the real reason for the failure of America...

[Peter_Kropotkin]

This is another variation of the “Thinking about IQ” thread"

we might be able to think about the current fall of America in
different terms then has been usually thought about…

The difference between America of “yesteryear” and today
is really the difference between religion and a scientific
assessment of the world… or said another way, we are
becoming a third world country because of our refusal to
drop religion and engage in the world rationally, scientifically…

we can equate modern day America with the Islamic Golden Age…
In many ways, we can think about the Islamic Golden age,
which existed from say 800-1200, (depending on who writing about it)
as being one of the Golden ages of humankind…

and the Golden age was done for because the religious
fanatics, overcame the intellectuals… once Islam became
focused on Religion, it lost its ability to reengage with rationality,
reason, logic and the sciences… the Islamic states became
third world countries once they began their focus on religion…
just as we are doing in our daily battle between science and
religion… once religion wins, we all lose… because the religious
mind does not focus on the problems of existence… because
within religion, the answers are already given and the point is to
obey those truths and in that need to obey, we forget
that the questions of existence aren’t given, but found in seeking…

the turned to the religious doomed the Islamic states to centuries
of decay and stagnation… just as any more turn to religion will
doom America and the west into centuries of decay and stagnation…

just as the turn to religion doomed the Roman Empire from
being a great state to a minor player in the world for centuries…

just as emphasis on the formal structure doomed
China to being a second rate culture for centuries…
the fixation of what it means to be human was fixed into
the focus of Chinese thought into being the “ideal”
person was the fixation of thought on the ideals of
Confucianism… to be educated was to be well versed in
the ideals of Confucianism… not to seek the truth,
but to practiced what was already considered to be the truth…
to be educated meant to stay within that small circle of existence
that was the truth of Confucianism… the ideal was an already known truth…
and seeking anything outside of that known truth was forbidden…
as religions today force us to hold onto certain truths and no other
truths are accepted or acted upon…thus we have a couple of
different examples are examples of the state becoming
rigid and fixed because of the example was to seek out truths
that are only acceptable to the state and are previously known to
be truths…

in other words, the only accepted truths to Rome, China, Islam,
were truths already held, and attempting to reach any other truth,
outside of these already accepted truths were punished…

thus we reach the point why America is on the verge of a breakdown,
it isn’t because we aren’t religious enough, it is because of the
need to force people to accept religious truths before all other truths…
the way to become a great nation again requires us to relegate
religions to the compost of history and return to the example set
by science, in which seeking the truth is important and living within
a set truth is discouraged… like living within religious concepts
as the primary mode of how we are to live… we must overcome that
if we are to remain a strong and powerful nation… the only viable
path into the future is to escape religious domination and
live our lives via scientific or philosophically principles… not base our
lives on religious principles… for the path of religion will doom
America into being a third world country…

Kropotkin

[Peter_Kropotkin]

The failure in America can be traced to the
rise of modern religion… we have become too religious
and not enough scientific… hence the failure of America…

or said another way, you want to save America, the path
is through becoming an intellectual, not a priest…
when one finds religion, one become fixed and set
and a fixed, set ideas, cannot save us from anything…

what does it matter to gain one’s soul, if we lose
what makes us human…and we lose our society, state, civilization…
to gain one’s soul, being saved isn’t worth losing your society or state for…

Kropotkin

[Mr_Reasonable]

peter when you realize that all the Q shit is essentially, functionally a religion, a lot of this makes sense.

[Sculptor]

I have often reflected on the differences between the UK and US in this regard.
IN the UK religion is established within the state. Bishops sit in the House of Lords (where they can do no harm), but the Monarch is still Regina Dei Gratia.
In the last 200 year the people have struggled against the state, and this has meant a struggle against established religion by association. Although many great reformers were religious, they were mostly Baptists and and other break away Protestant sects outside of the church of England.
As the left grew gaining ground in voting rights, working rights, and women’s rights the state lost credibility as they defended conservative values. Church numbers dropped away and most Brits whilst they still might vaguely believe in some sort of “higher power” do not swallow the whole load of cods’ wallop.

In the US being religious goes hand in hand with resistance to the state. Sadly that means that at the heart of the American “soul” there is a deep irrationality and a tendency to believe rather than to know. Belief is a choice, not a rational process based on ideas and evidence.
If I were to point to the key difference between most Americans and most Brits I would say that whilst the UK tolerates belief American encourages it.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Pyotr Kropotkin

The failure in America can be traced to the
rise of modern religion… we have become too religious
and not enough scientific… hence the failure of America…

You might be able to trace it to dogmatism which can be scientific just as much as it can be religious. You seem to think that religion is necessarily dogmatic. I don’t know how much you know about it, but given what I know about you, I’d say very little. And you also seem to be completely blind to scientific dogmatism. There is a large number of people on this forum, which also includes me, who think that you’re one of the most dogmatic people around here. How is that possible given that you’re an atheist who obeys everything so-called science says? Everything you do on this forum gives an impression of an extremely hateful and intolerant person – not much different from all those religious fanatics you hate so much.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Peter Kropotkin

in other words, the only accepted truths to Rome, China, Islam,
were truths already held, and attempting to reach any other truth,
outside of these already accepted truths were punished…

when one finds religion, one become fixed and set
and a fixed, set ideas, cannot save us from anything…

@"[url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dogma

Cambridge Dictionary[/url]"]dogma

a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts

I don’t have the impression that those who are running the world are interested in reasoning with the masses. They seem to be merely interested in forcing the masses to behave in a way they deem desirable; and to that end, they seem to be employing psychological manipulation. The beliefs they are trying promote may or may not be correct – and it wouldn’t surprise me if many of them are intentionally false – but the method of persuasion they are using is that of pathos and ethos rather than logos, which basically means they want their beliefs to be accepted unconditionally without any questioning.

[Sculptor]

@Magnus Anderson

@Pyotr Kropotkin

The failure in America can be traced to the
rise of modern religion… we have become too religious
and not enough scientific… hence the failure of America…

You might be able to trace it to dogmatism which can be scientific just as much as it can be religious. You seem to think that religion is necessarily dogmatic. I don’t know how much you know about it, but given what I know about you, I’d say very little. And you also seem to be completely blind to scientific dogmatism. There is a large number of people on this forum, which also includes me, who think that you’re one of the most dogmatic people around here. How is that possible given that you’re an atheist who obeys everything so-called science says? Everything you do on this forum gives an impression of an extremely hateful and intolerant person – not much different from all those religious fanatics you hate so much.

Scientific dogmatism is found out; religious dogmatism never is.
In fact religious dogmatism can be the polar opposite of other religious dogmatisms yet, as both are deigned to be irrefutable then its ONLY a matter of choice,
Scientific dogmatism has to comply with the reality of nature or fail.
So nah! You are wrong again.

