.
That's a deeply cynical view that Day has—that ignorance is better than knowledge, because awareness hurts and technological progress brings great risks. I guess I must be more optimistic than a weird Christian nihilist, because I think it's better to aspire to a better world than to give up and slide back into some benighted religious illusion.
We've been ready to move beyond religion for a long time now. We've just been held back by the fearful and the hidebound. And at this point, if all you're concerned about is species longevity, we may beyond the point of turning back—our only hope may well be in increasing our knowledge, rather than abandoning it.
- Log in to post comments
For if all knowledge is inherently good
Well it isn't. I certainly wouldn't want to biblically know Vox Day.
Sorry, after that I was laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes and the rest of the post was a blur.
Yup, trust PZ to tell it like it is.
Can we get this printed on a T-shirt?
"If "religion" is to be held culpable for the Inquisitions and the jihads, "science" is certainly no less culpable for the historical ravages of scientific socialism, the gassings of World War I, the National Socialist Holocaust, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden and the American abortion atrocity, to say nothing of the possibility of nuclear devastation as well as the inconvenient perils of global warming."
I've heard this argument before. Xtians tell me that they'll accept that Xtians were responsible for things such as the crusades, but that scientists must admit that science is responsible things such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here's my response:
Scientists are the ones who came up with the technology to build "the bomb", but were those cities bombed "in the name of science?" Was it a scientist, in an attempt to convert other people to scientific thought, and with a "scientific agenda", who ordered those bombs to be dropped? No. Scientists may make advancements in technology, but it's mankind in general (in many cases pushing a xtian cause), that uses that technology to cause harm.
HuhWAhh? Is he seriously suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between killing in the name of religion and accidental deaths during medical procedures?
Christians weren't responsible for the Crusades; it was the blacksmiths! They made the swords! And I BET they made the torture instruments of the Inquisition, too!
Those immoral bastards.
Contrary to what all those no-wrong-answers-esteemster teachers say, there is such a thing as a stupid question.
And, of course, as abeja pointed out: Doggerel #47.
@PZ...
This might interest you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrqh1HMkeWQ&feature=PlayList&p=3AB82AB42…
My biggest concern here is that, while Vox Day is clearly in need of some kind of internment in a mental ward, he won't be locked up until after he goes out and knifes someone. Probably a prostitute.
He seems to be a very confused young man.
Hopefully not a gay prostitute with whom he's doing drugs. That would be too repetitive.
Okay, I can almost but not quite forgive him for holding up non-scientist inventors as examples, but he really ought to know better -- as I recall, Thomas Edison, if you will the patron saint of the modern inventor, wasn't exactly a loner working in a garage. And let's see... the transistor was created by scientists working on the early stages of quantum mechanics, in fact had been predicted at least a decade or two before anyone actually managed to build one. So, yeah. No.
And free market/free flow of money? I read somewhere that in the mid-to-late 1800s, the British government, at the request of the crown, threw massive amounts of money at people trying to figure out how to create radio. But it wasn't until twenty, thirty years later that Bose, and Tesla, and then finally Marconi and Fessenden that anyone actually got a working system. (Not that Tesla is really a good example, as he was a horrendously inflexible theoretician, but he was part of a long chain of work that started with Maxwell's equations.)
"So no, we aren't afraid of the question. We think it is a stupid question."
While I think I understand the gist of this, I was taught at a young age, in science class, that the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked. But I think in this phrase you mean that it is a vague and subjective question, yes?
Also, can't science and religion co-exist peacefully, Vox? Or is that only possible for me because I'm a heathen and don't worship the One True God(tm)?
Contrary to what all those no-wrong-answers-esteemster teachers say, there is such a thing as a stupid question.
There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots
I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of this passage at all - look again:
However, he is saying he'd rather not know the true answer than find out it's not the answer he wanted (whichever that is). And I strongly agree with you that that's a terrible philosophy. I'd rather not know that I'm in midair over a deep canyon, but life isn't Looney Tunes - gravity doesn't wait for me to look down.
Yes, exactly. And we can't know how to make a better world until we understand what's wrong with the one we currently inhabit.
You know, I've had a change of heart. Vox Day is right, and science is a destructive philosophy that wreaks havoc on the world by clogging it with technology and knowledge that corrupts the noble savage.
