I believe in evolution but I also believe you have to be careful and put things in perspective (if that means anything in English other than a literal translation from Spanish).
With all the "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" thing, evolution has been cientifically used to justify all sorts of
discrimination, racism, ethnocentrism, and has even led to genocides (the most famous one being the holocaust).
So I guess I'd say I believe in evolution up to a point.
I dont' understand in the slightest - in what way has the proof of evolution 'justified' the holocaust?? That was the hunting and maming of jews by an insane dictator...
Lol about the banana, but if they can make bananas perfect, why do sprouts still taste horrible? :P On a slightly different topic, do you think the human race is still evolving (as in improving to fit its surroundings) because there is less chance for less useful traits to die out? Or are we evolving faster than ever?
Btw, I really want a crocoduck now! *settles down and waits for evolution to do its stuff*
I believe in evolution but I also believe you have to be careful and put things in perspective (if that means anything in English other than a literal translation from Spanish).
With all the "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" thing, evolution has been cientifically used to justify all sorts of
discrimination, racism, ethnocentrism, and has even led to genocides (the most famous one being the holocaust).
So I guess I'd say I believe in evolution up to a point.
I dont' understand in the slightest - in what way has the proof of evolution 'justified' the holocaust?? That was the hunting and maming of jews by an insane dictator...
I think he meant, Nazi's mindset of supremacy justifying (to themselves) their acts, as saying that it was a kind of natural order for the Jews to be killed by a 'stronger' 'race' = Aryans. In one of my arch lectures we vaguely covered the Nazi archaeologists who worked to 'prove' a great germanic civilisation.... i'd find the facts... but i'm tooooooo lazy.
I dont' understand in the slightest - in what way has the proof of evolution 'justified' the holocaust?? That was the hunting and maming of jews by an insane dictator...
Well, your view of the holocaust is pretty non-scientific for a scientist.
Like Kiwi said, the whole theory of the purity of the race, and the supremacy of the Aryan, were based on the theory of evolution. That's how the deads were scientifically justified: jews, disabled people, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc, belonged to inferior races that should be exterminated so that only the superior race, the fittest one would prevail.
The theory of evolution was also put forward as an argument for the extermination of the native populations in the American continent.
I dont' understand in the slightest - in what way has the proof of evolution 'justified' the holocaust?? That was the hunting and maming of jews by an insane dictator...
Well, your view of the holocaust is pretty non-scientific for a scientist.
Like Kiwi said, the whole theory of the purity of the race, and the supremacy of the Aryan, were based on the theory of evolution. That's how the deads were scientifically justified: jews, disabled people, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc, belonged to inferior races that should be exterminated so that only the superior race, the fittest one would prevail.
The theory of evolution was also put forward as an argument for the extermination of the native populations in the American continent.
But none of that has anything to do with the proof of evolution Evolution is merely a scientific fact, and therefore does not have the capacity itself to justify something, especially something like genecide. This is nothing to do with natural selection, because that would involved the natural frittering away of a species or sub-species in favour of a stronger varation. This is manual selection, its all done by man. Man may use whatever premise he wants, but this is highly illogical, whether or not this was used as an 'excuse' or not. I can say that the only reason for the increase in global climate is because of the declining number of pirates in the world - and use a graph to show they are related, and make that a justification for burning all fossil fuels.
But none of that has anything to do with the proof of evolution Evolution is merely a scientific fact, and therefore does not have the capacity itself to justify something, especially something like genecide. This is nothing to do with natural selection, because that would involved the natural frittering away of a species or sub-species in favour of a stronger varation. This is manual selection, its all done by man. Man may use whatever premise he wants, but this is highly illogical, whether or not this was used as an 'excuse' or not. I can say that the only reason for the increase in global climate is because of the declining number of pirates in the world - and use a graph to show they are related, and make that a justification for burning all fossil fuels.
Of course it's manual selection. They were worried because they were afraid that the races would get mixed and the "superior one" would degenerate. It was just human application of the theory of evolution, like some sort of catalyst, I guess.
Evolution is a theory, created by men and "perfected" by men. It's not an entity separately from the social context of when and where it was concieved and developed. It's not an unpolluted truth, because science (like every other men creation) is only what men make of it.
Scientists (not just "insane dictators") justified the extermination of entire populations and the destruction of cultures based on the theory of evolution.
The holocaust was not a bunch of crazy people killing whoever came their way. It was a systematic plan, and science was always there to help and guarantee that what needed to be done was being done in the most eficient way. Scientific developments were systematically made to improve killing methods such as gas chambers, for example.