[Sculptor]

@Magnus Anderson

@Peter Kropotkin

in other words, the only accepted truths to Rome, China, Islam,
were truths already held, and attempting to reach any other truth,
outside of these already accepted truths were punished…

when one finds religion, one become fixed and set
and a fixed, set ideas, cannot save us from anything…

@"[url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dogma

Cambridge Dictionary[/url]"]dogma

a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts

I don’t have the impression that those who are running the world are interested in reasoning with the masses. They seem to be merely interested in forcing the masses to behave in a way they deem desirable; and to that end, they seem to be employing psychological manipulation. The beliefs they are trying promote may or may not be correct – and it wouldn’t surprise me if many of them are intentionally false – but the method of persuasion they are using is that of pathos and ethos rather than logos, which basically means they want their beliefs to be accepted unconditionally without any questioning.

Whilst this seems true you have a childish way of looking at it, as if there is some sort of mass conspiracy. There is not. The actual conspiracy is subtle and unconscious. The conspiracy of the elites to maintain their wealth and power is not decided in a smoke filled room, with secret signs and clandestine practices. Power self protects. Media by the rich for the rich has a tendency to only make endemic and underlying assumptions above which the narrative builds, and the truth is obscured by nuance; double speak and platitudes to salve the poor and powerless whilst still supporting the status quo.
There are a set of false assumptions behind all the media; its the poor’s fault; they are lazy; if only they would work harder they might deserve what they get; democracy works for all; you are fat, lazy, and stupid not because of bad food or bad education but because you are not worthy of power and riches.
And people like you love to ape those ideas.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Sculptor

Whilst this seems true

So is it true or is it false (merely appearing to be true)?

you have a childish way of looking at it

That’s a personal attack.

[…] as if there is some sort of mass conspiracy. There is not.

And you know this is true based on exactly what?

Note that I never mentioned the word “conspiracy”. You brought it in. I merely said that people who are in charge are not interested in reasoning with the masses which means they are expecting and demanding from the masses to accept what the elites are saying without any questioning.

The actual conspiracy is subtle and unconscious.

So there actually is a conspiracy . . . it’s merely subtle and unconscious. What makes you think there are no conscious conspirators? And who cares? Did I ever claim that all, or at least some, of the conspiracy is conscious?

The conspiracy of the elites to maintain their wealth and power is not decided in a smoke filled room, with secret signs and clandestine practices.

And you know that such is the case becuase of exactly what? How do you know there are no conscious conspirators? How do you know that all conspiracy is unconscious?

Power self protects. Media by the rich for the rich has a tendency to only make endemic and underlying assumptions above which the narrative builds, and the truth is obscured by nuance; double speak and platitudes to salve the poor and powerless whilst still supporting the status quo.

I don’t deny that.

There are a set of false assumptions behind all the media; its the poor’s fault; they are lazy; if only they would work harder they might deserve what they get; democracy works for all; you are fat, lazy, and stupid not because of bad food or bad education but because you are not worthy of power and riches.
And people like you love to ape those ideas.

And you love to make assumptions about other people instead of doing proper investigation e.g. by careful reading and by asking questions. Here’s an example: I don’t ape those ideas and I actually agree with you on this point – those ideas are promoted with the aim to shift the blame.

[Sculptor]

@Magnus Anderson

@Sculptor

Whilst this seems true

So is it true or is it false (merely appearing to be true)?

It’s best to read the whole post before commenting.

you have a childish way of looking at it

That’s a personal attack.

BooHoo

[…] as if there is some sort of mass conspiracy. There is not.

And you know this is true based on exactly what?

Note that I never mentioned the word “conspiracy”. You brought it in. I merely said that people who are in charge are not interested in reasoning with the masses which means they are expecting and demanding from the masses to accept what the elites are saying without any questioning.

The actual conspiracy is subtle and unconscious.

So there actually is a conspiracy . . . it’s merely subtle and unconscious. What makes you think there are no conscious conspirators? And who cares? Did I ever claim that all, or at least some, of the conspiracy is conscious?

The conspiracy of the elites to maintain their wealth and power is not decided in a smoke filled room, with secret signs and clandestine practices.

And you know that such is the case becuase of exactly what? How do you know there are no conscious conspirators? How do you know that all conspiracy is unconscious?

Power self protects. Media by the rich for the rich has a tendency to only make endemic and underlying assumptions above which the narrative builds, and the truth is obscured by nuance; double speak and platitudes to salve the poor and powerless whilst still supporting the status quo.

I don’t deny that.

There are a set of false assumptions behind all the media; its the poor’s fault; they are lazy; if only they would work harder they might deserve what they get; democracy works for all; you are fat, lazy, and stupid not because of bad food or bad education but because you are not worthy of power and riches.
And people like you love to ape those ideas.

And you love to make assumptions about other people instead of doing proper investigation e.g. by careful reading and by asking questions. Here’s an example: I don’t ape those ideas and I actually agree with you on this point – those ideas are promoted with the aim to shift the blame.

Haha.
You can lead a dickhead to water, but you can’t stop him drowning in his own ordure.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Sculptor

Scientific dogmatism is found out; religious dogmatism never is.

Nothing can be found out if there are no people who are actively trying to find things out. That applies to science just as much as it applies to religion. If scientists aren’t allowed to explore reality and adhere to the principles of proper reasoning, say by being secretly or openly manipulated into reaching certain conclusions and/or reasoning in an invalid manner, they will never discover that their beliefs are false.

Beside that, the average person is not a scientist – they are not doing any science themselves. Instead, they merely believe whatever their “priests” tell them is true. They change their minds only when their “priests” change their minds. Nothing else – no amount of reasoning and no amount of evidence – can change it. If that’s not the same as being dogmatic then it’s pretty damn close to it. That’s why there is little to no difference between those who follow science and those who follow religion. They merely believe in different “gods”. Their best hope then is that the god they believe in (the god of science) is better than other gods. But how can they know that? How can they know that what is preached to them is indeed a product of science and not a product of something else e.g. politics?

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Sculptor

It’s best to read the whole post before commenting.

Again, you’re presuming. What makes you think that I didn’t?

BooHoo

I am trying to paint a clear picture of what kind of a person you are – basically someone whose actions can psychologically manipulate, whether intentionally or unintentionally. That’s not something to be proud of but I guess you don’t care. Still, others might.

Haha.
You can lead a dickhead to water, but you can’t stop him drowning in his own ordure.

There you go again.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

@Magnus Anderson

@Pyotr Kropotkin

The failure in America can be traced to the
rise of modern religion… we have become too religious
and not enough scientific… hence the failure of America…

You might be able to trace it to dogmatism which can be scientific just as much as it can be religious. You seem to think that religion is necessarily dogmatic. I don’t know how much you know about it, but given what I know about you, I’d say very little. And you also seem to be completely blind to scientific dogmatism. There is a large number of people on this forum, which also includes me, who think that you’re one of the most dogmatic people around here. How is that possible given that you’re an atheist who obeys everything so-called science says? Everything you do on this forum gives an impression of an extremely hateful and intolerant person – not much different from all those religious fanatics you hate so much.

