Postmodernism At Work

Independent Individualist ^ | Apr 29, 2008 | Reginald Firehammer

[Soliton]

I think Hank may be Reginald Firehammer, the author of the post. Reggie is the owner of the site that Ms. Hewitt insists on posting on rather than FR.

“Reginald Firehammer is the creator and producer of the Independent Individualist and The Autonomist”

I tried to register, but for some reason I haven’t received my activation email. I smell fraud.

[Soliton]

This Firehammer guy is a trip.

The Hijacking of a Philosophy,
Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.
by Reginald Firehammer

[weatherwax]

It’s no fraud. The site has recently undergone some major software changes. I will let the owner know your activation email has gone astray and he will fix it.

[allmendream]

Anyone who thinks that Post-modernism and the provisional acceptance of Scientific theory are in any way analogous has lost it.

Post-modernism thinks there is no objective reality and all views are equally valid.

Science states that there is a objective and measurable and predictable reality, and some models are definitely better than others because they explain more facts and allow better predictions.

Just because we don't accept it as dogma, “proof”, with 100% veracity; somehow we are wishy washy post-modernists?

Ludicrous.

[Hank Kerchief]

You should have your Independent Individualist verification email now. Sorry there was a problem. Let me know if there are any more.

Hank

[Soliton]

are you firehammer?

[Turret Gunner A20]

You go ahead and unscrew the inscrutable, or gaze at your naval or whatever. I'll stick to science.

And, are you stills ticking to this quote of yours given in post # 1:

"All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved!" (—Coyoteman)

[Coyoteman]

And, are you stills ticking to this quote of yours given in post # 1:

"All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved!" (—Coyoteman)

Yes, I am "stills ticking" to that concept. The reason is given in the two definitions below. (And I am not just making these up. The second is from a CalTech website. I am sure you will agree that the folks at CalTech know something about science, won't you?)

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Your “medical professional” (i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?) is nothing better than an ILL educated layman.

Don't you think it's a bit on the arrogant side to come on with this part of your statement -- "Your “medical professional” -.... is nothing better than an ILL educated layman." before you have an answer to this part: "...(i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?)

I'm not sure that doesn't go a long way toward disqualifying you to talk about who does or does not have the right to set forth opinions on proof or non-proof about any subject.

Doesn't strike me as you stuck very close to "science" this time.

[allmendream]

I was wondering why she was so vague about her actual qualifications. There is nothing to be ashamed about being a nurse. I like nurses. It is just that being a nurse is not a qualification, in and of itself, to make pronouncements on Evolution.

She revealed herself to be a rather ill educated laymen when she said that most mutations are deleterious and most of the rest are neutral. Over 90% of mutations in humans are neutral to selective pressure. Less than 5% of our DNA is genes or the regulatory sequences of genes, and less than 5% of non genetic DNA shows evolutionary conservation. Her essay is full of errors right from the beginning showing a complete ignorance of Molecular Evolution; and we are supposed to take her “Hewitt Conjecture” seriously when she so obviously hasn’t done her homework?

Is it not appropriate to point out that your “medical professional” who is a “degreed geneticist” is a nurse with a Masters Degree? Why is she ashamed of it? I am quite proud of my M.S.; a lot of work went into it.

Is it also not appropriate to point out that she betrays just how little she actually knows about the subject in each and every paragraph?

[Hank Kerchief]

Yes.

And Pamela, in my forum, is Cass.

Here:

http://theautonomist.com/home/?/forums/viewthread/124/

Hank

[Soliton]

I still haven’t received an email

[Turret Gunner A20]

Maybe I'm a bit touchy about it, but I hang the tag "arrogant" on any professional who, when disagreeing with someone or pointing out one's mistakes, comes on with such elitist remarks as that that person "is nothing better than an ILL educated layman."

I think that sort of thing is about as snobbish as one can get -- particularly that "layman" bit, when used, as you did, in a derogatory way. Remember, we are all laymen vis a vis professional fields in which we are not qualified -- including you.

And before you get bent out of shape abourt what my qualifications might be to make that statement --

1/ Military Service -- over 30 years -- Retired LtCol -- US Marine Corp Command and Staff College
2/ Retired Lawyer,JD Degree -- over 30 years full and now part time practice
3/ BA History
4/ BA Political Science So I guess I can qualify as a former professional twice over -- and I have never in my life superior enough to apply that term to anyone.

[Turret Gunner A20]

I’m sorry, I have no idea. I do not believe in ID. As I said early, if the life on this planet was designed, it’s a botched design. Who would design life where most of it existed by killing and eating each other.

I hope you aren't serious, because up to now you made a lot of sense.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Your tag line: (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

Neither does denying it.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Your tag line: (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

Neither does denying it.

[allmendream]

Amazing that in a thread that got started on the ludicrous notion that I was engaged in a Postmodernist view I also get raked over the coals for pointing out that someone is an ill educated layman.

Can you perceive the irony?

Post-modernism states that there is no objective or “privileged” viewpoint; all viewpoints are “equally valid”.

I state that Qualifications are important, but it is even more important that your statements accurately reflect reality.

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

My qualifications:

4 years military service USAF.

Undergraduate degree in Biology.

Masters Degree in Molecular Biology.

Section head for a Pharmaceutical company.

And my #1 Qualification: The things I say about Biology, Evolution and the nature of Science are usually correct, verifiable, and corroborated by the research efforts of numerous Scientists.

[curiosity]

Sorry, but I consider philosophy to be closely akin to nonsense.

Shame on you. I normally like your posts, but that statement betrays the same kind of proud and willful ignorance so common in cretin creationists and IDiots.

Scientific method itself is the product of philosophy. There would be no modern science were it no the insights of great philosophers like Aristotle, Bacon, and Hume, to just name a few.

[curiosity]

This article betrays both a profound misunderstanding of postmodernism as well as of the philosophy of science.

To say nothing is proved in science simply means that we can never say with 100% confidence that a given theory is 100% valid. At best, we can say all available evidence supports a theory. However, since we can't know what evidence we might find in the future, we must leave open the possibility that an existing theory might have some flaws and have to be modified. For example, Newton's "laws" were supported by all the available evidence until various experiments in the late 19th century uncovered evidence that was not consistent with them. Hence they had to be modified, despite having held up unchanged for some 400 years.

This has nothing to do with postmodernism. Modern philosophers of science do not claim, as does postmodernism, that there is no objective reality. On the contrary, a scientist must assume that an orderly set of relatively stable physical laws govern the natural world, which exists as objective reality. The only claim is that our understanding of those laws will always be imperfect because of limits on our ability to observe natural phenomena. We can never observe everything since we are not gods.

That is humility, not postmodernism.

[ahayes]

Congrats, you’re famous!