How come a Creationist doesn't post somethin ....

[lekatt]

@roger thornhill

I think with respect, Lekatt, that this is not a very helpful summary of Socrates’ position with regard to knowledge (or science). Its cliché-like tone will put a lot of people off (indeed I always found “I know how little I know”, or the stronger form as expressed by you, to be rather trite and almost totally unhelpful). No offence meant, but when you’re arguing with smart people, you need to use only the best weapons, be they arguments or questions.

And so we come on to questions. It was for continuously asking questions that Socrates (the real Socrates, not the Plato-Socrates of later works such as The Republic) was marked out from his contemporaries. As Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1: Plato, p. 128) writes, ‘Socrates was a moralist and an enthusiast’, which is indeed interesting, since I would describe myself and my motivation in much the same way. (So, yes, David, maybe I’m a latterday very-much-poor-man’s Socrates; or a Socrates wannabe, at any rate.)

Interestingly, Socrates was sceptical of all professional learnedness, whether the great philosophers of the past (now, of course, not considered anything near as great as him) or the learned men of his own generation. His watchword “How little do I know!” was important because this was for him the true scientific spirit. It was those who did not know this (i.e. how little they knew - not that they knew nothing, which is absurd when you think about it) that he claimed knew nothing at all.

Socrates believed that men of learning (what we would call scientists today) should not be judged by the amount of knowledge they had stored up; his belief was that a good indication of a man’s scientific level as well as of his intellectual honesty could be given by his awareness of what he did not know.

Back to David’s other point, ‘the true teacher can prove himself only by exhibiting that self-criticism which the uneducated lacks’ (OSEI, p. 130). So we come back to our awareness of how little we know as an indicator of our intellectual devleopment, our wisdom, if you like. Socrates’ focus was on the awareness of our limitations; ‘the teacher’s authority [is] founded solely on his consciousness of his own limitations’ (ibid).

Socrates saw his mission as to stir people up from their dogmatic slumber. (What, I wonder, would he have made of PC and what I call ‘the abolition of thinking’ (hive mentality, ‘alliances’ between interested groupings) today?) The educational mission carried over into a broader ethico-political mission. Popper (ibid) again: ‘[Socrates] felt that the way to improve the political life of the city was to educate the citizens to self-criticism. In this sense he claimed to be “the only politician of his day”, in opposition to those others who flatter the people instead of furthering their true interests.’

Three further related points. First, Socrates/Popper was careful to stress that education should not be viewed as the responsibility of the state. As Popper puts it with customary pointedness, it is important that ‘the dubious authority of the expert’ (op cit p. 131) not be backed by the dubious authority of the state. By teaching science as an authoritative doctrine, science is ruined. Further, this way leads to the destruction of ‘the scientific spirit of inquiry’ (my emphasis - David’s ‘heart’?), that is, ‘the spirit of the search for truth, as opposed to the belief in its possession’ (ibid).

Second, (a point I made earlier in passing which has exercised my mind quite a bit recently), we need to broaden our thinking to recognise (following Hayek, MacIntyre et al) the rationality of tradition, and even the rationality of passions and emotions, in addition to the rationality of scientific argument. In other words, we need a theory of the moral sense.

Third, beware of false Socrateses! As Popper (ibid) warns us (writing of the “Socrates” of The Republic - described by Popper as ‘the embodiment of an unmitigated authoritarianism’): ‘Even his self-deprecating remarks are not based upon awareness of his limitations, but are rather an ironical way of asserting his superiority.’

Although it’s scary, I find myself agreeing with you in principal. However I am not sure who the “smart” people are. Sheer knowledge doesn’t make one smart. I used to sit next to this 17 year old kid in college. He was a whiz with knowledge, made straight “4.0’s”. Could remember everything he read, but had this problem about everyday life. Someone was with him all the time, because he couldn’t do anything for himself. Didn’t drive, didn’t know where his next class was, couldn’t even tie his own shoe laces. He was going to be a lawyer.

There are others that can memorized whole libraries, or add up a column of 8-digit numbers in their head faster than can be typed into a computer.

What about logic, the ability to think rationally. This is probably an attribute of “smart”, but without knowledge is of little use. Can’t make good decisions without knowing the thing you are talking about.

Then we have morality, with or without God, but works better with God. Many moral people have made some very bad decisions. In the group I am sure many will agree with that.

So “smart” must be a combination of all the above. Sort of meshed together to compliment each other.

However, I believe their is still one important thing still missing, it is experience.

Past societies have honored their elderly, asking their advice on many things, so this be the final ingredient.