K: ummm so much here and so little time…

let us begin with “scientific dogmatism”
feel free to show us an example of this… give us examples
of “Scientific dogmatism”… and try not to be too lazy by saying,
its what you do Kropotkin… give us an example…

Now let us take a little further dive into Kropotkin’s
“Scientific Dogmatism” I accept the basic scientific concepts
of evolution and I accept Gravity… and have stated so, many times,
so, how exactly does accepting such theories as Evolution and gravity,
have me engaged in “Scientific dogmatism”… have I accepted other theories
of science… that science tends to be self correcting… if an theory is false
in some aspect, it needs to be revised… I accept that… so how exactly does
that make me one who engages in “Scientific Dogmatism?”
I accept the basic scientific idea that we hold theories and if the theories
are in some way found to be wrong, we must reexamine those theories…
that doesn’t exactly strike me as being a “Scientific dogmatist”

Next step, religious dogmatism… I can give hundreds of examples of
religious dogmatism… not being able to change or adapt to
the changing environment… for example, it wasn’t until 1950 that
Pope Pius X11 wrote:

“A the same time, Catholics take no issue with the Big Bang theory,
along with cosmological, geological, and biological axioms touted by
science”

thus the general acceptance of science as it was understood by
Kepler, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein… in some examples, it took
the Catholic Church over 400 years to accept the work of Kepler
or Galileo… that is one example of religious dogmatism…

now as far as your personal insults, hay, I don’t expect you to
actually rise above that… but please feel free to offer us some actual
examples of me being “one of the most dogmatic people around here” and
examples of me being a “extremely hateful and intolerant person”

That is you reading into the things I have written… I would suggest that you
see what you want to see… and as you see hate and intolerance,
that is what you see and you are a “dogmatic” person thus that is what you see…

I have changed my own political beliefs, three times in my life and am currently
in the process of another change… I have had several different philosophical
positions… how many times have you change either/or your political or
philosophical beliefs? so perhaps, perhaps you may want to stop wasting
everyone’s time with nonsense attacks and get to the business at hand…

that being, the working out of the values and beliefs that you hold to…
I have stated dozens of times, (and perhaps that is the reason you believe
me to be dogmatic) of the values and beliefs I choose…

I hold that the value of peace is far greater than the value of
hate or violence and I have stated this time and time again…
I have even worked out the who, what, when, where, why and how
of peaceful values as opposed to hate and violence…

but that is no surprise… that those who hold to violence
and hate and anger think that those who hold opposing values
of love and peace and not-violence, are dogmatic and intolerant…

sounds like anyone you know?

try looking inward and see what is there before going out and attacking
those who hold different beliefs than you do…

Kropotkin

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Kropotkin

let us begin with “scientific dogmatism”
feel free to show us an example of this… give us examples
of “Scientific dogmatism”… and try not to be too lazy by saying,
its what you do Kropotkin… give us an example…

An example would be someone who believes everything that is declared as being scientific by those who they trust (such as mainstream media.) They are not scientists themselves, since they don’t have enough time for it, so they have no choice but to trust those they choose to trust. Since they aren’t doing any thinking on their own, no amount of reasoning, and no amount of evidence, will ever change their minds. They only change their minds when their “priests” change their minds.

Another example would be a scientist who’s been distracted from doing his work properly e.g. through bribery, extortion, secret manipulation, etc. He too doesn’t change his mind in response to logic; he only changes his mind when the circumstances that are controlling him change.

If you’re looking for specific examples, I am not currently in the position to provide them to you. On the other hand, I don’t have to claim, or otherwise insist, that scientific dogmatism exists. I merely have to point out that you did not convince me that it doesn’t. And the reason you didn’t convince me is because your opening post is not a proper argument – it’s merely an assertion of what you believe to be the case.

Now let us take a little further dive into Kropotkin’s
“Scientific Dogmatism” I accept the basic scientific concepts
of evolution and I accept Gravity… and have stated so, many times,
so, how exactly does accepting such theories as Evolution and gravity,
have me engaged in “Scientific dogmatism”… have I accepted other theories
of science… that science tends to be self correcting… if an theory is false
in some aspect, it needs to be revised… I accept that… so how exactly does
that make me one who engages in “Scientific Dogmatism?”
I accept the basic scientific idea that we hold theories and if the theories
are in some way found to be wrong, we must reexamine those theories…
that doesn’t exactly strike me as being a “Scientific dogmatist”

On what ground did you accept those theories? Did you accept them by testing them on your own? I would say probably not. Correct me if I’m wrong. You most likely accepted them because other people (such as popular scientists) told you they are true. You believe that these people are doing proper science, and that, if and when they discover that those theories are false, that they will notify you. That’s similar to what religious followers and their prophets do. No amount of evidence, and no amount of reasoning, can change your mind because it isn’t through independent reasoning that you accepted those theories. You accepted them because those who you trust claim they are true. You will change your mind ONLY when they change their minds. And all of this also means that you aren’t in a position to rationally defend those theories and/or criticize competing theories. Yet, that’s what you often do.

now as far as your personal insults, hay, I don’t expect you to
actually rise above that… but please feel free to offer us some actual
examples of me being “one of the most dogmatic people around here” and
examples of me being a “extremely hateful and intolerant person”

You insulted every single religious person by claiming that they are the problem of America. I guess that’s totally fine but insulting Peter Kropotkin by saying that he’s the most dogmatic person on this forum is not.

I have changed my own political beliefs, three times in my life and am currently
in the process of another change… I have had several different philosophical
positions… how many times have you change either/or your political or
philosophical beliefs? so perhaps, perhaps you may want to stop wasting
everyone’s time with nonsense attacks and get to the business at hand…

You seem to think that change is good and that resisting change is bad. Based on exactly what? Don’t you think there are times when you shouldn’t actually change your beliefs? Do you really think that every kind of change is good? Ultimately, what matters is what determines whether your beliefs are changing or not. That can either be your reason (a good thing) or something else (ad bad thing.) Trying to prove to you how many times I’ve changed my mind in the past is a bit pointless – it doesn’t prove much (except that I’m not that stubborn.) And it’s silly. Do you REALLY believe that I never changed my mind in the past? What really matters is that you believe in evolution not because you tested it yourself or otherwise found it to be the best among all competing theories – you don’t have the time for that – but because someone else, someone who you trust, told you that it’s true. Basically, you never really questioned it. You accepted it purely on faith. Yet, you think you are scientific – merely because those who you trust say they are scientific and that they are telling you the truth.

that being, the working out of the values and beliefs that you hold to…
I have stated dozens of times, (and perhaps that is the reason you believe
me to be dogmatic) of the values and beliefs I choose…

I hold that the value of peace is far greater than the value of
hate or violence and I have stated this time and time again…
I have even worked out the who, what, when, where, why and how
of peaceful values as opposed to hate and violence…

but that is no surprise… that those who hold to violence
and hate and anger think that those who hold opposing values
of love and peace and not-violence, are dogmatic and intolerant…

sounds like anyone you know?

