Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor
Your dismissiveness is revealing. There are those who would say ones' view of the beginnings of the universe by, lets say quantuum theory gives rise to the view (your view) of Richard Dawkins which can be trunkated to say the universe and all that is in it is due to blind, purposeless, mindless, chance. I do not know your view of origin, but for purpose of argument I put your view on a rough par with DAwkins. So your view, no Creator of the universe or life. Life came from a chemicals stew (though the Miller Urey Experiment has been throughly discredited). Your contention is that this worldview is "irrelevant" (your word). Your concern is microbes killing or making ill persons. As a Board Certified Surgeon for 30 years I share your concern. I have fought the good fight all of those years. But in your worldview what is the point. Is there a moral imperative that you and I do this? From whom does that imperative (we ought help make people whole) flow? You say all that is in the universe is blind and purposeless. There is no guiding moral purpose...just purposeless chemical reactions guided by meaningless, purposeless laws of physics. And when those physics run the course in the universe all of the atomic and subatomic particles will be washed into an ocean of nothingness approaching absolute zero and a vacuum. No purpose.
Now history has told us of a group of central European peoples and the dear leader who concluded what you have concluded. As Dostoyevsky said, "Without God, all things are permitted." And so World War II cost 100 million lives because Hitler sought to set his Worldview-his Weltanschauung-loose on the whole world. Hitler, a devotee of Nietzsche. Nietzsche wrote, "Our whole European culture is moving for some time now with tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade, as toward a catastrophe: resteless, violently, headlong like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, no long wants to reflect, that is afraid to reflect. Nihlism is the only result.
Now fastforward to June 29, 2012-Obama care. Someone will have to dictate how resources are allocated. Someone will determine this person fill requirement for dialysis, but this other is too old and frail. I recall Mr.Obama saying, "Grandma needs a hip replacemnt, but maybe it is better that she go home will a pain pill." Who decides? Which worldview decides? Yours...mindless, purposeless, blind and dictated by chance? Or a worldview that says, "God made man in His image. The essence of the character of God is the Moral code and therefore all human life is sacred."
I am afraid your blind and purposeless universe gives little comfort to those who are on the front lines of this great struggle before us in resource allocation. Death panels have already been set up by people such as Peter Sanger and yourself. Good luck with that when you and your family have someone with that Weltanschauuang commanding your fate. It can rapidly move from a theoretical conversation, like you and I are having, to harsh reality. I have lived those situations for 30 years plus. It is real and, though you see these issues as irrelevant many see them as imperatives.
Don't feel you need to freep me back. I have read many of you musings and find them mostly devoid of reason and thoughtfulness regarding these issues. (I do not mean thoughtfullness as one being thoughtless regarding all matters, but thoughtless in that clearly you are not well read and schooled regarding metaphysical realities and metaphysical naturalism and the importance of all of their permutations.) I have read and studied on these matters for 40 years and am still lacking in many areas of understanding regarding these matters. But there are things which are understandable and knowable by anyone who wishes to open their minds and look at these issues. I simply will agree to disagree with your assertions. But assertions without epistemic underpinnings are really of little value other that saying, 'this is my opinion'. We all have one. But why is that opinion your opinion is a much more interesting question.
I have head alledged 'scientists' write with an intense, intellectual haughtiness and attempt to derive credibility by their declarations. Without explication, theirs remains only their opinion.
So when you say origins take us to a place where a scientist cannot go because you cannot observe it through experimentation, you are dismissing what you can know, what you do know. For example you cannot, by observation or experimentation prove logic or reason because to attempt to explain logic and reason by logic and reason is circular and therefore meaningless. Yet, you say you do that every day...use logic and reason. You say you use scientific method in your experiment, but you cannot prove scientific method by scientific method without begging the question and there makes your deduction meaningless. You use mind in your scientific experimenation and observation but mind has no physical makeup and for you, if you are consistent, must deny mind in a physicalist worldview.