So what I want to know is this: How do scientists sleep at night knowing they've brought antibiotics and vaccinations into the world? You are all vile monsters! What kind of horrid human being would try to genetically modify rice to ensure that people in impoverished parts of the world don't suffer from a vitamin deficiency? And for that matter, how dare you try to improve agricultural techniques at all! And heart surgery? That's just the natural outcome of accepting Michael Servetus' disgusting heresies about a "circulatory system". We were better off without that, thanks. And don't even get me started on geologists and their repulsive attempts at predicting earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. And meteorologists and mathematicians should have left that hurricane modeling stuff up to the imagination -- nothing good will come of that.
You all disgust me.
Vox Day really needs to get back to writing reviews of video games, since that is the only thing he does well. I remember an ethics class in college where one of the dicta was against "Science without ethics." The examples that the materials presented were issues of using technology rather than discovery of natural phenomena.
It seems like most people have a major difficulty understanding the difference between pure science and applied science; it is similar to the grammatical differences between "may" and "can" or "good" and "well," The moral poisons that Day mentions are all related to political decisions rather than decisions by scientists.
I interrupted my professor to say that I disagreed with the proposition in the materials, and my classmates looked kind of blankly at me. C'mon people, it's not that hard.
I think it is highly unethical to make decisions without having the best available information; science will never lose its purpose.
Isn't male superior vs. female superior just a matter of preference anyway? :P
Aha. Abortions are only done in America. Interesting. You never stop learning...
I'd say that this particular question is a wrong question, like "why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi". It doesn't make sense to say any answer to that question is right or wrong -- the question itself is wrong.
No, David, you missed the point. American abortions are the only ones that matter. ;)
Man has survived millennia of religious faith, but if the prophets of over-population and global warming are correct, he may not survive a mere two centuries of science.
Actually, I would argue it isn't science that has brought about over-population and global warming, but unbridled capitalism. Is Vox ready to sacrifice mankind's pursuit of the almighty dollar?
Science has outlived its usefulness to man? Uh, sure. And his dates are off too. Science has only been around a couple centuries? 16th-century Christian scientists (not the religious denomination mind you) would be interested in a coffee shop conversation with Mr. Day. At best, for a supposed true conservative, he is a terribly shoddy capitalist (if PZ's reading of Day's point is on target). This brings to mind the man who said that all things that could be invented already had been. Could Day's stance then be termed "non-advanceable complexity"?
And to keep bringing up long debunked myths about science's guilt for the Holocaust and other historical societal aberrations is dishonest to the point of being insulting. Please, just stop making the claims. We know it's an attempt to reshape history according to personal power fetish.
Good entry, PZ, one of the best.
We all know VD has some... issues... with women, but given that he judiciously included the balancing "Or vice-versa?" lets him off the hook for a moment.
I hate to disagree with those with whom I agree (LOL?) but I think VD's meaning is pretty clear: He's assuming that scientists don't want to find out because the question is not politically correct, and he offers this assumption as "powerful evidence of their lack of faith in the inherent beneficence of science."
Ok, the moment is up. I find his examples rather telling. I've heard white supremacists claim scientific proof exists that Asians are inherently more intelligent than Africans. In fact, the only people I've met who make as issue about finding out are those who claim they already know. Vox isn't afraid of the answer. I think he's pretty confident that science, honestly and dilligently applied, will yield the results he expects.
And I'm deeply, deeply disappointed that the brilliant and eloquent Mr. D elected to use the tired old "If Religion gave use the Crusades, then Science gave us Hiroshima" bullshit. I really expected that a thinker of his caliber would come up with some innovative and highly entertaining new bullshit. *sigh*
Is that Vox guy with his Nazi haircut that stupid?
Most of the advances in human technology are a function of the wealth produced by capitalism and human liberty... Most inventors are not scientists and most scientists are not inventors; whereas Oppenheimer and Einstein gave us the nuclear bomb, Steve Wozniak gave us the personal computer and Al Gore gave us the Internet. It's worth noting that the inventors of what is considered to be the most significant invention of the century, the silicon chip, were not scientists but electrical engineers.
ummm... I don't think that the Renaissance to early 1800's was really a hotbed of capitalism. None of the people he mentioned would've been able to develop any of those devices without a good understanding of what other scientists & engineers spent their careers doing. Within Vox's comments is an unwritten sentiment that these inventors just came up with stuff from scratch. Like Wozniak independently came up with all the theories of how transistors and such behaved.
I am a structural engineer ~ I could not design bridges without an understanding of chemistry, physics, geology among other disciplines. My late grandfather was a metallurgist (now called material science). He wouldn't have been able to help develop components for the F6 Hellcat, the F-104 and the Lunar Lander without accumulated knowledge he learned at school.