Merely stating that your highest values are those of tolerance and peace won’t change my mind; for even if that’s true, it does not immediately follow that you’re a loving person. It may look like a paradox to you but that does not make it false. Narcissits also find it paradoxical to think that they aren’t as great as they think they are.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Kropotkin: let us begin with “scientific dogmatism”
feel free to show us an example of this… give us examples
of “Scientific dogmatism”… and try not to be too lazy by saying,
its what you do Kropotkin… give us an example…

M: An example would be someone who believes everything that is declared as being scientific by those who they trust (such as mainstream media.) They are not scientists themselves, since they don’t have enough time for it, so they have no choice but to trust those they choose to trust. Since they aren’t doing any thinking on their own, no amount of reasoning, and no amount of evidence, will ever change their minds. They only change their minds when their “priests” change their minds.

K: this is one of those attacks on mainstream media…
if you believe in the MSM, you are being fooled…which has nothing to do
with science… you just hate the media…

M: Another example would be a scientist who’s been distracted from doing his work properly e.g. through bribery, extortion, secret manipulation, etc. He too doesn’t change his mind in response to logic; he only changes his mind when the circumstances that are controlling him change.

K: oh please, feel free to name one scientist that does this… this is a
“if pigs had wings, they could fly” arguments… shear nonsense argument…
recall that scientist must publish or perish… and if the arguments a scientist
publishes is proven false or wrong… that scientist is toast…if a scientist
doesn’t allow peer review papers, then that scientist is not long for the science
game…everything, everything is checked and double checked

M: If you’re looking for specific examples, I am not currently in the position to provide them to you. On the other hand, I don’t have to claim, or otherwise insist, that scientific dogmatism exists. I merely have to point out that you did not convince me that it doesn’t. And the reason you didn’t convince me is because your opening post is not a proper argument – it’s merely an assertion of what you believe to be the case.

K: nor was my opening supposed to be a proper argument… opening arguments
are simple starting points from which the arguments then become exchanged…
as far a convincing you of anything… you don’t have an open mind… there is no
changing your mind in any case… you have a dogmatic mind…

K: Now let us take a little further dive into Kropotkin’s
“Scientific Dogmatism” I accept the basic scientific concepts
of evolution and I accept Gravity… and have stated so, many times,
so, how exactly does accepting such theories as Evolution and gravity,
have me engaged in “Scientific dogmatism”… have I accepted other theories
of science… that science tends to be self correcting… if an theory is false
in some aspect, it needs to be revised… I accept that… so how exactly does
that make me one who engages in “Scientific Dogmatism?”
I accept the basic scientific idea that we hold theories and if the theories
are in some way found to be wrong, we must reexamine those theories…
that doesn’t exactly strike me as being a “Scientific dogmatist”
[/quote]
M: On what ground did you accept those theories? Did you accept them by testing them on your own? I would say probably not. Correct me if I’m wrong. You most likely accepted them because other people (such as popular scientists) told you they are true. You believe that these people are doing proper science, and that, if and when they discover that those theories are false, that they will notify you. That’s similar to what religious followers and their prophets do. No amount of evidence, and no amount of reasoning, can change your mind because it isn’t through independent reasoning that you accepted those theories. You accepted them because those who you trust claim they are true. You will change your mind ONLY when they change their minds. And all of this also means that you aren’t in a position to rationally defend those theories and/or criticize competing theories. Yet, that’s what you often do.

K: am I an expert in these fields?.. no, nor do I pretend to be… but I have studied
both evolution and gravity… the facts as presented, in the case of evolution,
has been reviewed and reviewed again… if the facts change, the science changes…
which is how science is… dogmatic implies that regardless of the facts,
the theories never change and that is simply not true in science…
I think the basic problem is that you don’t understand science and
how it works…let us say, the speed of light is different than what they believe,
then the science/theories changes to adapt to that fact…
you view scientist like priest… that once a theory has been determined,
it cannot ever be changed… but that isn’t true…scientist simple go where
the facts take them…its your understanding of science and scientist that
makes you wrong…

K: the fact of the matter is, I have studied both evolution and gravity…
I don’t need their judgements… I haven’t made any other conclusions to
other scientific “judgements” theories because I haven’t the time nor inclination
to deep dive into the nuance of those theories… so I don’t write about them…
now as far as your personal insults, hay, I don’t expect you to
actually rise above that… but please feel free to offer us some actual
examples of me being “one of the most dogmatic people around here” and
examples of me being a "extremely hateful and intolerant person

M: You insulted every single religious person by claiming that they are the problem of America. I guess that’s totally fine but insulting Peter Kropotkin by saying that he’s the most dogmatic person on this forum is not.

K: and once again, I ask you for your examples of this dogmatism…

M: I have changed my own political beliefs, three times in my life and am currently
in the process of another change… I have had several different philosophical
positions… how many times have you change either/or your political or
philosophical beliefs? so perhaps, perhaps you may want to stop wasting
everyone’s time with nonsense attacks and get to the business at hand…

M: You seem to think that change is good and that resisting change is bad. Based on exactly what? Don’t you think there are times when you shouldn’t actually change your beliefs? Do you really think that every kind of change is good? Ultimately, what matters is what determines whether your beliefs are changing or not. That can either be your reason (a good thing) or something else (ad bad thing.) Trying to prove to you how many times I’ve changed my mind in the past is a bit pointless – it doesn’t prove much (except that I’m not that stubborn.) And it’s silly. Do you REALLY believe that I never changed my mind in the past? What really matters is that you believe in evolution not because you tested it yourself or otherwise found it to be the best among all competing theories – you don’t have the time for that – but because someone else, someone who you trust, told you that it’s true. Basically, you never really questioned it. You accepted it purely on faith. Yet, you think you are scientific – merely because those who you trust say they are scientific and that they are telling you the truth.

