[Love]

Being 'smart" is nothing to be proud of.  Lots of criminals are 'smart'.   I can't tell you how many times I have heard about the high IQ's possessed by Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more.  It would seem that in order to be a psycho criminal one would have to be a genius.
 There are a lot of miserable 'smart' people.  And there are a lot of so called 'stupid' people who lead rich lives and are well loved; because having a good heart is more important than having a good mind.
It's not the idiots who create most of the problems for the human race.  It is the well accomplished with their fancy college degrees; expensive haircuts and clothes.
 Stupid people can't create big problems.    Only brainy people can create big problems or be master criminals.  Stupid people can't enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars.  Stupid people can't do white collar crime; which as I understand it costs society, in terms of money,  more than so called street crime.
"There once was a golden age because golden hearts beat in it.  If it returns it will be scarcely due to science."  Louis Imogen Guiney
Thank you for reading.

I agree that compassion makes a better world but "smart" doesn't have to be destructive, it depends on who wields it. The fact that Bundy could manipulate people doesn't make "smart" a bad thing. What about Sabin and the oral pill for Polio? If you lived through that era as I did parents were terrified of Polio and the work of Salk and Sabin was seen as a blessing to mankind.

I think science has its place but the trouble is too many people who don't truly understand it have made it a God. Now we have Dawkins with his nonsense about the "selfish" gene. People who don't understand science hold onto this as though it was absolute truth. 'God doesn't exist, read Dawkins, that's proof!' Science has, unfortunately, closed many people's minds.

Here's what prominent scientists think of Dawkins:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindbloggling/201105/how-generation-was-misled-about-natural-selection

"Reaction of Biologists

Other than those who profited from Dawkins' popularization of their ideas, most leading evolutionary biologists, particularly Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Lewontin, Ernst Mayr, Carl Woese, Freeman Dyson, and Stuart Kauffman, were unreceptive to Dawkins' ideas. Ernst Mayr, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, claimed that the replicator notion is "in complete conflict with the basics of Darwinian thought". I once had the interesting experience of driving Ernst Mayr, who was almost 100 years old at the time, from UCLA to a place an hour and a half away. He was charming, but the mere mention of Dawkins unsettled him so much that I thereafter avoided discussion of anything related to him. Stuart Kauffman describes Dawkins' ideas as "impoverished", and claims that the replicator concept does not capture the essential features of the kind of structure that evolves through natural selection."

R

People suffer just as much pain and grief as what they ever did.  Science has helped some in a limited sense but it as also hurt a lot of people.  Practically any tool can be a weapon and any medicine can be a poison.

I am 61 yrs old.   I know people who have suffered polio.  There would be no such thing as communicable diseases except people adopted agriculture and decided to live in cities.   And even then just washing one's hands after going to the bathroom goes a long way to minimizing disease.  There was effective medicine before Rene Descartes.

I never said brains are bad.  They are just neutral.  They don't stop people from being self destructive or malicious.

[Robaroni]

evolution is worthless except as a curiousity.    Applied mathematics=applied science.   A biochemist studying nucleotide chemistry using scientific method in the lab or field will come to the same conclusions whether they believe in evolution or not.  Ben Carson is a world class surgeon and a true genius; he knows more about biochemistry than any of us.  And he thinks that evolution is bullshit.  And he's right.


Mathematics is not the same thing as science.   The concept of 'theory' is useless in mathematics.
'

That's just wrong.

math·e·mat·ics
maTH(ə)ˈmadiks/
noun
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).
the mathematical aspects of something.
plural noun: mathematics
"the mathematics of general relativity"

And:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics

Full Definition of mathematics
1
:  the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations
2
:  a branch of, operation in, or use of mathematics <the mathematics of physical chemistry>

"Ben Carson is a world class surgeon and a true genius; he knows more about biochemistry than any of us.  And he thinks that evolution is bullshit.  And he's right."