The post by Vox Day may beat the Blogs for Bush "Science is Dead" post for stupidest. post. evah.
That's a deeply cynical view that Day has--that ignorance is better than knowledge, because awareness hurts and technological progress brings great risks. I guess I must be more optimistic than a weird Christian nihilist, because I think it's better to aspire to a better world than to give up and slide back into some benighted religious illusion.
Great risks! Most certainly. I'd bet the 100K+ Hiroshima Japanese of August 1945 would agree!
Now, just why did you scientists build that damn thing anyway?
"Scientific socialism"? Sounds like a good idea.
"Scientific socialism" is another name for Marxism.
Salt, if you actually took the time to read about WWII history, unlike, say, Vox Day, you'd realize that the scientists built the bombs to blow up Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the behest of the American Military because the American Military wanted a way to bring the Japanese Empire to its knees without the need of a total invasion.
"Scientific socialism" is another name for Marxism.
I meant that taken literally it might be a good idea. Like Western civilization :)
Salty,
Because the U.S. government asked them to?
Because Hitler was working on one too?
Were the generals that ordered the bombing scientists or atheists?
Oh, I do love the quote generator. Lookee:
You will find men like him in all of the world's religions. They know that we represent reason and science, and, however confident they may be in their beliefs, they fear that we will overthrow their gods. Not necessarily through any deliberate act, but in a subtler fashion. Science can destroy a religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistance of Zeus or Thor, but they have few followers now.
[Arthur C. Clarke, "Childhood's End"]
Salt, if you actually took the time to read about WWII history, unlike, say, Vox Day, you'd realize that the scientists built the bombs to blow up Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the behest of the American Military because the American Military wanted a way to bring the Japanese Empire to its knees without the need of a total invasion.
Posted by: Stanton | March 6, 2007 05:28 PM
[Yes Stanton, I am quite aware of history.]
So, that lets the scientists off the hook culpability wise? I guess a hit man is off the hook solely due to being hired?
They knew what they were building. Had it not been built it could not have been dropped and a nuke is not simple science. It took scientists to invent and build the damn thing.
Justifying its use in the name of __________ is pure hubris.
I'm not against the bomb, but neither am I deceiving myself. In the 'name of religion' has its problems, but the BOMB I can lay squarely at the feet of scientists, nationality notwithstanding .
But it certainly wouldn't bring any benefits to the individual human in that society. For all the risks our technological progress has brought us, it's also given us antibiotics, organ transplants, vaccinations, genetic testing, and a huge number of other innovations that have improved both the length and quality of our lives. Vox may be content to return to a Stone Age state (and, I presume, just hope he doesn't get a toothache or appendicitis). I for one happen to like hospitals, electricity and indoor plumbing.
Remember, this is the same guy that said a few weeks ago that it would be moral to kill children if God told you to do it. When you define something that God has told you to do as an ipso facto moral act, you can't be surprised when you wind up with a definition of morality that consists of "that which God tells me to do."
I wonder if Vox thinks that "answer" to a scientist means the same thing as "answer from the gods" to a religious person: you get your answer, and that's it, all done, everyone leave.
If a religious person asks god "hey, is shrimp ok?" and god says "no," then you throw the frozen scampi and the Red Lobster cookbook out. There are many questions a religious person can be afraid to ask, because an answer ends the inquiry.
As to his specific example, oh yes, scientists sure are afraid to ask about gender differences. Because if we find another difference between men and women, then... what, exactly? The 'winning' sex gets a gold star? One sex or the other has to stop going to university?
I'm guessing in his worldview if we found that Zulus are 'superior' runners compared to Asians we should just shut down the Olympics.
Over and beyond any contributions that science makes to technology, science promotes values, especially the value of objectivity. There are dishonest scientists, obviously, and honest ministers; but if I had to depend on the integrity of an individual I didn't know, I'd certainly bet on a scientist over a preacher.
I'm guessing in his worldview if we found that Zulus are 'superior' runners compared to Asians we should just shut down the Olympics.
Posted by: Kathryn in Sunnyvale | March 6, 2007 07:10 PM
No, but given the odds you'd be an idiot to bet on an Asian in Vegas.
So, that lets the scientists off the hook culpability wise? I guess a hit man is off the hook solely due to being hired?
Terribly analogy. The hit man's the one who pulls the trigger. What you mean is closer to:
"I guess the gun manufacturer is off the hook solely due to having made the gun?"