K: I was debating people about evolution and using facts about evolution on
KDH (Kill devil hill) 30 years ago… and some around here may recall that… I
am very well versed on evolution… evolution is the likeliest theory to explain
the world we see around us… I don’t need others to tell me that as I have said,
I have studied it…for example, cancer is an example of evolution…
as is AIDS cells… think mutations…

now comes the second part of my argument… which you clearly don’t
understand… the point of my story of changing my mind is that I
change to adapt to new conditions on the ground… that is, in essence,
science…changing to adapt to new situations… change is the
fundamental aspect of our world… if you don’t change, you die…
maybe you have heard of dinosaurs? not literal dinosaurs, but
figurative dinosaurs…being unable to change means one cannot
cope with the ever-changing environment… change is not only expected,
but it is required to survive…
the very fact that I am 63 means I have to changed what I believed in
at 23 or 33 or 43…the very fact that I am a senior citizen demands
I changed my beliefs to met my needs at 63…by virtue of the
fact I am 63 means I have to change my beliefs… so, yes
change is demanded of us as we change our environment
and our situation in life…

K: that being, the working out of the values and beliefs that you hold to…
I have stated dozens of times, (and perhaps that is the reason you believe
me to be dogmatic) of the values and beliefs I choose…
I hold that the value of peace is far greater than the value of
hate or violence and I have stated this time and time again…
I have even worked out the who, what, when, where, why and how
of peaceful values as opposed to hate and violence…
but that is no surprise… that those who hold to violence
and hate and anger think that those who hold opposing values
of love and peace and not-violence, are dogmatic and intolerant…
sounds like anyone you know?
[/quote]
M: Merely stating that your highest values are those of tolerance and peace won’t change my mind; for even if that’s true, it does not immediately follow that you’re a loving person. It may look like a paradox to you but that does not make it false. Narcissits also find it paradoxical to think that they aren’t as great as they think they are.
[/quote]
K: and yet I have, a dozen times, stated and given reasons why
tolerance and peace are the path to go… and I, unlike yourself, am committed
to being the person of my word… I am using myself as an example to
get people to see the value of becoming what we say we are…
to get our words and our actions to match…

do your words and actions match?

Kropotkin

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Kropotkin

this is one of those attacks on mainstream media…
if you believe in the MSM, you are being fooled…which has nothing to do
with science… you just hate the media…

Why are you calling it “hate”? That’s too strong of a word.

I do agree that mainstream media and science are two different things. And yes, I have no problem with science per se. Science is a great thing. But science can be corrupted at which point it’s no longer science but pseudo-science.

oh please, feel free to name one scientist that does this… this is a
“if pigs had wings, they could fly” arguments… shear nonsense argument.

It’s not an argument, it’s an abstract example of a dogmatic scientist.

recall that scientist must publish or perish… and if the arguments a scientist
publishes is proven false or wrong… that scientist is toast…if a scientist
doesn’t allow peer review papers, then that scientist is not long for the science
game…everything, everything is checked and double checked

In theory. How do you now that this is being upheld in practice? How much work have you done to check whether scientists are doing their jobs or not? That is the question.

nor was my opening supposed to be a proper argument… opening arguments
are simple starting points from which the arguments then become exchanged…

My impression is that you’re the kind of guy who is 99% of the time interested in holding a monologue (preaching, proselytizing, propagandizing, etc) rather than having a dialogue (being aware of your audience, asking questions, answering questions, providing explanations, etc.) You like to make lots and lots of assertions that you rarely, if ever, back up with arguments.

as far a convincing you of anything… you don’t have an open mind… there is no
changing your mind in any case… you have a dogmatic mind…

And how exactly do you know that? I don’t recall you ever making an attempt. You never tried yet you know you won’t succeed. See, that sort of thing is commonly found in dogmatic people. They reach conclusions before doing any sort of investigation. As a contrast, consider that, even though I believe you’re quite closed-minded, I nonetheless think that it’s not entirely futile to try to have a conversation with you. Note that I’m not saying this to motivate you to make an effort to convince me – you don’t have to, noone has to – it’s just an interesting contrast.

am I an expert in these fields?.. no, nor do I pretend to be… but I have studied
both evolution and gravity… the facts as presented, in the case of evolution,
has been reviewed and reviewed again… if the facts change, the science changes…
which is how science is… dogmatic implies that regardless of the facts,
the theories never change and that is simply not true in science…
I think the basic problem is that you don’t understand science and
how it works…let us say, the speed of light is different than what they believe,
then the science/theories changes to adapt to that fact…
you view scientist like priest… that once a theory has been determined,
it cannot ever be changed… but that isn’t true…scientist simple go where
the facts take them…its your understanding of science and scientist that
makes you wrong…

Okay, cool. You didn’t say anything substantial. You just proclaimed that 1) I don’t understand how science works, and that 2) science isn’t dogmatic. But how exactly do you know that science isn’t dogmatic in practice? What kind of work have you done to arrive at that conclusion? You can’t just tell us what science is supposed to be in theory. That’s a bit pointless, isn’t it?

I was debating people about evolution and using facts about evolution on
KDH (Kill devil hill) 30 years ago… and some around here may recall that… I
am very well versed on evolution… evolution is the likeliest theory to explain
the world we see around us… I don’t need others to tell me that as I have said,
I have studied it…for example, cancer is an example of evolution…
as is AIDS cells… think mutations…

This is not a satisfying response but I will let it slide in order to make this response of mine as simple as possible.

now comes the second part of my argument… which you clearly don’t
understand… the point of my story of changing my mind is that I
change to adapt to new conditions on the ground… that is, in essence,
science…changing to adapt to new situations… change is the
fundamental aspect of our world… if you don’t change, you die…
maybe you have heard of dinosaurs? not literal dinosaurs, but
figurative dinosaurs…being unable to change means one cannot
cope with the ever-changing environment… change is not only expected,
but it is required to survive…

I understand all of that. See, you’re assuming too much. I understand that change is necessary – but not any kind of change and not always. The solution to the problem of life is a bit more intricate than the simplistic “Change, change, change!” What if at some point in time you happened to arrive at truth, and instead of holding onto it, you decided to substitute it with a complete falsehood? Not a good kind of change, isn’t it? Again, it’s not about changing and not changing. It’s about thinking and not thinking. The outcome of thinking can be that one should change – but not necessarily.

the very fact that I am 63 means I have to changed what I believed in
at 23 or 33 or 43…the very fact that I am a senior citizen demands
I changed my beliefs to met my needs at 63…by virtue of the
fact I am 63 means I have to change my beliefs… so, yes
change is demanded of us as we change our environment
and our situation in life…

If you’re changing an existing belief, that either means that 1) you’ve been wrong in the past, or 2) you’re doing something wrong in the present. Whichever way you look at it, it’s not a good thing; certainly not something to brag about. And yet, here you are bragging about it. Also note that changing your existing beliefs is not the only way for your set of beliefs to change; another way to change it is to form new beliefs.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Kropotkin: this is one of those attacks on mainstream media…
if you believe in the MSM, you are being fooled…which has nothing to do
with science… you just hate the media…

M: Why are you calling it “hate”? That’s too strong of a word.
I do agree that mainstream media and science are two different things. And yes, I have no problem with science per se. Science is a great thing. But science can be corrupted at which point it’s no longer science but pseudo-science.