These are just well known facts. There are tons of documents that proove this.
Dave, you might say you don't believe in god, but you talk about science in a way only an obsessed religious person would.
If my English is worse than usual, blame it on my lack of sleep. It's 11:20am and I'm going to bed.
Cheers!
But none of that has anything to do with the proof of evolution Evolution is merely a scientific fact, and therefore does not have the capacity itself to justify something, especially something like genecide. This is nothing to do with natural selection, because that would involved the natural frittering away of a species or sub-species in favour of a stronger varation. This is manual selection, its all done by man. Man may use whatever premise he wants, but this is highly illogical, whether or not this was used as an 'excuse' or not. I can say that the only reason for the increase in global climate is because of the declining number of pirates in the world - and use a graph to show they are related, and make that a justification for burning all fossil fuels.
Of course it's manual selection. They were worried because they were afraid that the races would get mixed and the "superior one" would degenerate. It was just human application of the theory of evolution, like some sort of catalyst, I guess.
Evolution is a theory, created by men and "perfected" by men. It's not an entity separately from the social context of when and where it was concieved and developed. It's not an unpolluted truth, because science (like every other men creation) is only what men make of it.
Scientists (not just "insane dictators") justified the extermination of entire populations and the destruction of cultures based on the theory of evolution.
The holocaust was not a bunch of crazy people killing whoever came their way. It was a systematic plan, and science was always there to help and guarantee that what needed to be done was being done in the most eficient way. Scientific developments were systematically made to improve killing methods such as gas chambers, for example.
These are just well known facts. There are tons of documents that proove this.
Dave, you might say you don't believe in god, but you talk about science in a way only an obsessed religious person would.
If my English is worse than usual, blame it on my lack of sleep. It's 11:20am and I'm going to bed.
Cheers!
Lets get this cleared up.
You need to go and understand the difference between SCIENCE and a SCIENTIST.
A SCIENTIST may lie or use a theory or a hypothesis or exploit a fact of nature, but thats got nothing to do with the science.
I don't really understand your point. A scientist employed my a dictator's general's cheif's director to work on something like a gas chamber (all of the scientific premises of which already existed) is not acting on behalf of science, he is doing what he is getting paid to work out, whether he agrees with its use or not.
Lets get this cleared up.
You need to go and understand the difference between SCIENCE and a SCIENTIST.
A SCIENTIST may lie or use a theory or a hypothesis or exploit a fact of nature, but thats got nothing to do with the science.
I don't really understand your point. A scientist employed my a dictator's general's cheif's director to work on something like a gas chamber (all of the scientific premises of which already existed) is not acting on behalf of science, he is doing what he is getting paid to work out, whether he agrees with its use or not.
Yes, I know.
Science = systematized load of knowledge accquired through the centuries in western culture, obtained and tested through scientific methods.
Scientist = a person with knowledge on some branch of science, who does scientific research.
How is it possible that what a scientist does doesn't have anything to do with science? That's riddiculous. He actually does science, he creates science and contributes to expand certain fields of knowledge (always under the paradigm of Western society). A scientist is always acting on behalf of science, because he represents scientific knowledge.
A scientist that's getting paid for maximizing the eficiency of a gas wagon is doing what he's getting paid for AND he's accumulating scientific knowledge, and he is acting in the name of science... otherwise they would just go and hire someone else who is not related to science at all! His advances on the field ARE science. It's the good old debate about ethics and responsibility in science.
Like I said, science doesn't exist as an entity appart from scientists, because scientists create it. Neutral science doesn't exist. For good or bad, it's always motivated by soemthing. That's why its advances are deeper on certain branches than others.
I really don't get how you can say that scientists that use science in a certain immoral way have nothing to do with science. It doesn't make any sense at all, considering they ARE doing science.
I don't get it at all.
Because the scientist is impoartial to the diplomatic or political implications of his work - these are not supporting factors in his experimentation - they are to be ignored.
It is irrelevant what attrocities the research may bring, the point being that when hitler employed a general to employ scientists to work on weapons, the scientists and engineers did it for science and for money, not for hitler and for money.
A scientist under the pay of someone is of course always welcome to say they don't agree with the ethics of the experiment, and therefore not work on it.
I'm trying to bring about your point that people use evolution to justify genocide. Thats an absurd statement ot make. Because someone says something (as ridiculous as that) doesn't make it so. If that were the case, saddam huessein could have just pleaded "I did it because I want us to evolve" and that would somehow make perfect sense. Theres no such thing as using a natural phenomena to justify something like that - the person can tell themselves to their heart's content that its justified that way, but that doesn't make it so
Because the scientist is impoartial to the diplomatic or political implications of his work - these are not supporting factors in his experimentation - they are to be ignored.