The Hit Man you mean to refer to is not the science or the scientists who developed the bomb, it's one or more people in the chain of command between Harry Truman and the crew of the Enola Gay (inclusive).
Kseniya: Not even that. It's more "I guess people like Colonel Colt and Hiram Maxim are off the hook for helping develop modern firearm technology." The scientists involved didn't manufacture the individual bombs, I imagine...
You miss the point Kseniya, being express intent; scientists invented, designed, and built the bomb specifically for use on a Japanese target. Not unlike hiring a hit man for an express intent. The military were just the willing and desirous delivery boys. That any were hired does not relieve culpability.
The bomb since then has ~kept the GRAND peace, but on August 6th 1945 scientists lost a possible high ground in a blinding millisecond. Science lost its cherry.
Get off your high horse, you're getting a nose bleed.
If you were, you wouldn't later say this:
Emphasis mine. Find out what is wrong here by yourself.
Citation, please.
Tukla and Greco, you're kidding right?
Abeja pointed to the scientists screed -
Scientists may make advancements in technology, but it's mankind in general (in many cases pushing a xtian cause), that uses that technology to cause harm.
You guys are in denial.
"on a Japanese target."
Emphasis mine. Find out what is wrong here by yourself.
Posted by: Greco | March 6, 2007 08:38 PM
Ahhh, yes... a brain fart on my part. My apologies. I should have said military target. Germany was primary, but after it surrendered and it seemed that Japan would not be far behind there was a great push to have the bomb for use while it could still be used. General Groves was a hard taskmaster.
No matter. Scientists lost their cherry in a millisecond.
Actually, as I understand it, most of those involved in the Manhattan Project wanted to get Hitler. Some were so eager and/or terrified that they wanted to drop the raw plutonium over Germany rather than let Hitler get the bomb first. When Germany surrendered they didn't want to use the bomb on Japan, and many signed a petition to that effect. A political decision was made to use the bomb on mainland Japan in order to save hundreds of thousands of projected casualties that would have resulted from an invasion (think that's an exaggeration? Over 250,000 died on Okinawa.). The book Tennozan by George Pfeiffer is a good source.
There is truth there Pfeiffer. But it should also be understood, as Gen. Groves and many others did, that the costs involved in the Manhattan Project demanded the bomb be used; the people needed to get what they paid for.
Many scientists, including Leo Slizard, did sign a petition which never made it to Truman's desk. But not all involved were of that mind set. The push by Japan for conditional surrender (keep emperor) would have been hard to not work with. But there was that new 'gadget'.
Sorry Ridger, I need my glasses.
The epic story of the development of the atomic bomb is well known. [4] It began in 1939 when a small group of eminent scientists in this country called to the attention of the United States Government the vast potentialities of atomic energy for military purposes and warned that the Germans were already carrying on experiments in this field. The program initiated October of that year with a very modest appropriation and later expanded into the two-billion-dollar Manhattan Project had only one purpose-to harness the energy of the atom in a chain reaction to produce a bomb that could be carried by aircraft if possible, and to produce it before the Germans could. [5] That such a bomb, if produced, would be used, no responsible official ever questioned. "At no time from 1941 to 1945," declared Mr. Stimson, "did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or by another responsible member of the Government, that atomic energy should not be used in that war." And Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer recalled in 1954 that "we always assumed if they [atomic bombs] were needed, they would be used." [6]
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_23.htm
Sheesh! Jared Diamond demonstrated years ago that developing agriculture was humanity's greatest mistake. Were those first farmers scientists? Anyway, wasn't actually building the bomb a matter of technology and engineering rather than science? Just what sort of definitions are Vox et al using to blame bad stuff on science while blessing technology for all the goodies it has given us?
I hate to address a troll...and a troll who hides behind a pseudonym at that (unless your name really is "Salt"...in which case, my sympathies to you), but here goes:
Your arguement is weak and your conclusion pointless. Anyone on both sides of this argument who blames all members of one group for something awful that a couple memebers did is an idiot. But let's take a look...perhaps at most somewhere in the realm of a few hundred "scientists" worked on the bomb. Perhaps the same number of military personel and politicians allowed it to be used. How many thousands of scientists are working to make the world a better place every day?
The same can be said of Christians. Sure there's some bad apples (a startlingly huge amount actually, for a group that claims a monopoly on moral behavior), but many Christians work in soup kitchens or help the aged or donate to disaster relief or whatever. They do nice things.