K: and once again, please feel free to give us examples of this…

K: oh please, feel free to name one scientist that does this… this is a
“if pigs had wings, they could fly” arguments… shear nonsense argument.

M: It’s not an argument, it’s an abstract example of a dogmatic scientist.

K: in other words, it isn’t real… you are making a pretend argument
that depends on abstraction and theory… how about coming back to
earth and make real arguments about real people and events…

K: recall that scientist must publish or perish… and if the arguments a scientist
publishes is proven false or wrong… that scientist is toast…if a scientist
doesn’t allow peer review papers, then that scientist is not long for the science
game…everything, everything is checked and double checked

M: In theory. How do you now that this is being upheld in practice? How much work have you done to check whether scientists are doing their jobs or not? That is the question.

K: you really don’t have a clue as to how science works… I don’t have to check
on each and every scientist papers… that is the point of peer reviewed papers…
every single paper written is checked and doubled checked for accuracy…
the scientist’s police themselves… and all in all, they do a pretty good job…
mind you according to research done by the University of Ottawa,
in 2009 we passed the 50 million mark in terms of the total number
of science papers published since 1665 and approximately 2.5 million
new scientific papers are published each year as of 2017…in about
28,000 journals.

K: nor was my opening supposed to be a proper argument… opening arguments
are simple starting points from which the arguments then become exchanged…

M: My impression is that you’re the kind of guy who is 99% of the time interested in holding a monologue (preaching, proselytizing, propagandizing, etc) rather than having a dialogue (being aware of your audience, asking questions, answering questions, providing explanations, etc.) You like to make lots and lots of assertions that you rarely, if ever, back up with arguments.

K: as you don’t really seem to know what you are talking about, I am not
surprised at your conclusion…

K: as far a convincing you of anything… you don’t have an open mind… there is no
changing your mind in any case… you have a dogmatic mind…
[/quote]
M: And how exactly do you know that? I don’t recall you ever making an attempt. You never tried yet you know you won’t succeed. See, that sort of thing is commonly found in dogmatic people. They reach conclusions before doing any sort of investigation. As a contrast, consider that, even though I believe you’re quite closed-minded, I nonetheless think that it’s not entirely futile to try to have a conversation with you. Note that I’m not saying this to motivate you to make an effort to convince me – you don’t have to, noone has to – it’s just an interesting contrast.

K: I shall address this in another thread…

K: am I an expert in these fields?.. no, nor do I pretend to be… but I have studied
both evolution and gravity… the facts as presented, in the case of evolution,
has been reviewed and reviewed again… if the facts change, the science changes…
which is how science is… dogmatic implies that regardless of the facts,
the theories never change and that is simply not true in science…
I think the basic problem is that you don’t understand science and
how it works…let us say, the speed of light is different than what they believe,
then the science/theories changes to adapt to that fact…
you view scientist like priest… that once a theory has been determined,
it cannot ever be changed… but that isn’t true…scientist simple go where
the facts take them…its your understanding of science and scientist that
makes you wrong…
[/quote]
M: Okay, cool. You didn’t say anything substantial. You just proclaimed that 1) I don’t understand how science works, and that 2) science isn’t dogmatic. But how exactly do you know that science isn’t dogmatic in practice? What kind of work have you done to arrive at that conclusion? You can’t just tell us what science is supposed to be in theory. That’s a bit pointless, isn’t it?

K: it seems to be pointless because you have no clue as to how science works…
I have a younger sister who is a psychologist… and she has written papers
and she has reviewed papers… the way science moves is through the
writing of these papers… you have an idea, you then examine it
and experiment with it… you take those results and publish them in
some scientific journal… other scientist review that paper…
people who are experts in that particular field… they then write
papers agreeing or disagreeing with the paper… if the paper is important
enough, it become part of theory that guides that particular field of science…
An famous example of this is the Miracle year of Einstein…
1905, where he wrote 4 papers, each of which changed the course of
science… those papers were reviewed by others who were experts in
that field… if the idea’s were wrong, the scientist would have said so,
I don’t need to be an expert in that field because the scientist themselves,
in reviewing those papers, as experts, determine the worth, value
of the paper in question… they decide as to the validity of the paper…
to impugn one scientist saying they “MIGHT” be “dogmatic” is to say,
that all of science is dogmatic and fixed…it cannot change…
and yet science changes all the time… for example, 1972,
Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge wrote a paper about
evolution… they called it “Punctuated equilibria”… and that paper
changed the nature of, the theory of evolution…this paper was
attacked by several sources including Daniel Dennett… and that is
how science works… not the theoretical or the abstract way you seem to
love but the actual way science works

K; I was debating people about evolution and using facts about evolution on
KDH (Kill devil hill) 30 years ago… and some around here may recall that… I
am very well versed on evolution… evolution is the likeliest theory to explain
the world we see around us… I don’t need others to tell me that as I have said,
I have studied it…for example, cancer is an example of evolution…
as is AIDS cells… think mutations…

M; This is not a satisfying response but I will let it slide in order to make this response of mine as simple as possible.

K: My statement is not “satisfying response” because it disproves your statement
that I don’t know science, I don’t engage in science, I don’t know anything
about science…I have studied evolution… and thus I have engaged in
the study of science…

K: ow comes the second part of my argument… which you clearly don’t
understand… the point of my story of changing my mind is that I
change to adapt to new conditions on the ground… that is, in essence,
science…changing to adapt to new situations… change is the
fundamental aspect of our world… if you don’t change, you die…
maybe you have heard of dinosaurs? not literal dinosaurs, but
figurative dinosaurs…being unable to change means one cannot
cope with the ever-changing environment… change is not only expected,
but it is required to survive.

M: I understand all of that. See, you’re assuming too much. I understand that change is necessary – but not any kind of change and not always. The solution to the problem of life is a bit more intricate than the simplistic “Change, change, change!” What if at some point in time you happened to arrive at truth, and instead of holding onto it, you decided to substitute it with a complete falsehood? Not a good kind of change, isn’t it? Again, it’s not about changing and not changing. It’s about thinking and not thinking. The outcome of thinking can be that one should change – but not necessarily.

K: I shall respond to this in an upcoming thread…

K: the very fact that I am 63 means I have to changed what I believed in
at 23 or 33 or 43…the very fact that I am a senior citizen demands
I changed my beliefs to met my needs at 63…by virtue of the
fact I am 63 means I have to change my beliefs… so, yes
change is demanded of us as we change our environment
and our situation in life…

M: If you’re changing an existing belief, that either means that 1) you’ve been wrong in the past, or 2) you’re doing something wrong in the present. Whichever way you look at it, it’s not a good thing; certainly not something to brag about. And yet, here you are bragging about it. Also note that changing your existing beliefs is not the only way for your set of beliefs to change; another way to change it is to form new beliefs.