I am interested in your “theory of the moral sense.” How do you propose that.

[XT]

@lekatt

What about logic, the ability to think rationally. This is probably an attribute of “smart”, but without knowledge is of little use. Can’t make good decisions without knowing the thing you are talking about.

This is quite possibly THE most ironic thing I’ve seen written in all seriousness on this board (and thats saying a lot). Thanks. Now let me wipe off my monitor…its got coke all over it…

Sorry, carry on.

-XT

[David_Simmons]

This can be closed. Its purpose has been accomplished.

[John_Mace]

@David Simmons

This can be closed. Its purpose has been accomplished.

I recommend e-mail next time. It’s private, and doesn’t have any collateral damage.

[David_Simmons]

@John Mace

I recommend e-mail next time. It’s private, and doesn’t have any collateral damage.

Why should I intrude on only one person when with no more effort I can antagonize thousands?

[Squink]

@Darwin's Finch

Humans will, therefore, most likely not speciate (in the cladistic sense, rather than the transformational sense) further until we begin extraterrestrial explorations. Launch 100,000 humans into deep space (in a ship, of some sort, obviously…), and within another couple hundred thousand years, that populatoin will likely become different enough from the remaining terrestrial population to be deemed a new species. Here on Earth, there’s just too much gene flow between populatons for anything other than a very gradual transformation to occur.

That seems a mighty sunny assessment, lots of things could leave us with disconnected pockets of humanity: Nuclear winter, asteroid strike, reactivation of the Deccan or Siberian traps, catalysmic methane clathrate release and ignition, nearby gamma ray burst, Aids going airborne…

[dougie_monty]

@Larry Borgia

You know, I was wondering where all the creationists went. We used to have one pop up every month or so, but I haven’t seen any recently. Maybe they all got scared off.

Or maybe they got sick and tired of your boorish attitude and jeering. Not everyone thinks Don Rickles or John Cleese is funny. I am not masochistic enough to post opposition to you, get viciously jeered, and keep coming back for more. :mad:
Does that answer your question?

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@Squink

That seems a mighty sunny assessment, lots of things could leave us with disconnected pockets of humanity: Nuclear winter, asteroid strike, reactivation of the Deccan or Siberian traps, catalysmic methane clathrate release and ignition, nearby gamma ray burst, Aids going airborne…

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), humans are ingenious enough that even post-apocalyptic relict populations will undoubtedly encounter one another in short order, so long as they are all occupying the same planet.

Oh, and thanks for the concern, David Simmons, et al. Things have improved for me since that thread from March (most importantly, perhaps, I am not so much filled with despair as disappointed bemusment right now), but damn it would be nice if things could actually go my way once in a while…

[spingears]

@David Simmons

so that we can get an answering post from Darwin’s Finch?

What’s the point? Darwin’s Finch and his flock have their minds made up!

[roger_thornhill]

Lekatt, James Wilson’s The Moral Sense provides a kind of introit into the idea of a theory of a moral sense. Academically, I’ve been busy with other things (finishing post-viva revisions to my PhD thesis) and haven’t given much thought to this kind of thing - until recently. So here’s a rather higledy-pigledy, very non-state-of-the-art summary of Wilson’s position.

Wilson believes that there exists a common human nature which forms the basis for moral judgements because we each possess an inherent moral sense. (Moslem as well as J-C, I guess; Easterner/Confucianist as well as Westerner, I guess too.) He adduces evidence for his claim from areas such as child psychology and anthropology, as well as those tried and trusted fallbacks of common sense observations and anecdotal evidence.

Wilson identifies four basic sentiments in the moral sense: sympathy, fairness, self-control and duty. The two main sources of the M.S. are the sociability of human beings and the family (esp. the mother). Wilson commnents as follows in the context of a discussion regarding the assumptions that underlie the debate over moral development: “I am…suspicious of any theory that says that the highest moral stage is one in which people talk like college professors.” [Cf. Clive James (TV critic, TV personality, author, humorist - in the UK a bit like what fellow Aussie exile Robert Hughes is in the States), who wrote (reflecting on the adulation/acceptance given in his dotage to Hitler’s architect Albert Speer): “those who make our living through our brains should remember that…intellect confers no automatic moral superiority”; and Popper, who wrote “Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve”.]

According to Wilson, the most remarkable change in the moral history of man is the rise of the view that all people , not just one’s own friends and allies, are entitled to fair treatment. At the same time that its history was filled with barbarism, oppression and selfishness, the West developed ideas both universal and individual, which brings us to Popper’s Open Society.

