|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2002 : 18:15:33 [Permalink]
|
Slater:
quote:
Sorry to disappoint gezzam but I'm exactly the same kind of prophet that you find in the bible.
A fake.
I heard the Nemesis postulation used in conjunction with the on set of Ice Ages back in the mid 80's and threw it in here because it sounded sexy. Rest easy the Sun is safe.
I love it -- just love it!!!
Incidentally, I am not a *young* lady, but quite an *old* one. I was around when Adolph Hitler and his creeps were running things in Germany (and running Jews out of Germany and into our science laboratories here). Nazi ideas about genetics were akin, in their own individual way, to the stupid ideas held by the members of the Taliban. Early in this thread, things began to sound creepy in that some of the writers seemed interested in leaving well enough alone and letting people with genetically-caused deformities suffer their genetic fate without medication which would permit them to live longer (and perhaps produce offspring with these genetic deformities - horrors). Of course, the Nazis got rid of their Jews in that way, permitting America to benefit scientifically.
ljbrs 
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe
Edited by - ljbrs on 01/12/2002 18:17:27 |
 |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 19:25:49 [Permalink]
|
Hi, ljbrs,
Your comments about Nazi eugenics policies are well-taken, and provide a good opportunity for a bit of "moralizing".
The history of Nazi science shows that science itself cannot serve as a basis of a moral or ethical system. Neither can the study of natural history (biology, ecology, etc.)
This is because science is morally neutral. There was nothing unscientific about the eugenics and other Nazi experiments (such as the death camp research into low-temperature survival). That is, they followed acceptable scientific procedures, included controls, and so forth.
But of course, they were horribly immoral and unethical. This did not make them scientifically wrong or invalid. Indeed, the American aerospace program has used the data from those freezing experiments in the design of high-altitude spacecraft, pressure suits, and space vehicles.
So as much as I revere science as a tool of truth-seeking, it's worth bearing in mind that it is not, in itself, capable of providing an ethic for mankind.
Indeed, as a rationalist and humanist, and a most definite non-theist, I find this question one of the toughest: in the absence of divine authority, how do we construct a valid moral and ethical system? I have answers that satisfy me, more or less; but I'm not sure I could convince a theist of their validity.
My flip answer is, well, if I'm right and there are no gods, then all our ethical systems have been human-constructed, even the ones supposedly based on God's commandments. This doesn't really answer the question, but it tends to shut up the Bible-thumpers.
Sorry if I've pulled a hijack here. I'd love to hear any responses, though!
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 20:28:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
He got you there.
Yes he did. Damn, I should quite trying to be a smartass.
quote:
Ummm.., well, you tell me. Does it really matter how the universe began, if we, humanity, weren't around to see it? Does it really matter why the dinosaurs became extinct? Does it really matter, that star XYZ1202 will go nova in twelve thousand years? Scientific inquiry often leads down esoteric avenues, that could be argued, doesn't really matter. But that is the way science collects data and adds to the growing body of "scientific knowledge." Huh? IMO, yeah, it matters.
I can and will agree with you on this. I was being a bit of a smartass. But, truly, does what happens at the end really matter in the sense that there will be no one present to observe and record? These things matter to us because we are here, we can study and speculate about them? Learn where we came from and the history of our planet and maybe someday, the history of other stars and other planets. But, when the universe runs down and every last particle has expended the last of it's energy, does it matter if there is no one here to record the event? It matters to us only because we question what will be and what has been.
quote:
And if there are no longer "things" then there can no longer be motion; motion being a property of objects. If the was no longer motion then there would no longer be time; time being a property of motion.
Soooo, wouldn't that put us back where we started?
Maybe? But if it puts us back where we started, would it eventually lead to another 'Big Bang' event, starting the objects and motion all over again? Or would there be nothing, no measurement of time?
quote:
And what does any of this have to do with "Darwinism & Human Evolution"?
Somehow, Evolution always seems to wind up at the beginning and end of time. Since of necessity, evolution began at the begining with the formation of the universe. Darwin, well, that's a part of our evolutionary process I suppose, to question.
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2002 : 07:21:10 [Permalink]
|
So--question--is the universe space it self or only the stuff in it?
A universe with nothing in it, or perhaps a "brane." Yes? Have you encountered the "Ekpyrotic Universe" theory in your travels? It is almost a year old, now, and caused a bit of a stir when released last April, believe, out of Princeton U. Its an alternative to the BB theory, and offers some solutions to BB conundrums, ie. monoploes, the trigger, an initial singularity, and others. However it relies upon superstring theory, as yet unproven, but very shortly, now, perhaps. It suggests a universe, that is five dimensional in nature. Not that me truly understands it, mind yas, but within it, plain ol' four dimensional universes, called branes, (for membrane), are floating side by side, some of which, could very well be 'empty.' It is a collision of these branes and the energy released or injected, that replaces the BB. Everything else, expansion and such, would remain the same as now thought to be. Will try to dig out the link, if yer interested. Anyway, that is what occured to me, reading ljbrs posted discription of the "end of time," and your reply.
Trish
No, no, *LOL*, didn't detect any "smartass-ness" to your post at all. Perhaps am too much of one to have noticed, dunno. In all seriousness, wasn't trying to "get" anybody, really, just express me own damned opinion to your post, which me took at face value. In a purely pragmatic sense, beyond intellectual curiosity, does anything really matter, that does not directly affect us? Would bet many would say, "no," if honest. Would accept it as valid outlook, too, not mine, thou. We could get into the degree a bit of knowledge may affect our lives, and at what threshold it should be, to be of note. But why, a thing is of interest to one, or it is not. Liked your statement, "It matters to us only because we question what will be and what has been," and would only add, "what is," as well. "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear its crash, was there a sound?" *L* Argued over that one for hours. Does it matter? Isn't it a personal question, with as many valid answers, as there are personalities to answer? Being interest driven, self indulgent, find the "death" of the universe, no less fascinating, than its "birth." Knowing the truth of either event, will affect my life not one iota, still for some unknown reason, would really, really like to know. You? Does it really matter? *ROTFL* Whew! Me cracks meself up, well, its been a long night, you see, pleasant dreams, all.   
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 01/15/2002 11:47:52 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 16:59:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The history of Nazi science shows that science itself cannot serve as a basis of a moral or ethical system.
True, but the Nazi's didn't claim to base their ethics on science.
A very strong case can be made for their treatment of Jews being based on the moral (I didn't say nice morals) writings of Martin Luther.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 17:31:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The history of Nazi science shows that science itself cannot serve as a basis of a moral or ethical system.
True, but the Nazi's didn't claim to base their ethics on science.
A very strong case can be made for their treatment of Jews being based on the moral (I didn't say nice morals) writings of Martin Luther.
Yes, Luther was a vicious anti-semite, and his influence was significant on German culture long before the Nazis.
I didn't intend to imply that the Nazis were attempting to base morality on science. Rather, one occasionally runs across that notion that science can somehow supplant deistic authority as the basis for a social ethic. My only reason for mentioning National Socialism was that they employed the scientific method in ways that would be almost universally seen as unethical or immoral, which tends to dash any hope of a moral code based on science.
Sorry I wasn't clearer.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