K: again, a response in an upcoming thread…

Kropotkin

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Kropotkin

this is one of those attacks on mainstream media…
if you believe in the MSM, you are being fooled…which has nothing to do
with science… you just hate the media…

@Magnus Anderson

Why are you calling it “hate”? That’s too strong of a word.
I do agree that mainstream media and science are two different things. And yes, I have no problem with science per se. Science is a great thing. But science can be corrupted at which point it’s no longer science but pseudo-science.

@Kropotkin

and once again, please feel free to give us examples of this…

I already told you that I’m not going to do so. Did you miss it?

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 6#p2866417

@Magnus

If you’re looking for specific examples, I am not currently in the position to provide them to you. On the other hand, I don’t have to claim, or otherwise insist, that scientific dogmatism exists. I merely have to point out that you did not convince me that it doesn’t. And the reason you didn’t convince me is because your opening post is not a proper argument – it’s merely an assertion of what you believe to be the case.

Though I find it easy to believe that there’s a lot of corruption in science, and though I did state earlier that scientific dogmatism exists in practice, I am not someone who is sufficiently qualified to make and defend such a claim.

On the other hand, you started this thread in order to claim that all religion is dogmatic and that should therefore be abandoned if we want to make America great again. I don’t really know on what basis. And since you’re the one making the claim, and since the onus of proof is always on the one making the claim, I think the proper course of action is for you to demonstrate this to us. You don’t have to do so, of course, but in that case, I’d love to state my opinion that he whose sole interest is to state his opinions on certain matters should do so in one place and in an appropriate manner (no excessive repetition, no aggressive promotion, etc.)

You obviously think that there are no good people among the religious and that there are no bad people among those who believe in science. I wonder exactly on what grounds?

@Kropotkin

in other words, it isn’t real… you are making a pretend argument
that depends on abstraction and theory… how about coming back to
earth and make real arguments about real people and events…

I repeat, it’s NOT an argument. I was not making an argument. Try to understand the point I was trying to make. The point is that it is something that is possible. You are claiming that it’s not happening in reality. I am asking: how do you know? Based on what? How did you figure that out?

you really don’t have a clue as to how science works…

That’s a personal attack. How are you going to justify it? I’m pretty sure it’s uncalled for.

I don’t have to check
on each and every scientist papers… that is the point of peer reviewed papers…
every single paper written is checked and doubled checked for accuracy…
the scientist’s police themselves… and all in all, they do a pretty good job…
mind you according to research done by the University of Ottawa,
in 2009 we passed the 50 million mark in terms of the total number
of science papers published since 1665 and approximately 2.5 million
new scientific papers are published each year as of 2017…in about
28,000 journals.

How do you know there’s no hidden manipulation? And how do you know they do “a pretty good job”? Based on what? And what does the number of published scientific papers exactly prove? You are supposed to prove that scientists aren’t secretely or openly distracted from doing their job properly. How does the number of published papers prove that?

it seems to be pointless because you have no clue as to how science works…

And how do you know that?

to impugn one scientist saying they “MIGHT” be “dogmatic” is to say,
that all of science is dogmatic and fixed…it cannot change…
and yet science changes all the time… for example, 1972,
Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge wrote a paper about
evolution… they called it “Punctuated equilibria”… and that paper
changed the nature of, the theory of evolution…this paper was
attacked by several sources including Daniel Dennett… and that is
how science works…

It does change. The question is merely on what grounds does it change. Again, not all change is good. You can change in response to new evidence or you can change in response to political manipulation. Those who merely listen to what other people say and those who’ve been distracted from proper reasoning do not respond to evidence, and in this specific sense, they are most definitely dogmatic; doesn’t matter how many times they end up changing their minds.

My statement is not “satisfying response” because it disproves your statement
that I don’t know science, I don’t engage in science, I don’t know anything
about science…I have studied evolution… and thus I have engaged in
the study of science…

See. You already know all the answers.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Kropotkin; this is one of those attacks on mainstream media…
if you believe in the MSM, you are being fooled…which has nothing to do
with science… you just hate the media.

Magnus Anderson; Why are you calling it “hate”? That’s too strong of a word.
I do agree that mainstream media and science are two different things. And yes, I have no problem with science per se. Science is a great thing. But science can be corrupted at which point it’s no longer science but pseudo-science.

Kropotkin; and once again, please feel free to give us examples of this…

M; I already told you that I’m not going to do so. Did you miss it?

K; If you cannot give us any examples of science being “corrupted”,
why should we believe you? You accused me of

M: “You, (Kropotkin) like to make a lots and lots of assertions that you rarely, if ever,
back up with arguments”

and here you did exactly what you accuse me of…making assertions that aren’t
back up with arguments…

M; science can be corrupted, at which point it is no longer science,
but pseudoscience’‘’

K; and I rightly asked for evidence for this… so where is
the evidence?

Magnus; If you’re looking for specific examples, I am not currently in the position to provide them to you. On the other hand, I don’t have to claim, or otherwise insist, that scientific dogmatism exists. I merely have to point out that you did not convince me that it doesn’t. And the reason you didn’t convince me is because your opening post is not a proper argument – it’s merely an assertion of what you believe to be the case.
though I find it easy to believe that there’s a lot of corruption in science, and though I did state earlier that scientific dogmatism exists in practice, I am not someone who is sufficiently qualified to make and defend such a claim.

K; You admit that “I am not someone who is sufficiently qualified to make
and defend such a claim”

And yet you made the claim that you yourself admit are not “sufficiently
qualified to make” if you admit to being not qualified, then why
should we believe you?

M: On the other hand, you started this thread in order to claim that all religion is dogmatic and that should therefore be abandoned if we want to make America great again. I don’t really know on what basis. And since you’re the one making the claim, and since the onus of proof is always on the one making the claim, I think the proper course of action is for you to demonstrate this to us. You don’t have to do so, of course, but in that case, I’d love to state my opinion that he whose sole interest is to state his opinions on certain matters should do so in one place and in an appropriate manner (no excessive repetition, no aggressive promotion, etc.)

K: I agree that the “onus” is on me, but as you clearly haven’t understood
a word I have written, you aren’t a very good judge of these matters…

M: You obviously think that there are no good people among the religious and that there are no bad people among those who believe in science. I wonder exactly on what grounds?

K: in other words, it isn’t real… you are making a pretend argument
that depends on abstraction and theory… how about coming back to
earth and make real arguments about real people and events…

M: I repeat, it’s NOT an argument. I was not making an argument. Try to understand the point I was trying to make. The point is that it is something that is possible. You are claiming that it’s not happening in reality. I am asking: how do you know? Based on what? How did you figure that out?