This is wrong too. In science we call this thinking anecdotal fallacy.
Because he is a world class surgeon doesn't mean he is right any more than "knowing more than any of us" does. When Linus Pauling, winner of the Nobel Prize for his work in DNA, started telling everyone to take massive amounts of vitamin 'C' to basically save their lives he was completely wrong! You're not critically thinking here, because he thinks evolution is worthless doesn't make it worthless, your building your opinion on one person's perspective. This is the same mistake religious fundamentalist make when they step on a bus with a bomb strapped to their chest because someone they believe is right told them 21 virgins wait for them at death!

R

[Robaroni]

Being 'smart" is nothing to be proud of.  Lots of criminals are 'smart'.   I can't tell you how many times I have heard about the high IQ's possessed by Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more.  It would seem that in order to be a psycho criminal one would have to be a genius.
 There are a lot of miserable 'smart' people.  And there are a lot of so called 'stupid' people who lead rich lives and are well loved; because having a good heart is more important than having a good mind.
It's not the idiots who create most of the problems for the human race.  It is the well accomplished with their fancy college degrees; expensive haircuts and clothes.
 Stupid people can't create big problems.    Only brainy people can create big problems or be master criminals.  Stupid people can't enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars.  Stupid people can't do white collar crime; which as I understand it costs society, in terms of money,  more than so called street crime.
"There once was a golden age because golden hearts beat in it.  If it returns it will be scarcely due to science."  Louis Imogen Guiney
Thank you for reading.

I agree that compassion makes a better world but "smart" doesn't have to be destructive, it depends on who wields it. The fact that Bundy could manipulate people doesn't make "smart" a bad thing. What about Sabin and the oral pill for Polio? If you lived through that era as I did parents were terrified of Polio and the work of Salk and Sabin was seen as a blessing to mankind.

I think science has its place but the trouble is too many people who don't truly understand it have made it a God. Now we have Dawkins with his nonsense about the "selfish" gene. People who don't understand science hold onto this as though it was absolute truth. 'God doesn't exist, read Dawkins, that's proof!' Science has, unfortunately, closed many people's minds.

Here's what prominent scientists think of Dawkins:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindbloggling/201105/how-generation-was-misled-about-natural-selection

"Reaction of Biologists

Other than those who profited from Dawkins' popularization of their ideas, most leading evolutionary biologists, particularly Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Lewontin, Ernst Mayr, Carl Woese, Freeman Dyson, and Stuart Kauffman, were unreceptive to Dawkins' ideas. Ernst Mayr, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, claimed that the replicator notion is "in complete conflict with the basics of Darwinian thought". I once had the interesting experience of driving Ernst Mayr, who was almost 100 years old at the time, from UCLA to a place an hour and a half away. He was charming, but the mere mention of Dawkins unsettled him so much that I thereafter avoided discussion of anything related to him. Stuart Kauffman describes Dawkins' ideas as "impoverished", and claims that the replicator concept does not capture the essential features of the kind of structure that evolves through natural selection."

R

People suffer just as much pain and grief as what they ever did.  Science has helped some in a limited sense but it as also hurt a lot of people.  Practically any tool can be a weapon and any medicine can be a poison.

I am 61 yrs old.   I know people who have suffered polio.  There would be no such thing as communicable diseases except people adopted agriculture and decided to live in cities.   And even then just washing one's hands after going to the bathroom goes a long way to minimizing disease.  There was effective medicine before Rene Descartes.

I never said brains are bad.  They are just neutral.  They don't stop people from being self destructive or malicious.

"People suffer just as much pain and grief as what they ever did.  Science has helped some in a limited sense but it as also hurt a lot of people.  Practically any tool can be a weapon and any medicine can be a poison."

If you are saying that social amenities don't make us civilized then yes that's true. Science doesn't hurt anyone, it can't do that! Hurting others is the providence of individuals, we do that, and yes science is a tool. Do hammers hurt people? No, of course not, it's people using hammers to hurt people or to build a house to shelter people from the elements.

"I never said brains are bad.  They are just neutral.  They don't stop people from being self destructive or malicious."

Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?