My renewed interest in the theory of the moral sense has been piqued by reflections I’ve been making recently on one component of Platonic psychology, the desire for recognition (often represented by the Greek word thymos). Fukuyama argues that liberal democracy could be subverted by an excess of this desire*, whether in its guise as the desire for equal recognition (isothymia - beloved of the Left) or the desire to be recognised as superior (megalothymia - also beloved of the Left!) (Just enjoying a little joke at the expense of my socialist friends, members of Greenpeace and Amnesty, etc… Forgive me - I’ll behave now.)

The desire for recognition leads to a consideration of the Golden Rule, in both its Western and Eastern manifestations#.

On a personal note, the one command in the Bible that I have always wrestled with - in terms not of its reasonableness, but of its applicability/practicability - is James the brother of Jesus’ caution that the person who “knows what is right to do and fails to do it” sins (James 4:17).

I’ll check out a few threads and then log out, as I must get down to some serious revisions (which is hard when discussions here are so much more interesting and stimulating than what I am obliged to do). But I’ll be back to respond to any feedback that comes my way in fairly short order.

• Just as an excess of any essentially good thing tends to be bad for one.

“Exactly as you would wish people to act towards you, act like that towards them” (Jesus - the positive, western version) - which blows me out of the ground- and “Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you” (the negative Taoist/Confucianist version) - which leaves me rather cold, frankly speaking.

[Larry_Borgia]

@dougie_monty

Or maybe they got sick and tired of your boorish attitude and jeering. Not everyone thinks Don Rickles or John Cleese is funny. I am not masochistic enough to post opposition to you, get viciously jeered, and keep coming back for more. :mad:
Does that answer your question?

What the hell??

[roger_thornhill]

@David Simmons

This can be closed. Its purpose has been accomplished.

Well, the original purpose has been fulfilled, inasmuch that Finchie has flown by and dispensed his wisdom. But, after this thread was moved to GD, it took on a different character and plays to different rules. One of those rules is that the thread cannot be closed at the request of any poster (whether (s)he’s the OP or not is irrelevant) on the grounds that its purpose has been accomplished. Anyway, the purpose self-evidently changed when the switch was made from Mindless and Pointless to GD.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@dougie_monty

Or maybe they got sick and tired of your boorish attitude and jeering. Not everyone thinks Don Rickles or John Cleese is funny. I am not masochistic enough to post opposition to you, get viciously jeered, and keep coming back for more. :mad:
Does that answer your question?

Perhaps you’ll provide a cite to a thread where this has occured. Understand, I’m not doubting you, but my experience has been that Creationists claims have been treated as legitimate points for debate and refutation. Those who find the evidence for evolution to be more convincing spare no mercy in presenting falsification to those claims, and are wont to rebut any incorrect statement or unsupported assertation, but then that is the point of a debate, non?

Respect for one’s opponent (in a debate) does not demand on respect for his ideas or assumptions, particularly if the evidence is to the contrary or the logic is flawed. It does require, though, that one not throw invective or ad hominen into the discussion. If this has occured, please show evidence of it.

Stranger

[David_Simmons]

@Stranger On A Train

It does require, though, that one not throw invective or ad hominen into the discussion. If this has occured, please show evidence of it.

Stranger

Here’s one instance:

@dougie_monty

Or maybe they got sick and tired of your boorish attitude and jeering.

[Zoe]

Roger: Wilson identifies four basic sentiments in the moral sense: sympathy, fairness, self-control and duty. The two main sources of the M.S. are the sociability of human beings and the family (esp. the mother).

Does he elaborate on why he believes the mother plays a more important role? I realize that was the traditional view. When was this written?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@David Simmons

Here’s one instance:

Well, we’ll see if he can present a cite to support it, but personally, I always try to treat Creationist claims as legitimate, if misguided, and refute them on their merits rather than dismiss them as “stupid” or make fun of the poster. If others have been less courteous then I’d certainly like to see evidence of it, but my experience has been to the contrary, to the point of respondants bending over backward to offer example after example of evidence supporting evolution and legitimately refuting the claims of Biblical Creationists.

Stranger

[roger_thornhill]

@Zoe

Does he elaborate on why he believes the mother plays a more important role? I realize that was the traditional view. When was this written?

I don’t have the book, or the notes I wrote on it, to hand. But it was published in 1993.