K: if you aren’t making an argument, then you really have no idea of what
you are doing…I have stated, more than once, how science works,
by the writing of papers… you have to prove your point in a scientific paper
that is peer reviewed… by others just as qualified as you are… thus to say,
science is corrupt implies that all science is corrupted because all scientist
have to have their papers, peer reviewed…the corruption would encompass
the entirety of science…as science is done on a communal level, everyone
participates, as long as their credentials are in order…for me to have an
opinion about the physics of black holes, I should know something about
black holes and for me to comment in some scientific journal about
black holes, I need to have the credentials, to have some education in
that particular field or my opinion is worthless… I don’t know what I am
talking about and scientists can tell that pretty quickly…
hence the allege scientific corruption you write about, doesn’t exists…

K: you really don’t have a clue as to how science works…

M: That’s a personal attack. How are you going to justify it? I’m pretty sure it’s uncalled for.

K: a statement of fact isn’t a personal attack… IQ45 is an corrupt person…
that isn’t a personal attack if it is true…a statement of fact…

K; I don’t have to check on each and every scientist papers… that is the point of peer reviewed papers…
every single paper written is checked and doubled checked for accuracy…
the scientist’s police themselves… and all in all, they do a pretty good job…
mind you according to research done by the University of Ottawa,
in 2009 we passed the 50 million mark in terms of the total number
of science papers published since 1665 and approximately 2.5 million
new scientific papers are published each year as of 2017…in about
28,000 journals.
[/quote]
m; How do you know there’s no hidden manipulation? And how do you know they do “a pretty good job”? Based on what? And what does the number of published scientific papers exactly prove? You are supposed to prove that scientists aren’t secretely or openly distracted from doing their job properly. How does the number of published papers prove that?‘’

K: my goodness, you are really dense… (that was an insult)
let us go through this one more time: you have a scientist in the pay
of big business, let us say, big oil (it happens) so unless you write a paper, no one
knows or cares, what you think…so the scientist writes a paper on the
necessity of fracking… on the behest of big oil… no problem, so far so good,
but other scientists will engage in that paper and prove it wrong…
as several papers and scientists have done already…it is not universally, or
scientifically accepted that fracking is either good business or valuable
in a scientific way…there is a great deal of debate within the science
community about fracking… a scientists who is corrupt, writes a paper
defending fracking…and the scientific community has done studies on
fracking… see the “Oxford research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health”
another study done by the journal “Ecological Economics” did a study
that found that ethnics minorities especially Africans-Americans
disproportionately live near fracking wells… so if a corrupt scientist
were to write that people especially Ethic minorities were not, NOT
impacted by Fracking, that would easily be dismissed by, you guessed
it, studies done that were published…who knew?

K: it seems to be pointless because you have no clue as to how science works…

M: And how do you know that?

K: by your failure to understand science !

K: to impugn one scientist saying they “MIGHT” be “dogmatic” is to say,
that all of science is dogmatic and fixed…it cannot change…
and yet science changes all the time… for example, 1972,
Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge wrote a paper about
evolution… they called it “Punctuated equilibria”… and that paper
changed the nature of, the theory of evolution…this paper was
attacked by several sources including Daniel Dennett… and that is
how science works…

M: It does change. The question is merely on what grounds does it change. Again, not all change is good. You can change in response to new evidence or you can change in response to political manipulation. Those who merely listen to what other people say and those who’ve been distracted from proper reasoning do not respond to evidence, and in this specific sense, they are most definitely dogmatic; doesn’t matter how many times they change their minds.

K: you keep coming back to this “manipulation” or “distracted from proper reasoning”
without ever giving us evidence that this happens…

K: My statement is not “satisfying response” because it disproves your statement
that I don’t know science, I don’t engage in science, I don’t know anything
about science…I have studied evolution… and thus I have engaged in
the study of science…

M: See. You already know all the answers.

K: do I know “all the answers?” nope but I know a hell of lot more
then you do…

Kropotkin

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Kropotkin

If you cannot give us any examples of science being “corrupted”,
why should we believe you?

You don’t have to. Noone has to. But I am not in the spotlight here. You are. So let me ask: if you cannot prove that science isn’t corrupt, why should we believe you when you say that science is good and religion is bad?

I have stated, more than once, how science works,
by the writing of papers… you have to prove your point in a scientific paper
that is peer reviewed… by others just as qualified as you are… thus to say,
science is corrupt implies that all science is corrupted because all scientist
have to have their papers, peer reviewed…the corruption would encompass
the entirety of science…as science is done on a communal level, everyone
participates, as long as their credentials are in order…for me to have an
opinion about the physics of black holes, I should know something about
black holes and for me to comment in some scientific journal about
black holes, I need to have the credentials, to have some education in
that particular field or my opinion is worthless… I don’t know what I am
talking about and scientists can tell that pretty quickly…
hence the allege scientific corruption you write about, doesn’t exists…

That’s not exactly a proof that science is corrupt. I will explain why at another time.

@Kropotkin

you really don’t have a clue as to how science works…

@Magnus

That’s a personal attack. How are you going to justify it? I’m pretty sure it’s uncalled for.

@Kropotkin

a statement of fact isn’t a personal attack… IQ45 is an corrupt person…
that isn’t a personal attack if it is true…a statement of fact…

It’s a personal attack. You are verbally attacking the person. That person is me and your verbal attack consists in addressing my level of knowledge pertaining to science. Note that you’re not addressing what I’m saying [my words and my thoughts] but my mind. You’re talking about my mind. And it doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong. A personal attack is a personal attack regardless.

@Kropotkin

my goodness, you are really dense… (that was an insult)

There you go again. And you are not even hiding it. Is this how you deal with people who aren’t convinced by what you’re trying to sell them? You make no more than three attempts – all exactly the same, all blind to who you’re talking to – and then, if they are still not convinced, you just proclaim that they are dense?

let us go through this one more time: you have a scientist in the pay
of big business, let us say, big oil (it happens) so unless you write a paper, no one
knows or cares, what you think…so the scientist writes a paper on the
necessity of fracking… on the behest of big oil… no problem, so far so good,
but other scientists will engage in that paper and prove it wrong…
as several papers and scientists have done already…it is not universally, or
scientifically accepted that fracking is either good business or valuable
in a scientific way…there is a great deal of debate within the science
community about fracking… a scientists who is corrupt, writes a paper
defending fracking…and the scientific community has done studies on
fracking… see the “Oxford research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health”
another study done by the journal “Ecological Economics” did a study
that found that ethnics minorities especially Africans-Americans
disproportionately live near fracking wells… so if a corrupt scientist
were to write that people especially Ethic minorities were not, NOT
impacted by Fracking, that would easily be dismissed by, you guessed
it, studies done that were published…who knew?

You are repeating yourself.

by your failure to understand science !

That was the question – how do you know I failed to understand science?

you keep coming back to this “manipulation” or “distracted from proper reasoning”
without ever giving us evidence that this happens…

And I already explained why.

do I know “all the answers?” nope but I know a hell of lot more
then you do…

Very pathetic.