The point I made in parenthesis above, that Christians claim to be the source for morality, is the reason they get picked on so much. Scientists (as PZ said) do not claim any such moral high ground, so how can we ever have "lost" it? Each individual scientist knows what goal he/she is working toward, just as each individual Christian/Muslim/lawyer/policeman/grocer/teacher/etc knows. And sometimes, who knows, our good actions can have bad consequences...even the most noble ideas and advances can be hijacked for evil.
I mean I don't even know why I have to point this out...some Jewish guy used to talk about turning the other cheek and doing onto others and all that, but the people in this day who use his name seem to think it's okay to drop (non-atomic, of course) bombs on Iraqi children because it makes them feel a little safer.
Awesome.
I'm not sure what kind of convoluted reasoning has allowed Salt to consider the atomic bomb both a moral atrocity that strips claims of ethical behavior from beneficial scientific advances and, simultaneously, something worth supporting for its ability to keep the peace.
I'm also not sure why he thinks that this is denial:
when he's probably used the same argument against gun control.
My best guess is that he's a stupid troll, or Vox Day using another pseudonym. Could be both.
You miss the point Kseniya
OFGS, another one of these.
Salt. I didn't miss your point - I disagreed with it. That is possible, you know, to understand yet disagree?
LOL @ nosebleed. Ok, I'll come down off my high horse. Your analogy SUCKED. Deal with it.
Now that I've probably angered you pointlessly, I must say that we may not be as far apart on this as you might think. Dropping The Bomb was a terrible thing, and I have doubts about the justifiability of that action. Everyone involved has had to live with the consequences, and rightly so.
But the alternative was to let the Third Reich develop it first. Would it have been more moral to allow that by declining to develop it here? And pretending that the decision to actually drop the bomb (twice!) was anything other than a military decision is pointless. That decision was not made by "science" - "science" did not determine that dropping the bomb (twice!) was necessary or dictate that it must be done.
Yes, mankind lost a measure of innocence that day. But do we point to that as an indictment of science? At our peril. It's an indictment of something else: of mankind's terrible capacity to commit terrible acts against itself. And we ignore THAT at our peril.
Salt, if you actually took the time to read about WWII history, unlike, say, Vox Day, you'd realize that the scientists built the bombs to blow up Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the behest of the American Military because the American Military wanted a way to bring the Japanese Empire to its knees without the need of a total invasion.
Not really. The initial motivation was Einstein and Szilard's awareness that Heisenberg, a Nazi, had the knowledge needed to recognize that an atomic bomb was possible; most of the people who worked on the bomb were convinced that they were defending their country and its population by doing so. And by the time the bombs were used, the Japanese Empire was already on its knees begging to surrender, but without giving up the Emperial Throne, which was seen as a godhead, while the U.S. insisted on unconditional surrender. Einstein urged Truman to drop the bombs on unoccupied islands -- blame the politicians, who wanted to keep the Soviets from claiming any of the Pacific spoils, not the scientists. Ironically, MacArthur allowed Hirohito to retain his throne after the war in order to maintain social order.
That decision was not made by "science" - "science" did not determine that dropping the bomb (twice!) was necessary or dictate that it must be done.
The fact that two types of bombs, uranium and plutonium, were dropped may have had some scientific motivation. And don't forget the Tuskegee experiment. A thirst for scientific knowledge does sometimes lead people to immoral actions. Of course, so do all sorts of other motivations, so it's ridiculous to single out science.
But it should also be understood, as Gen. Groves and many others did, that the costs involved in the Manhattan Project demanded the bomb be used; the people needed to get what they paid for.
...
And Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer recalled in 1954 that "we always assumed if they [atomic bombs] were needed, they would be used."
Funny how little trouble Salt has with contradiction.
As an electrical engineer, I must say it thrills me to no end to be feted by the lives of Vox Putz. But I think he may have been just slightly off in assigning credit for the integrated circuit.
Anyway, for this yoeman effort, I've awarded him the coveted Pointy Stick Award For Practicing Ludditry With A Computer
"feted by the likes of Vox Putz"
scientists invented, designed, and built the bomb specifically for use on a [military] target.
Uh, that kind of follows from it being a bomb.
Not unlike hiring a hit man for an express intent. The military were just the willing and desirous delivery boys. That any were hired does not relieve culpability.