R

[Love]

"Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics )", Contradicts your argument.  Mathematics is the art (art being anything men make that otherwise wouldn't exist in nature) of organization.    I studied math and I am good at it.  As far as Doctor Ben goes it is well within forensic custom to quote experts.  And Dr. Ben is an expert in biochemistry.  He would have to be.  But you are right the ipse dixits can not be considered compelling.  Still, lawyers and professional advocates use them in forensic debate.  You haven't effectively refuted anything I said.

[Love]

" Science doesn't hurt anyone, "  Oh, yes it does.    I use literary license by saying science instead of the people who promote and believe in it.  Science has made human propagated mass destruction and death easy.   Science is dangerous and scientists are irresponsible.  Science is not the answer to the problems of humanity.  Science also belongs to the people who fund it and I doubt the lord of the manor cares a whole lot for us peasants.   

[Love]

Hammers do to hurt people.   Accidents happen and I had to go to the emergency room one time because of an accident involving a hammer.  Dude you strain a gnat and swallow a camel.

[Robaroni]

"Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), Contradicts your argument."  Mathematics is the art (art being anything men make that otherwise wouldn't exist in nature) of organization.    I studied math and I am good at it.  As far as Doctor Ben goes it is well within forensic custom to quote experts.  And Dr. Ben is an expert in biochemistry.  He would have to be.  But you are right the ipse dixits can not be considered compelling.  Still, lawyers and professional advocates use them in forensic debate.  Yo haven't effectively refuted anything I said.

"I studied math and I am good at it."

This statement is valueless.

Did you ever hear of a book called "The ART of Electronics" by two Harvard professors. It's still science!

1
:  the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations

Saying evolution is "bullshit" is void of reason, it is an opinion regardless who says it!

R

[Love]

"Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?"  I made my point.   You're the one who can't seem to make a point.

[Love]

"Saying evolution is "bullshit" is void of reason, it is an opinion regardless who says it!"  It is bullshit.  If all the evolution texts just disappeared and professors quit teaching it the human race would still be in the same place as it is from a technical standpoint.   You are void of reason.  I think you just want to troll; which is okay with me.  We are all beautiful, even you.

[Robaroni]

Hammers do to hurt people.   Accidents happen and I had to go to the emergency room one time because of an accident involving a hammer.  Dude you strain a gnat and swallow a camel.

Can a hammer walk across a room and smack you on the thumb? No! You hurt yourself with the hammer, it was entirely you, the hammer is not alive. This is called anthropomorphic thinking!

"Dude you strain a gnat and swallow a camel."

Dude, I have no idea what you mean by this!

R

[Love]

"Can a hammer walk across a room and smack you on the thumb? No! You hurt yourself with the hammer, it was entirely you, the hammer is not alive. This is called anthropomorphic thinking!"  No.  But a hammer sure can slide off of a roof and smack somebody really hard and if the hammer wouldn't have been on the site in the first place there would have been no medical emergency. 

My reference to Jesus' famous quote means I think you are nitpicky and have a screwed up sense of priorities.

[Love]

"I studied math and I am good at it."

This statement is valueless.
Not to me it isn't.  But, you are entitled to your opinion such as it is.

[Love]

Gotta go!  be back later, maybe a week or 3.

[Robaroni]

"Saying evolution is "bullshit" is void of reason, it is an opinion regardless who says it!"  It is bullshit.  If all the evolution texts just disappeared and professors quit teaching it the human race would still be in the same place as it is from a technical standpoint.   You are void of reason.  I think you just want to troll; which is okay with me.  We are all beautiful, even you.

That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it.

"We are all beautiful, even you."

This is an opinion, it is valueless. If 1000 people walk by you and tell you that you are beautiful does it make you any more beautiful than if no one told you? No, not one iota.

R

[Love]

"That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it."   ROFL

"We are all beautiful, even you."

"This is an opinion, it is valueless."  Not to me.    "If 1000 people walk by you and tell you that you are beautiful does it make you any more beautiful than if no one told you?" Yes it does make me more beautiful.   The more one shares beautiful things the more beautiful those things become.  It is the reason humanity loves artists.  " "No, not one iota."  Wrong again.  And you are still beautiful.  Everyone is.