Here’s how the book is summarised in another book, Fallibilism, Democracy and the Market, by Calvin Hayes:

"The main source of this moral sense is found in the sociability of humans. However, as Wilson emphasizes, this pulls us in two directions. We have an innate sensitivity to others that makes us grasp not only the feelings of family and friends, but some strangers and fictional characters and even animals. [Sounds like the Dope!] However, this sociability makes us not only loyal to, but protective of, family and friends, and hence hostile to threats to either, both perceived and real. [Sounds even more like the Dope!]

The family is another important source depending crucially…on a strong and affectionate bonding, especially to the mother. This leads to the role of gender."

Can’t knock tradition, though, can you?! C.S. Lewis was devastating on what he called the horror of the same old thing. Here he is from his Screwtape Letters:

"The horror of the Same Old Thing is one of the most valuable passions we have produced in the human heart—an endless source of heresies in religion, folly in counsel, infidelity in marriage, and inconstancy in friendship. The humans live in time, and experience reality successively. To experience much of it, therefore, they must experience many different things; in other words, they must experience change. And since they need change, the Enemy (being a hedonist at heart) has made change pleasurable to them, just as He has made eating Pleasurable. But since He does not wish them to make change, any more than eating, an end in itself, He has balanced the love of change in them by a love of permanence. He has contrived to gratify both tastes together in the very world He has made, by that union of change and permanence which we call Rhythm. He gives them the seasons, each season different yet every year the same, so that spring is always felt as a novelty yet always as the recurrence of an immemorial theme. He gives them in His Church a spiritual ear; they change from a fast to a feast, but it is the same feast as before.

Now just as we pick out and exaggerate the pleasure of eating to produce gluttony, so we pick out this natural pleasantness of change and twist it into a demand for absolute novelty. This demand is entirely our workmanship. If we neglect our duty, men will be not only contented but transported by the mixed novelty and familiarity of snowdrops this January, sunrise this morning, plum pudding this Christmas. Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeed hopscotch as regularly as autumn follows summer. Only by our incessant efforts is the demand for infinite, or unrhythmical, change kept up.

This demand is valuable in various ways. In the first place it diminishes pleasure while increasing desire. The pleasure of novelty is by its very nature more subject than any other to the law of diminishing returns."

More here.

Excuse me while I lapse into the vernacular, but what a f***ing top man he was! All I can do is trail around quoting him!!

[Malacandra]

@FordPrefect

Parsimony baby, it’s not just good on toast.

But thanks for the correction of my logic, I was about to chuck the whole thing, since I know that turtles exist.

Try “Gentlemen’s Relish”. You have to really like salty anchovies, but if you do, it’s delicious on toast, much better than parsimony.

By the way, does this towel belong to you?

[dougie_monty]

@Stranger On A Train

Perhaps you’ll provide a cite to a thread where this has occured. Understand, I’m not doubting you, but my experience has been that Creationists claims have been treated as legitimate points for debate and refutation. Those who find the evidence for evolution to be more convincing spare no mercy in presenting falsification to those claims, and are wont to rebut any incorrect statement or unsupported assertation, but then that is the point of a debate, non?

Respect for one’s opponent (in a debate) does not demand on respect for his ideas or assumptions, particularly if the evidence is to the contrary or the logic is flawed. It does require, though, that one not throw invective or ad hominen into the discussion. If this has occured, please show evidence of it.

Stranger

Let me put it this way: I have been castigated on the SDMB on issues such as blood transfusion. There are too many threads (and posts!) for me to list fully, but perhaps you can search with my Username and an appropriate word in the box on the upper left on the search-engine page. If no one has seen fit to do that within a week, I shall gladly post thread names and dates.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@dougie_monty

Let me put it this way: I have been castigated on the SDMB on issues such as blood transfusion.

Castigated how? Personally insulted, or just had your opinion on a factual matter disputed? I’m not saying that this is the caes with you, for I don’t have an example to go from, but I’ve found that many people become defensive and cry “Foul!” when confronted with a mistake in reasoning or an imcorrect assumption.

@dougie_monty

There are too many threads (and posts!) for me to list fully, but perhaps you can search with my Username and an appropriate word in the box on the upper left on the search-engine page. If no one has seen fit to do that within a week, I shall gladly post thread names and dates.

Er, it’s you who’ve made the claim; it’s your responsibility to back it up with citations. A complete survey isn’t necessary; a short list of examples is quite sufficient, and I’m sure you can put your own user name and an “appropriate word” (???) in the search engine and pop out a few examples.

Again, I’m not saying it hasn’t happened…but in creation/evolution debates I’ve seen here, the vitriol seems to be flying in one direction, and it’s opposite of the vector you claim.

Stranger