Fine, so anyone involved in any way in the construction of a weapon is culpable in the death of anyone killed by the weapon. We are also culpable in part for some bad stuff when we shop at WalMart, drive automobiles, buy sugar and chocolate, etc., and we don't even have the excuse that we are doing so with the understanding that we are defending our countrymen. And those scientists who worked on the bomb for the shear pleasure of problem-solving, without any concern for the results of their actions, don't have that excuse either. Ok, but so what, exactly? What does the culpability of a few scientists, along with technicians, military people, and politicians, have to do with the original context: "that ignorance is better than knowledge, because awareness hurts and technological progress brings great risks"?? Nothing, as far as I can see. And you asked why scientists built the bomb, and you've been answered, and you have even provided your own justifications. So you're just a hollow man.
Abeja pointed to the scientists screed -
Scientists may make advancements in technology, but it's mankind in general (in many cases pushing a xtian cause), that uses that technology to cause harm.
Calling it a "screed" does not refute it.
You guys are in denial.
Really? Which of us is irresponsibly producing dangerous technology without consideration of the consequences? No doubt there are such people, but your use of "you guys" suggests the need for a remedial course in Venn diagrams.
I've a couple papers in my file from the journal 'Intelligence'. They answer the question about IQ differences between men and women (and the question's been asked and responded to many times in the past 25 years). Women are faster than men on average, men show better knowledge for trivia on average, most other things are pretty much a wash. This knowledge won't change your life, and VD deserves ridicule for pretending it would (or, that the answer has been hidden because scientists are too politically correct to ask it).
"And you asked why scientists built the bomb, and you've been answered, and you have even provided your own justifications. So you're just a hollow man."
Though, I still don't understand how Salt thinks that all scientists, from atomic physicists to paleontologists to horticulturists, need to share the blame for the death and destruction that resulted from the invention and use of the atomic bomb.
He delights in sharing an anti-intellectual sentiment?
I remember being fascinated by the arguments in "Einstein on Peace" (can't buy it anymore as far as I know). Einstein argued that nuclear weapons are only the logical outcome of sovereign states defending their perceived interests through violence.
It is quite reasonable to argue that the existance of nuclear weapons (aside from their arguably unnecessary use by Americans in WW-II) have saved more lives than they have cost, by increasing the cost to the elite of resorting to violence.
As someone who grew up under the shadow of the possibility of being sent to die in Vietnam, I understand that not only nuclear weapons kill. As an athiest, my death is as final if it comes from a bullet or in a huge bang. It is very much a non-combatant view to see them as being clearly a bad thing (if you like a civilian bias). Of course in terms of the survival of life on the planet their is no comparison to the threat, but for an individual the relative threats are not so clear.
Given that we know how to make such weapons (and knowledge doesn't disappear by wishing it away) it is not clear to me what the correct moral position regarding such weapons is. But Einstein is correct, first we have to solve the problem of peace.
I'm curious as to why Vox Day thinks the Holocaust is a strike against science, given that he's voiced support for it in the past.
I picked up a few aspects PZ skipped over here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/religions-war-on-science-part-1…
As PZ notes, living in a lower-density, more primitive, socially unadventurous state might lead to a more stable, longer-lived human species. However, can you get a society to do that? To not move forward and learn what kind of universe we live in? And if some societies run away from scientific knowledge and live in stagnation will other societies that aren't afraid of scientific truth move forward and one day decide you'll make great cattle? I guess Vox Day would rather be an Eloi than a Morlock.
In some ways, Middle-Eastern Islamic society has tried to remain religious and scientifically stagnant in the way Christians like Vox Day seem to want for us. But they have the advantage of oil money and they still use Western technology even if they don't produce many Nobel winners.
Theres nothing inherently 'evil' about nuclear weapons. They are simply devices for releasing large amounts of explosive energy and as such pretty much in the same category as most other types of bombs, it just takes more knowledge to produce an atomic bomb than a conventional one. I think that the majority of Japanese civilians killed by US forces died as a result of firebombing attacks such as the Tokyo attack that killed 80,000 people.
I'd prefer not to debate directly with Vox Day himself, he claims on his WND column that he's a member of Mensa (what is it about people who broadcast this fact ?), so presumably far too clever for the likes of us.
Love (NOT) the dishonesty and contorted thinking of apologists, articulate though some may be. Their reasoning is so DISGUSTINGLY SELF-SERVING and it is the EASY way out of REAL RESPONSIBILITY. Bottom-line (and between the lines): Ain't my fault!! It's gawd's will or the fault of the gawdless masses!! I do what is prescribed!! What else can or should I do??!?!?? So there - don't blame me!!