You have to be very naive to believe that! Science is not neutral or impartial, it never was and never will be. Social, political, cultural and economic interests are behind every science person and behind every scientific discovery. Maybe I should say creation instead, since science is, like Juli said, something created by men. Nothing can be abstracted from the social and historical context in which takes place. There's not an aseptic scientific environment, social and historic factors penetrate it completely.
Therefore, there's no such thing as a "natural phenomena", even less when what we are talking about is a scientific theory.
Because the scientist is impoartial to the diplomatic or political implications of his work - these are not supporting factors in his experimentation - they are to be ignored.
You have to be very naive to believe that! Science is not neutral or impartial, it never was and never will be. Social, political, cultural and economic interests are behind every science person and behind every scientific discovery. Maybe I should say creation instead, since science is, like Juli said, something created by men. Nothing can be abstracted from the social and historical context in which takes place. There's not an aseptic scientific environment, social and historic factors penetrate it completely.
Therefore, there's no such thing as a "natural phenomena", even less when what we are talking about is a scientific theory.
I'll say it and keep saying it - youre missing the point.
Scientists may lie (or be intruigued / misled / misguided / interfered / influenced etc) but SCIENCE as a practice is reliant only on the given evidence. The scientist may or may not like the results and can do what he pleases with them. But the gravity on earth is 9.81m/s^2, as much as many people wish it was less so it was easier to get about, its not. The scientists who created thalidomide did so to ease morning sickness, and may have individually felt terrible when it was discovered it caused foetal mutation, but it did and it was documented. It was an unknown side-effect until its discovery. The men who thought they had created cold fusion decided to write a report and publish to the world and everyone was up in arms - horay! no more energy crises! But in fact they had simply re-created a form of fission - I'm sure the economists wish that wasn't so, and i'm sure the scientists wish they weren't laughing stocks, but the SCIENCE prooves they were wrong.
I'm not missing any points. We're just never going to agree because you clearly think science is an absolute truth and I definitely don't.
"Scientific facts" are not there waiting to be discovered, facts and evidence are created by men... I'm starting to sound a bit Kantian :oP. Nevermind.
The way I see it, you're way too dogmatic when it comes to science. It's funny because I had never met someone like that before haha.
But I'm not missing any points. I understand what you're saying but I just happen to completely disagree :o)
I'm not missing any points. We're just never going to agree because you clearly think science is an absolute truth and I definitely don't.
"Scientific facts" are not there waiting to be discovered, facts and evidence are created by men... I'm starting to sound a bit Kantian :oP. Nevermind.
The way I see it, you're way too dogmatic when it comes to science. It's funny because I had never met someone like that before haha.
But I'm not missing any points. I understand what you're saying but I just happen to completely disagree :o)
Now I didn't say anything about science being the absolute truth - it is merely the SEARCH for it. Ergo, you have missed the point, and furthermore showing I'm not dogmatic - you're saying that evolution is bad because it insights genocide etc, and we can blame science for that.
The way in which we describe and measure and ascertain knowledge are created by men. EG, once again, look at gravity. No one had considered this 'invisible' force of wonder until centuries ago, now we are well aware of what it is, why it is there, how to measure it, and whats more how to aply to different planets - that is, we have used scientific measurement to PROOVE gravity. That is not to say that at some point our whole idea may be blown away by some fascinating discovery, but as we see it, things are accelerating towards earth at 9.81 m/s^2,THIS IS OBSERVABLE, and what we do is we give it a reason why, we give it a name, we proove it, we have many many other people proove it, and we wait to clarify it over time.
Now I didn't say anything about science being the absolute truth - it is merely the SEARCH for it. Ergo, you have missed the point, and furthermore showing I'm not dogmatic - you're saying that evolution is bad because it insights genocide etc, and we can blame science for that.
Yes, but by saying it's the search for it you're implying that there is an absolute truth and that it is reachable.
Anyway, this debate is pointless, but I'm answering merely to point out that I didn't say what you say I did, haha.
I said that I beilieve in evolution up to a point, and that you have to be careful with it because it's been scientifically used to justify racism, discrimination, imperialism, colonialism and ethnocentrism. Or something along those lines.
And I also mentioned that it has even been used to scientifically justify genocide in a number of occations, which seemed to outrage you.
I never said evolution "is bad".