I won't continue on this road. I have been down this road with naturalists so many times and you will refuse to learn. So I will stop here. Again, no need to re-freep me. Our conversation will only be tit-for-tat and I do not need a pissing contest any more than you probably do. Good Luck in all of your observations, use of logic, reason and rational thought. ONce you figure how evolution gave us those things freep me...I would love to hear your explications.
So the “inconsistency” is purely a perception? There are two sides to every issue. But, by your lights, the politics are to be found entirely on the one (the private side)? The “other” side, of course, being thoroughly pure, untainted by even the slightest whiff of politics or the prospect of ideological gain?
“The reality is that, at the upper levels, the EPA operates politically--political appointees with little to no scientific background run it according to the politicians' whims. And, clearly, the politicians do try to accrue political power by using the EPA.”
The reality is that bureaucrats in any federal department, as well as the politicians to whom they are ultimately responsible (supposedly), will design their scientific research grants and mandates to fit their information ministry needs, irrespective of what the People need. Their behavioral pattern has long been set, as A-G in #219 has observed.
”But the scientists at the EPA are not politicians; they are trying to do the research that they believe has value . . .”
Scientists are doing what “government” (the bureaucrats and the politicians of government) believes has value. If it wants entrée to government largess, Science must go “ta-ta” for its money. Steve Milloy and many another, along with the physician who wrote the letter, opposes the corruption of Science and our government represented by such abuses.
Truly there is stiff competition for available funding to do research. No doubt political correctness is a factor in grants.
This situation is significantly more complicated than you make it out to be. Furthermore, it appears that you did not read what I actually wrote; I invite you to go back and read what I said in the last paragraph of reply #218. In this particular case, I would say that Mr. Milloy is using an isolated adverse event to try to score ideological/political points against the EPA. I would guess that the reason he is doing so is to try to bring attention to the clearly political motives of the non-scientist political appointees heading the EPA (e.g. uber political hack Carol Browner). I disagree with his tactics, however, because he's attacking scientists who are not political appointees, and who have little control over what the political hacks at the top do.
And, in case you think that adverse effects are at all rare, I would suggest you go take a look at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Look at any type of clinical trial you want. Find one that has results. Scroll down the results page; there are two expandable sections, Serious Adverse Events and Other Adverse Events. Some trials have dozens of events listed. Keep in mind, however, that an adverse event is not necessarily related to the study; I've seen a fatal bicycle accident listed as a serious adverse event. My whole point is that adverse events during studies are common; picking one out from among the crowd is suspicious and suggests motives other than concern about patient safety.
The reality is that bureaucrats in any federal department, as well as the politicians to whom they are ultimately responsible (supposedly), will design their scientific research grants and mandates to fit their information ministry needs, irrespective of what the People need. Their behavioral pattern has long been set, as A-G in #219 has observed.
Um... you might want to brush up on exactly how scientific funding is disbursed. There isn't a bureaucrat in *any* government agency who "designs scientific research grants." Bureaucrats or politicians might be able to say they want more research in a particular area--cystic fibrosis, for example--but they haven't a clue how to design a study, which leaves them completely unable to write grants. Scientists write grants, and other scientists review and approve/disapprove them. Those scientists come from a variety of places. Any scientist can compete for grant funding for any type of research project.
Scientists are doing what “government” (the bureaucrats and the politicians of government) believes has value. If it wants entrée to government largess, Science must go “ta-ta” for its money. Steve Milloy and many another, along with the physician who wrote the letter, opposes the corruption of Science and our government represented by such abuses.
The government does not coerce scientists into going along with some agenda. A scientist who wants government money simply has to identify which government agency is offering money for the type of research the scientist wants to do, and apply for it. The only requirement that the government puts on the scientists is that if they request funding for a particular type of research, they have to do that research. What Steve Milloy is doing has nothing to do with any conspiracy stories about government dictating what scientists can and cannot do.