[Robaroni]

"I studied math and I am good at it."

This statement is valueless.
Not to me it isn't.  But, you are entitled to your opinion such as it is.

First, it's relative, 'good' is a subjective term. are you better than Bernhard Riemann? Did you win the Fields Medal? Better than a sixth grader? In this debate you're arguing that mathematics is not science. I showed this statement to be wrong  by definition so how 'good' or for that matter 'bad' you are in math is a non sequitur.

R

[Robaroni]

"That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it."   ROFL

"We are all beautiful, even you."

"This is an opinion, it is valueless."  Not to me.    "If 1000 people walk by you and tell you that you are beautiful does it make you any more beautiful than if no one told you?" Yes it does make me more beautiful.   The more one shares beautiful things the more beautiful those things become.  It is the reason humanity loves artists.  " "No, not one iota."  Wrong again.  And you are still beautiful.  Everyone is.

Beautiful is a subjective perspective. You just called "Manson Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more psycho criminal" Are they beautiful? How about Hitler or Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing? I wouldn't call him beautiful.

"The more one shares beautiful things the more beautiful those things become."

According to this statement, they are already "beautiful". I don't think everything is beautiful. I don't think ticks that give people Lime Disease are beautiful, I don't think they are something I want to share or that they become more beautiful if I do share them.


 "It is the reason humanity loves artists."

I don't love artists, I may like artwork from specific artists. I like Kandinsky's work.

R

[Robaroni]

 "ROFL"

This is meaningless to me.

R

[TotesNotReptilian]

TNR:
"No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency."

You'll have to prove those accusations and show me the inconsistency in my statements. You can't simply accuse, you have to validate your position.

As requested. My additions are highlighted in blue. Important parts of previous comments are highlighted in red.

For this post, I won't even bother venturing past the first page of this thread. Because I don't need to. Almost every page is just as bad.

Lack of Intellectual Rigor: Missing the point of a post. Responding with points that are completely irrelevant to the arguments presented.

Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon... We are fearing the unknown... We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do.

Meh. Speak for yourself...

Speak for myself about what? That a challenge to our reality angers us? (No, that we fear the unknown or are xenophobic. Anger was not mentioned.) Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations). That those living in a reality that doesn't fit our paradigm scares us? It does.

What is more important in your life than loving and being loved? What is life worth without compassion? If everyone you love disavowed ever loving you, what would your life be worth? (Completely unrelated to my comment.)

And from that same comment:

Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child.

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

"Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism... " (Nowhere in this quote does it say that self preservation is "man's greatest drive", which was the point of contention. Why bring it up?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

And the very next comment, where you reply to my same comment again:

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

Is math science? What's the probability of letting the child die and impregnating 100 women?  (Seriously, what on earth does this have to do with anything I said?)
"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. (Yes, we have reflexes... what's your point?)
Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. (I never claimed that you are functioning through an innate response. See above highlighted in red for my original claim.)You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. (No one claimed otherwise. Why are you rambling about this? I only claimed that self preservation isn't man's greatest drive...) ...

You want to give me a theory? You save your child because of a theory? (Seriously though. All I said was that self preservation isn't man's greatest drive. What on earth does this have to do with that??) No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. (Good for you. So... we agree that self preservation isn't man's greatest drive?)We all do. Loving and being loved is the core of human existence. (We have reached the end of this rambling load of nonsense, and you still haven't bothered to address the point of my comment. Self preservation is not man's greatest drive, as you claimed.)

Lack of Intellectual Consistency: False equivalence.

Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations). (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. (Although "innate drive" is fairly loosely defined, it is not the same thing as a reflex.)

Lack of Intellectual Rigor: Presenting generalizations/opinions as fact.

Your child needs your heart to survive, do you give it? Sure, we all do.

No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. We all do.

Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.

[Robaroni]

"Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?"  I made my point.   You're the one who can't seem to make a point.

My point is that stupid people can be destructive and malicious just as much as smart people. Being smart doesn't automatically make you anything. You're making unsupportable generalizations.

R