[quote]Oleena wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Oleena wrote:
even as an athiest
<3
lol. Are you making fun of my spelling or are you also an atheist?
[/quote]
Apathetic Agnostic, but same thing really.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pook, does Wilder Penfield, the renowned father of modern neurosurgery, have your requisite “scientific standing”? If so, and if he does indeed meet your impeccable standards, you might want to read up on his understanding of the subject.[/quote]
Far from me the idea to be contrarian, but here, I’d like to point out that the distinguished Dr. Penfield died almost 40 years ago, and that the science in his field has progressed relentlessly since then.
Would you read the Torah to better understand Jesus? If not, then you’ll understand my underwhelment at your suggestions.
I am starting to wonder, though, if “pushharder” refers to what you need to do everyday to get your wheelchair going. What are you, sixty, to be recommending 4 decades old books?
You wouldn’t happen to have a copy of “On the Origin of Species” that the author personally dedicated to you, would you?
Say we are nothing more than a short lived collection of bio-chem reactions. Each reaction setting off the next. Sort of like one of those domino constructs where you knock over the first one and the chain reaction leads to the toppling of the last. We do not choose anything, but merely play out the inevitable result of our dominos toppling due to some stimulus. Or, like nature’s accidental software. So, what is the value of human life? A software package worth?
War isn’t wrong, nature is struggle! Resources, women to carry our seed, land to make our territory. Let’s go Alpha Male, folks! The robber isn’t wrong, or evil. Just a predator, like the lion. And, who doesn’t like lions, hmm? The lion king was a hit, after all. And why the hell are we wasting resources on the brokendown hardware and software of the elderly? Redirect these resources to the organic human units still capable (or, will be) of reproducing.
I want 12 page reports on my desk by the morning dealing with these questions!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, Pook, Moreland’s science training came at the U of Missouri, where he received a degree in chemistry. He was subsequently awarded the top fellowship for a doctorate in nuclear chemistry at the U of Colorado but declined the honor to pursue a different career path including earning a doctorate in philosophy at USC.
Tell me of your own “scientific standing” and why you yourself are worthy to dismiss one such as him?[/quote]
This is an “appeal to authority” argumentative fallacy, push. It doesn’t matter what his rank or status or education were; it’s the quality of his ideas and arguments that are relevant in a discussion like this. Even the smartest of people get things wrong too.
To illustrate; an uneducated bum could provide the singular defining argument in this discussion. His argument is not diminished because of his uneducated status.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Say we are nothing more than a short lived collection of bio-chem reactions. Each reaction setting off the next. Sort of like one of those domino constructs where you knock over the first one and the chain reaction leads to the toppling of the last. We do not choose anything, but merely play out the inevitable result of our dominos toppling due to some stimulus. Or, like nature’s accidental software. So, what is the value of human life? A software package worth?
War isn’t wrong, nature is struggle! Resources, women to carry our seed, land to make our territory. Let’s go Alpha Male, folks! The robber isn’t wrong, or evil. Just a predator, like the lion. And, who doesn’t like lions, hmm? The lion king was a hit, after all. And why the hell are we wasting resources on the brokendown hardware and software of the elderly? Redirect these resources to the organic human units still capable (or, will be) of reproducing.
I want 12 page reports on my desk by the morning dealing with these questions![/quote]
Science is descriptive, not presecriptive. Just because nature is “red in tooth and claw” doesn’t mean we have to be, and we can learn from nature to better ourselves. We are able to overcome nature, for example, condoms.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Science is descriptive, not presecriptive. Just because nature is “red in tooth and claw” doesn’t mean we have to be, and we can learn from nature to better ourselves. We are able to overcome nature, for example, condoms.[/quote]
Better, is in the eye of the organic software package.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, Pook, Moreland’s science training came at the U of Missouri, where he received a degree in chemistry. He was subsequently awarded the top fellowship for a doctorate in nuclear chemistry at the U of Colorado but declined the honor to pursue a different career path including earning a doctorate in philosophy at USC.
Tell me of your own “scientific standing” and why you yourself are worthy to dismiss one such as him?[/quote]
I need no standing at all to dismiss him.
His own words show clear as day that whatever science training he’s ever had, that’s not what he’s writing about anymore. I know of no scientist who would conclude that science has no answer without qualifying it with possible avenues of investigations, promising theories, current studies, etc. A scientist who simply concludes smugly that science has no answer shows himself to be uninterested in the actual question and more amenable to whatever dogmatic answer his faith provides for him.
If you went to a doctor for some illness, and upon hearing of what ailed you, the doctor broke out a spellbook, chicken blood and started chanting loudly while sprinkling you with what he claimed was pixie dust, you’d probably walk right out of there, no? Do you have any medical training to dismiss him such? Would you need any?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pook, Pook, Pook, you are indeed a careless reader. That quote was from Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse. Why do I have to hold your hand like this, buddy? [no homo][/quote]
The author is of little relevance. Why post it if not to make a point of it?