I highly suggest you take another look at the Bible, specifically the Ten Commandments--especially the one that says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." You may not have invented such vile and malicious lies, but repeating them as you have means you made them yours. Why do you equate scientists with mass murderers? Do you have verifiable evidence (with references) that studying science leads people to become mass murderers? If not, then don't call us mass murderers.
I totally get the fact that you feel your faith threatened by the fact that the physical world refuses to match a metaphorical story from the Bible. Well, tough. It's up to you to reconcile your faith with the physical world--scientists have absolutely no obligation to lie about the physical world to make you happy. Your weak faith does NOT give you the right to spread vicious lies about scientists.
I am afraid your blind and purposeless universe gives little comfort to those who are on the front lines of this great struggle before us in resource allocation. Death panels have already been set up by people such as Peter Sanger and yourself.
Where is your evidence that I'm eagerly setting up death panels?
You have no evidence that I am a murderer. You have no evidence that I sympathize with murderers. You have no right to accuse me of such.
Is that how you show your Christian values? By calling people murderers because they accept the scientific view of the world instead of believing that an obvious metaphor is literal?
Let me remind you again of the Ten Commandments. There is no commandment against studying the physical world. There is no commandment to believe that every single Biblical metaphor is a literal account. But there *is* a commandment against making false accusations about people: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Maybe you don't think that means something, but I do.
Ahhh, yes. Complications. Whenever an unpleasant “situation” is encountered, “complications” are pled. Old naval tactic . . . making smoke . . . great bellowing clouds.
There isn't a bureaucrat in *any* government agency who “designs scientific research grants.”
Those research proposals just come sailing in unsolicited over the transom? Then some bureaucrat picks one off the floor and says, “No, not that one” or “Hey, I like this one”?
“Bureaucrats or politicians might be able to say they want more research in a particular area--cystic fibrosis, for example--but they haven't a clue how to design a study, which leaves them completely unable to write grants.”
Really?! There’s no technical advisors on the federal payroll? There’s no Dr Floyd Ferris to advise Kip Chalmers? Or Dr Robert Stadler to assist Tinky Holloway? Is this one of those “complications” of which you speak? I suppose you had to correct me on something . . . so I guess I stand corrected . . . on something.
”The government does not coerce scientists into going along with some agenda.”
Of course. Coercion would never be an option that would occur to a bureaucrat. Certainly not coercion at the point of a gun when there are more subtle methods?
Yet, you acknowledge that government is dominated by political decisions (“The reality is that, at the upper levels, the EPA operates politically--political appointees with little to no scientific background run it according to the politicians' whims.”)
The only thing I would add is that it’s not just the “upper levels,” or just one agency, or just “whims.”
You really need to work on reading comprehension. Your response of misdirection is to present a (false) context which you take out of context to create a fictitous pretext. In my post to you I never accused you of murder....I did not use the word kill....I did say Hitlers wordview (his weltanschauung) led to the death of 100 million people. His worldview was one born from evolution, naturalism, and physicalism with a heavy tinge of eastern mysticism. For a starter reference, which you requested, you might consider the book by Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, ISMn 1-4039-7201-X.
Now I won't humor you by trying to sooth your hurt feelings. Your indignation is of your own making....deal with it.
I do like the consistency you demonstrate as an evolutionist, naturalist, determinist, physicalist. You refer me to the Bible...you highly suggest....highly...I go to the Bible to deal with your allegation that I called you a murderer. Then in the next paragraph you reference the Bible as a metaphor. Your logic at least is consistent in that it is irrational in referring me to deal with your contrived characterization you acuse me of, all the while denying the veracity of that very Bible.
I will only say that my entire previous post to you was the discuss the worldview of the darwinist and where it can lead as opposed to the Judeo-Christian worldview. Out of what is as crystal clear as that communication could be my references were to contrast worldviews. Ideas have consequences. Darwinist ideas have born, in my opinion, destructive consequences.