I need not address the scam artists making big bucks off the rouse. No, these "ordinary" believers who make the skydaddy the controller of things, ethics, fate, etc. are upsetting even more so.
ORDINARY people that really do live that crapola really screw the World.
1) They are the ones most likely to turn a obediently blind eye to the follies of their "leaders" and worse become (passive or active) pawns in some really ugly doings.
2) They are the people that stifle progress toward a more just and relaxed society with their clinging to "tradition" and imposition of arcane and/or insane mores (NOT necessarily followed "religiously" in their own lives BTW - just codified so other more scrutinized socially vulnerable people can be tormented by the rules and standards they profess - while they do little to help less fortunates to higher ground)
3) They are the ones who cannot bring themselves to reason to demand REAL moral leaders and progress toward a more just and peaceful society. Example: they are the ones who think their ticket to heaven is protesting a woman's right to control her body (or as they would say - to protect the unborn child - be it a few cells or whatever) - while BORN children and adults lead lives of misery and pain and cruel death, and while they KNOWINGLY elect vacuous and/or dangerous leaders
Yup.. "NOT my fault (or my gawd gearing leaders) ... nope -- either it is gawd's will or the consequences of YOUR gawdless actions - glad I settled that - now I can sleep!!"
DISGUSTING!!!
"... gawd gearing leaders..." interesting picture .. but gawd fearing was intended. Touch typing -- what's that! I guess when you don't look at what your TWO fingers are typing!!
I'd prefer not to debate directly with Vox Day himself, he claims on his WND column that he's a member of Mensa (what is it about people who broadcast this fact ?), so presumably far too clever for the likes of us.
I have been tempted to join based on my test scores but haven't because I don't see the value in bragging on test scores. I also don't like to argue with Mensites; my brother is one and he likes to use it the same way that some engineers claim authority on anything and everything.
He's a vitamin salesman, but thinks he is a polymath just because he is in Mensa. And are "polymaths" an uber-class of Mensites?
"I have been tempted to join based on my test scores but haven't because I don't see the value in bragging on test scores."
Bragger! ;)
I found this quote at andrew sullivan's website, where he posted it disapprovingly. It's originally from First Things
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=653.
Vox Day has plenty of company:
"In his bracing little book on Secularization, Edward Norman, chancellor of York Minster, describes the conflict between Christianity and what he calls Secular Humanism by contrasting their attitudes toward suffering. Christianity "was founded in an act of expiatory pain, has regarded human suffering as not only inseparable from the nature of life on earth, as a matter of observable fact, but also as a necessary condition in spiritual formation." Christians seek, of course, to alleviate suffering, but God, not human suffering, is the center of the moral universe...
This is a box outside of which Senator Obama cannot think, and this is why his agenda looks so thoroughly Clintonesque. Here's a suggestion: If he wants to transform American politics, perhaps his next fund-raising letter should say something along the lines of 'Pain may be good for you.'"
So how come you never address the points he makes on his blog?
How come who never addresses what points who makes on whose blog?
Norman Doering:
I just had a great idea for a new online personality quiz! :-)
LOL @ Blake!
I get the Eloi point, but I don't think Vox wants to be a Eloi or a Morlock. I'm thinking more along the lines of Leige Lord.
This reminds me of a story called "I Still Call Australia Home" in which starfaring folk from a war-torn Earth, an Earth in danger of annihilation, search for a new home, a new earth, out there among the stars. They fail and, space-weary and homesick beyond measure, they return home to find the globe dark.
Nearly dark, that is: Earth is quiet, but not unpopulated. Many more years have passed on Earth than in the starship, and the people below have solved the problems of overpopulation and aggression - but not by abandoning science and technology. What transpires is heartbreaking, but the outcome isn't relevant to this thread, and I wouldn't dream of dumping a spoiler here anyway. ;-)
And furthermore...
Dawkins popped up on the quote generator just now. He address the good-vs-evil issue beautifully and concisely:
Man has survived millennia of religious faith, but if the prophets of over-population and global warming are correct, he may not survive a mere two centuries of science.<\i>
He completely ignores the fact that this position was not advocated by any religious group (except maybe the Quakers?). In fact, monotheism generally espouses the "go forth and prosper" attitude to population control. And whenever we try to hold religious leaders accountable to quasi-biblical standards like "stewardship of the Earth," they generally aren't interested in those passages. It is through scientific, not religious, knowledge that we have become aware of how Earth is affected by our presence.
