31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaYou say evaluating 'evil' HAS a place in judging truth?
What on earth is your point? Are you saying that some people are more evil than others, or are you saying that "evil" has no place in evaluating truth? Please make your stand.
So these scientists get together and they see E = MC squared.
They say, one the one hand, we can make enough energy to keep
the planet from tipping over into global warming when we overuse
fossil fuels, on the other hand we can use it to make REALLY big
fireworks.
So in this discussion, say in 1940 or so, they balance the issues
with an evilness detector. They decide the evilness of it outweighs
the good and they throw away all their work.
Hmm,
what about the Germans who were within a hairs breadth of making
atomic weapons? do you think they would make the same judgement?
So in this scenario, the Nazi's make 10,000 a bombs, ruin
Britain, america and russia and now the Nazi's are the king of the
world, whats left of it, do the now dead scientists who rejected mc2
on moral grounds now get to go to heaven and all the nazi's are
to be damned to eternity in burning hell? Is that the bottom line here?
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by sonhouseWho's talking about heaven? The bottom line is this: Does immoral behaviour matter in evaluating a truth claim?
You say evaluating 'evil' HAS a place in judging truth?
So these scientists get together and they see E = MC squared.
They say, one the one hand, we can make enough energy to keep
the planet from tipping over into global warming when we overuse
fossil fuels, on the other hand we can use it to make REALLY big
fireworks.
So in this discussion, say in ...[text shortened]... and all the nazi's are
to be damned to eternity in burning hell? Is that the bottom line here?
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaIf you can't understand what he says, that's your problem. If you don't know what a fallacy is you ought not use the word.
Well, I think we're making some progress. You repeated assert that my claim is a fallacy, and that it's different from sonhouse because his is not a fallacy. If you can tell me that sonhouse's statements are not fallacies, can you then at least tell me what he's saying?
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaA: why do you insist on calling them "claims"?
I'm saying it should. And based on that, we ought to re-examine Einstein's claims.
and B: suppose we grant the godlike ability to place moral
verasitude on science. What is your personal bottom line here?
to deny that Einstein was incorrect and therefore now we are all
issued an edict that we have to from now on follow Newtons
laws of gravity and from henceforth no research into the vile science
of relativity and bending of space and e=mc squared will forever
be constrained (huh, whats relativity? my relatives?)
Is that your desire? It sounds like you want to go back about
200 years when things were more certain, no grays, only
truths and falsehood. So would that make E=mc squared any
less true if you accomplished that? let me answer, NO.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaNo, I'm not familiar with any scientists behind Hitler's actions. Are you saying scientists created Hitler like Dr. Frankenstein created the monster? If not, what exactly do you mean?
Are you familiar with the scientists behind Hitler's actions? They were scientists, doing what scientists do best.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by EingabenYou guys do not get it, so let me spell it out for you. Scientific discovery and experiment is not proven wrong because of the actions of its proponents. Neither is history, philosophy, or religion. Crusades, inquisitions and bad choices by the Pope neither add nor detract from the truth-claims of Christianity. Kingdanwa pulled the same trick on you idiots that he did in the Abe Lincoln thread, proving his point by saying exactly the opposite.
example:
Christianity’s disgraceful past nullifies its credibility (or truthfulness) as a religion...
Like we all haven't heard this argument before... Its the sad banter and quotation of such events as the Crusades or Inquisitions or what have you....
I wonder if maybe this would be the Spiritual turn in this avenue of discussion
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou know, there was this really evil doctor, Mengela, who did the most vile experiments on children the the world had seen up that point in
No, I'm not familiar with any scientists behind Hitler's actions. Are you saying scientists created Hitler like Dr. Frankenstein created the monster? If not, what exactly do you mean?
time. He published his results in Germany and guess what, this evil
knowledge is still used today. So the evility of the scientist
has no bearing on the validity of the work.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by sonhouseWould you then agree with most of poopsie's last comment? Evil/immoral behaviour has no bearing on any truth claim?
You know, there was this really evil doctor, Mengela, who did the most vile experiments on children the the world had seen up that point in
time. He published his results in Germany and guess what, this evil
knowledge is still used today. So the evility of the scientist
has no bearing on the validity of the work.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwahow could any moral judgement have any effect on universal truths?
Would you then agree with most of poopsie's last comment? Evil/immoral behaviour has no bearing on any truth claim?
For instance, here on this planet we may judge X,Y, and Z to be
totally immoral but maybe on some planet around some star in
the andromeda galaxy they look at the same morality issue and
come to the exact opposite conclusion. You get where I am going
with this? A moral judgement is a strictly cultural value and since other
cultures have differant values the morality issue is SUBJECTIVE.
the statement that the speed of light is = to C and no more is
true whether there are beings alive in this universe or not.
There is a big differance and if you can't see it, you have no
need to make these kind of posts.