Again, I did not say you wanted to have death panels. If you read the above referenced book you will see the evolution of the thinking of the Germanic scientists, British scientists, and American scientists worldview morph what was a Christian nation to one which embraced darwinian determinism. I do not believe that most 'scientists' are of the view that people should be 'murdered'. Remember,....I do not know you. I have never laid eyes on you. I am not in the buisness of calling people murders. (By the way. Murder is a legal term. I think you might be thinking of the term kill, killing).
I will try not to engage you in any more conversation. I will leave you to you experiments. Please do not write me back.
As a Christian I do appreciate a darwinist referring me to the Bible as a guide, not only to 'metaphors' but to the text of the decalogue. And I am glad that those 10 commandments which you reference, are more than suggestions.
Good Luck and good night.
I've encountered very few simple, cut-and-dry situations in my life. Unfortunately, people want simplicity, so they tend to ignore important factors, especially when the factors they are ignoring don't fit into their overal thesis.
Those research proposals just come sailing in unsolicited over the transom? Then some bureaucrat picks one off the floor and says, “No, not that one” or “Hey, I like this one”?
Yes, the proposals are pretty much unsolicited. Scientists look at different funding opportunities, and choose the ones that most closely relate to the work they want to do. Many of the funding opportunities are fairly open-ended, and even in the areas where the funding appears to be more targeted, there is still a considerable amount of leeway in how the scientist chooses to approach the subject.
For instance, I wander over to the grants.gov website, and browse by category "Environment." I choose that category because much of my graduate education was paid for by the Superfund program (that is, the EPA). I skip forward a few pages to look at currently open grant opportunities. Among hundreds of opportunities, I see grants as diverse as "National Coal Heritage Area" (hmm, that's outside of my specialty) and "Bioengineering Research Grants" (ah, that's more like it!). Now that I've identified a potential funding source, I write up a grant proposal. It has to be fairly detailed: I have to state what I plan to do, why it is important, how it qualifies as a bioengineering project, how I intend to implement the research (e.g., I will use PCR to modify specific genes, which I will then put into bacteria and verify by sequence and expression analysis, etc.), and what kinds of results I expect to see. Grant proposals can run dozens of pages. I'll ask my friends (all PhD level scientists like myself) to review it, after which I'll probably rewrite it and then I'll send it off to the funding agency (in this case, the NIH). A bureaucrat verifies correct formatting, then sends it to a multidisciplinary scientific committee, which reviews and scores it according to various criteria (is it novel? is the science sound? do I have the scientific background to do the project I am proposing? etc.). After the committee has reviewed and ranked all of the proposals, it recommends the highest scoring proposals for funding. At that point, it goes back to the bureaucrat, who informs me as to whether my proposal was recommended or not. Assuming it was, I then decide whether to accept the funding.
As you can see, the bureaucrats have nothing to do with writing grant proposals, nor do they make the funding decisions. They have their functions, but the science itself is done by scientists, according to their personal preferences.
Scientists who work for government agencies compete for funding in exactly the same manner, and have the same freedom to choose an area of research. Although, obviously, a scientist working for the EPA needs to work on environmentally related projects. And if they don't want to work on environmental research, they have the freedom to work for another agency.
Really?! There’s no technical advisors on the federal payroll? There’s no Dr Floyd Ferris to advise Kip Chalmers? Or Dr Robert Stadler to assist Tinky Holloway? Is this one of those “complications” of which you speak? I suppose you had to correct me on something . . . so I guess I stand corrected . . . on something.
I have no idea who any of those people are. And I'm not sure what you're getting at by mentioning technical advisors on the federal payroll. I'm on the federal payroll (active military); I don't think I've ever met a "technical advisor."
Of course. Coercion would never be an option that would occur to a bureaucrat. Certainly not coercion at the point of a gun when there are more subtle methods?