Will "Sciencists" be the new word used by the anti-science people?
No.
I'm curious as to why Vox Day thinks the Holocaust is a strike against science, given that he's voiced support for it in the past.
It would be so much more interesting if you actually provided the quotations, wouldn't it?
Oh, that's right, they don't exist.
Anon: Oh, yes they do - the quotes exist - but I don't think they say what the post to which you refer implies. I can't be bothered to dig up the original, but I can give you the gist of it from memory, and you may be able to find it yourself.
The topic was illegal immigrants. My recollection is that Vox was pointing to the efficiency with which Nazi Germany deported million of Jews within a relatively short period of time, and that "if the Germans could do it" then we could deport large numbers of illegal aliens in a relatively short period of time as well.
It's a provocative comparison; knowing Vox the provocation was probably intentional (call it Godwin-baiting, heh) but it's a stretch to interpret it as approval or admiration of the methods by which those millions were so brutally exterminated. A stretch, and dare I say it, unfair to Vox to smear him with Holocaust blood. He'll have to do that himself.
However (and there's always an "however" with Vox) he obviously approves of the science and technology that enabled the Germans to execute such a vast number of deportations so efficiently, and no doubt he approves of the improved science and technology that would enable INS to deport large numbers of illegal aliens with similar efficiency.
Hypocrisy? Inconsistency? I don't know. You decide.
Oh, yes they do - the quotes exist - but I don't think they say what the post to which you refer implies.
In other words, they don't exist.
I remember the article you are referring to, and as you say, they certainly don't show that "he's voiced support for it [the Holocaust] in the past."
As for your last paragraph, I think his whole point was that it's easy to carryout such deportations, making the cries of "but it just can't be done" (the typical mask conservative politicians wear while secretly having no desire to slow illegal immigration at all) out for what they are. It certainly doesn't take much science or technology to deport a mass group of people! That was his point. He was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican party.
You mean this Quotation?
"if the Germans could move 6 million Jews, we can certainly move 12 million Mexicans"
Aha, but that's the thing: if I remember correctly, the story in Genesis tells us that Eve and Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 3.7: "As soon as they had eaten it, they were given understanding..."--and, long story short, they were kicked out of Eden. So, if one is a Biblical literalist (I don't know off the top of my head, but I'm willing to bet VD takes the Bible literally), then that view is, oddly enough, somewhat idealistic. This is not to say I'm condoning that view--I think it just illustrates further the problems with taking scripture literally...
Taking it figuratively is one thing (ie, Adam was not actually made from a pile of dust)... But what you suggest is to take it contradictively!
Even if you take the Bible as mythology, you can hardly take the myth and reverse the obvious moral. Just write a new Bible, for goodness sake.
The lack of critical thinking here is really astonishing.
Oh, and, btw, it was the knowledge of good and evil, not scientific knowledge. Just in case you missed that part, too.
You mean this Quotation?
"if the Germans could move 6 million Jews, we can certainly move 12 million Mexicans"
Sounds like the one.
And how exactly, does this condone the holocaust? If the Nazis could build the first turbine jet airplane, we certainly had reason to believe that we could do the same. I guess you're condoning the Holocaust every time you fly. Feel the guilt.
"I have been tempted to join based on my test scores but haven't because I don't see the value in bragging on test scores."
The only tempting reason to join Mensa is that you could then quit in protest.
"It certainly doesn't take much science or technology to deport a mass group of people!"
True, true. Trail of Tears...
I was thinking about how much easier it might be to do it now, but I agree that's beside the point.
Liz said:
Anon said:
All I'm saying is, if you're going to be snarky, do it right.
You got me there.
nicole 1, anon 0.
Geez, Anon, I was going to point that out, but I figured you'd counter by claiming that Liz was conflating "technological progress" (and the implication of scientific knowledge) with the simple knowledge of good and evil.
I guess I blew my chance to score a "point" - dang, now I won't sleep. =)
I was tempted to respond to exactly that effect, but it felt a little shady... since, for whatever reason, I have to admit that I didn't even notice that Liz named the tree. It was in her criticism of my rather anemic gibe that she wins the point. :)
About the nukes:
If one adopts my characterization of science and technology, the development of nukes was technology, not science, since it embodies values, etc.
(See here.)
Aha. Abortions are only done in America. Interesting. You never stop learning...
I'd say that this particular question is a wrong question, like "why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi". It doesn't make sense to say any answer to that question is right or wrong -- the question itself is wrong.