My question stands: Why post that quote if you know that science is an ongoing process? You can’t agree with both the quote and what I said up there… so which is it?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Science is descriptive, not presecriptive. Just because nature is “red in tooth and claw” doesn’t mean we have to be, and we can learn from nature to better ourselves. We are able to overcome nature, for example, condoms.
Better, is in the eye of the organic software package.[/quote]
True, perhaps I would have been more accurate to say “try and better ourselves”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
BTW, Pook, Moreland’s science training came at the U of Missouri, where he received a degree in chemistry. He was subsequently awarded the top fellowship for a doctorate in nuclear chemistry at the U of Colorado but declined the honor to pursue a different career path including earning a doctorate in philosophy at USC.
Tell me of your own “scientific standing” and why you yourself are worthy to dismiss one such as him?
This is an “appeal to authority” argumentative fallacy, push. It doesn’t matter what his rank or status or education were; it’s the quality of his ideas and arguments that are relevant in a discussion like this. Even the smartest of people get things wrong too.
To illustrate; an uneducated bum could provide the singular defining argument in this discussion. His argument is not diminished because of his uneducated status.
Ahhhh…the ol’ “appeal to authority” accusation. You too are a careless reader. I did not appeal to his alleged authority. Pook brought up some genuine, respectable, interesting questions. I said they were good ones. I then suggested someone who had written a book or two about precisely that subject. Nothing more. Then our dear Pook disputed his credentials. THEN I listed them.
Then you, Jab the Mighty, fly into the thread on your Concorde complete with pentagram emblazoned on the tail and start blabbin’ about the “appeal to authority” thing. Shut up. Already.
[/quote]
It must annoy you that all your muscle and guns and telling me to stop talking are completely innefectual and unthreatening over the internet. I’ll keep talking just as long as I have something to talk about, and you certainly give me plenty of things to talk about.
If you’ll care to look over the conversation, Pook actually said, on Moreland;
" He has no - as far as I can tell - scientific standing to discuss the brain,"
To which you said;
“he received a degree in chemistry”
and;
“a doctorate in philosophy at USC”
Which, as Pook said, have nothing to do with the brain. His credentials are irrelevant, it’s the quality of his argument that matters. However, as Pook rightly noted, his credentials do bring the quality of his argument in this field in to doubt. You using his credentials to show how clever or qualified he is (which he isn’t, in this instance), by contrast, lend nothing to his argument.
As a side note, I wish that Concorde still flew. =[
And I’ve told you repeatedly that I don’t like the pentagram.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, the fact that he’s dead and gone pretty much seals the deal that he was dunce, I guess.[/quote]
Nice strawman. If you’re interested in genetics, there are better authors to read than Mendel. Not because he was a dunce, far from it, but because the state of the art has advanced immensely since him time.
If you started a car company, would you go looking for the Model T’s blueprints? I mean, you’re not claiming Henry Ford was an idiot, are you?
Gee, push, you keep coming back to this weak ploy again and again. Show me where I say he’s in error. Science moves fast. Reading decades old material might be interesting from an historical perspective, but it does precious little to inform you about the current state of the art.
I guess if you like String Theory, you could curtail your readings to the 1995-2000 period, where the theory seemed highly promising and not the more recent advances where it appears to be a mathematical model of such flexibility that it can never predict anything.
In pushworld, it seems, all books are equally valid and should be picked by the criteria that if what the author says is agreeable to you, then the book is intemporal and forever authoritative.
I guess when your favorite book is close to 2000 years old, it screws with your thinking process.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
…I know of no scientist who would conclude that science has no answer…
OK, Pook, you’re still fucking up here. I’m going to put it in bold this time. That quote was from Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse not Moreland.
Please, your reading comprehension and lack of attention to detail is starting to bore me. And it’s unbecoming of such a serious individual as yourself.
One more time: Moreland is not the author of that quote.
[/quote]
Yeah, yeah, I got it the first time. My second post about it went out before I read your correction.
Complicated things these forums.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Say we are nothing more than a short lived collection of bio-chem reactions. Each reaction setting off the next. Sort of like one of those domino constructs where you knock over the first one and the chain reaction leads to the toppling of the last. We do not choose anything, but merely play out the inevitable result of our dominos toppling due to some stimulus. Or, like nature’s accidental software. So, what is the value of human life? A software package worth?[/quote]
Are we talking Oracle 11g Enterprise Edition, or Notepad here?
Now I’m confused. Are we back to discussing the Old Testament?
Well, I’d say that the simple principle of reciprocity would be enough to understand, but maybe your bio-chem reactions are occasional and far between. You could care for the elderly out of purely selfish reasons: you wish that when you’re old yourself, you’ll also be cared for.
There are better ones; but if you can’t come up with even the simple one without your favorite soup, we wouldn’t want to strain you.
Would pictures help?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You are making yourself of little relevance because you cannot follow a thread properly. Go drink some coffee or smoke some B.C. bud or whatever it takes to sharpen your senses and then amble back in here.[/quote]
How lucky for you that I mixed up two quotes. You’ll be able to go on for pages about it all the while avoiding the questions initially brought up.
Let me know if you ever wish to address the topic again. By addressing the topic.