The idea that scientists are somehow forced to do research that they don't want to do is a common meme among the various anti-science groups (of which literal creationist advocates are just a subset). In the real world, that kind of coercion just doesn't work. I'm reminded of the story where a young woman was threatened with death if she could not spin gold thread... as dire as that threat was, she still could not turn straw into gold. Scientists, likewise, cannot do the physically impossible... and trying to coerce scientists into agenda-driven research can only impede science. Which is why I speak out against teaching religion in science classes.
The mechanics may be more or less complicated, but the principle is simple. You, however, describe yourself very well. The tactic of attributing to others one’s own characteristics is typical of Alinsky/Goebbels propagandists. Troll droppings. You’ve been found out (again).
“Yes, the proposals are pretty much unsolicited. Scientists look at different funding opportunities, and choose the ones that most closely relate to the work they want to do. Many of the funding opportunities are fairly open-ended, and even in the areas where the funding appears to be more targeted, there is still a considerable amount of leeway in how the scientist chooses to approach the subject.”
What are “funding opportunities” if not solicitations for research proposals, or “studies”? Do not think you can soften the reality of the extent of government control of scientific resources by the use of circumlocutions like “funding opportunities.”
It’s been thirty years - before the era of the computer - before the era of the internet - since the seminal work of Broad and Wade (Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science) began peeling back some of the layers of chicanery inherit in the pursuit of Science as currently practised by our academic community:
“Our conclusion, in brief, is that science bears little resemblance to its conventional portrait. We believe that the logical structure discernible in scientific knowledge says nothing about the process by which the structure was built or the mentality of the builders. In the acquisition of knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it.”
It’s been fifty years since Ayn Rand laid out for us the manner in which the corruption of science in our society might occur (see Atlas Shrugged – see Dr Floyd Ferris – see Dr Robert Stadler). Almost daily Miss Rand’s prescience becomes more amazing and undeniable.
Jefferson didn’t envision it this way when he laid out the basic outline of what was to become our education system, but public schools have come, bit by bit, to be looked upon as little more than information ministries for the dissemination of that information which the state (that is, the politicians and bureaucrats of government) regards as beneficial for its citizens. Which means; what is of use for the state’s purposes and in its interests. So too do we have cause to think that the integrity of scientific studies has been compromised for the sake of political expediency, ideological aggrandizement, and societal domination.
Following the seminal work of Broad & Wade a number of other publications have hit the stands. A partial list:
Bending Science, by Thomas O McGarity and Wendy E. Wagner
Challenges, by Serge Lang
The Russian Space Bluff, by Leonid Vladimirov (published eleven years before the Broad & Wade work)
Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, by David Michaels
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway
Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World Science, by Eugenie Samuel Reich
Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion, by Daniel S. Greenberg
Science Under Siege: The Politicians' War on Nature and Truth, by Todd Wilkinson
The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science, by Horace Freeland Judson
The New Politics of Science, by David Dickson
The Republican War on Science, by Chris C. Mooney
Ever heard of William Summerlin and “painting the mice”? See The Patchwork Mouse by Joseph Hixson (or, see Skin Deep, from the March 8, 1976 edition of Time Magazine)
Ever heard of the LPU (least publishable unit), or of “salami slicing”?
“I’m on the federal payroll”
Meaningless, lacking specifics.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a “technical advisor.”
Again, meaningless, lacking specifics. Possibly all you need do is shake hands with yourself.
“The idea that scientists are somehow forced to do research that they don't want to do is a common meme . . . ”
Whose idea? Yours? Of course, scientists don’t have to do research they don’t want to do. They need merely to take their “research” elsewhere (presumably some do) and do without the federal money (or the corporate money) that goes with it. Try again.
“. . . among the various anti-science groups (of which literal creationist advocates are just a subset).”
Have you a charge you wish to lodge? Or, are you merely slinging poo to see if anything sticks?
“. . . trying to coerce scientists into agenda-driven research can only impede science.”
Who knew?
“Which is why I speak out against teaching religion in science classes.”
Now you’re really coming out of left field. What religion is it that bureaucrats are forcing on science other than the worship of God the State?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.