Intelligent Design

Quote of the Day

Spread the love

“There is no such thing as truth. Science is a social phenomenon and like every other social phenomenon is limited by the benefit or injury it confers on the community”

Adolph Hitler* (or your average woke postmodern academic)

When you hear a progressive talk about “white science” or “patriarchal science” or “Western science” you should hear an echo of the “Jewish science” so hated by the Nazis. The impetus behind cordoning science (or any other universal enterprise) along tribalist lines is indentical.

_________

*quoted in Daniel, G. (1962) The Idea of Pre-History, London: C.A. Walts and Co, p. 147,

19 Replies to “Quote of the Day

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Doesn’t matter who said it. Science limited by the benefit or harm it confers would be an excellent idea. What we have now is unlimited holocaust, directly sponsored and executed by science.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Seriously, the wokesters have a point. If we treat science as just another form of entertainment, it loses its enforceable connection to “truth”, and thus loses part of its power to command genocide.

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    Polistra,
    You have a deeply flawed understanding of what science is. Science, at its most basic level, is the search for truth about the physical world. To suggest that it has the “power to command genocide” is blithering lunacy.

  4. 4
    Viola Lee says:

    Hi. I keep up with the news about lots of things and I’ve never heard the phrase “white science” or those other phrases you mention. Could you point out some people or links that would explain what you are referring to? Thanks.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Viola Lee- google is your friend. For example western science

  6. 6
    ET says:

    There isn’t any reason to conduct an investigation unless you are interested it what really happened, ie the truth behind what you are investigating. Well I guess you could conduct an investigation to cover up the truth, too. The double-edged sword of humanity

  7. 7
    Viola Lee says:

    Thanks, ET. The first article that came up was here from the National Institute of Health.

    It began

    Cultures from all over the world have developed different views of nature throughout human history. Many of them are rooted in traditional systems of beliefs, which indigenous people use to understand and interpret their biophysical environment (Iaccarino, 2003). These systems of managing the environment constitute an integral part of the cultural identity and social integrity of many indigenous populations. At the same time, their knowledge embodies a wealth of wisdom and experience of nature gained over millennia from direct observations, and transmitted—most often orally—over generations.

    The importance of this traditional knowledge for the protection of biodiversity and the achievement of sustainable development is slowly being recognized internationally (Gadgil et al, 1993). For example, Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity urges us to “…respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity….” (United Nations, 1992). In addition, traditional or indigenous knowledge has been rediscovered as a model for a healthy interaction with, and use of, the environment, and as a rich source to be tapped into in order to gain new perspectives about the relationship between humans and nature.

    I know enough about various non-western societies, both now and in the recent past, that I think I understand what this article is referring to. (I just read a book with a neat chapter on Navaho sheep herders.) However, I guess I don’t see what is problematic about this.

    I suppose I could google more, but I don’t think I’m interested enough to do so. Maybe someone else here will explain more.

  8. 8
    Barry Arrington says:

    VL
    “I’ve never heard the phrase “white science” or those other phrases you mention.”
    You don’t get out much. Do your own research.

  9. 9
    Viola Lee says:

    Sorry. I didn’t mean to offend anyone.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    “There is no such thing as truth.”…
    Adolph Hitler* (or your average woke postmodern academic)

    The trouble with that statement is, of course, that it is self-refuting. If the statement is true then it renders the statement false. The statement is, for all intents and purposes, no different than the classic liar’s paradox,

    Liar paradox
    In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar’s paradox or antinomy of the liar is the statement of a liar that he or she is lying: for instance, declaring that “I am lying”. If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar just lied. In “this sentence is a lie” the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. It is still generally called the “liar paradox” although abstraction is made precisely from the liar making the statement. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.
    If “this sentence is false” is true, then it is false, but the sentence states that it is false, and if it is false, then it must be true, and so on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

    The second part of Hitler’s statement does not fare any better,

    ,,, “Science is a social phenomenon and like every other social phenomenon is limited by the benefit or injury it confers on the community”
    – Hitler

    Science, contrary to what Hitler stated in that particular sentence, is a very powerful tool for revealing what is true about reality. In fact, Hitler himself, contrary to what he stated in that sentence, tried to utilize “German science” in order to develop ‘Wonder Weapons’ that could potentially win WWII for him.

    Hitler’s Wonder Weapons
    Hitler tried to make Germany the most technologically advanced combatant nation during World War II, but his wonder weapons failed to win the war.
    https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2020/04/07/hitlers-wonder-weapons/

    Thus, contrary to what Hitler stated in that particular statement, Hitler himself apparently had a deep belief in science to be a great benefit for his society, and not of a ‘limited’ benefit. (as twisted as his definition of being ‘beneficial’ may have been)

    Moreover, the ‘truth’ of the matter is that science has great power to reveal what is ‘true’ about reality to us and to help us immensely.
    Yet, science, because of its great power, also has the power within itself to inflict great harm on society.

    As Hitler himself made clear, science, when misused, can cause great harm to society.

    Science is much like a gun in that regards.
    When used properly, a gun can easily feed and safeguard you and your family. When misused, a gun can easily kill you and your family.

    And Hitler, I think we can all agree, definitely misused science.

    But Hitler, as evil as he was, is not totally to blame for his misconceptions and misuse of science.

    The ‘seeds’ that led to Hitler’s misconceptions and misuse of science were planted long before Hitler came along by none other than Darwin himself.

    Take for instance Hitler’s claim that. “There is no such thing as truth”. The seeds for that particular statement by Hitler can be found when Darwin, in trying to refute a argument for God, pointed out that, since we supposedly developed from lower animals, then any convictions that we may have about reality are untrustworthy.

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
    – Darwin to To William Graham 3 July 1881
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-13230.xml

    In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it prevents us from ever knowing what is actually true about reality. i.e. Darwin’s theory turns out to be, in actuality, the liar’s paradox on steroids.

    Nancey Pearcey has written an excellent article on the epistemological suicide that is inherent within Darwin’s theory.

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
    Excerpt: A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself….
    An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.
    But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.,,,
    Darwin’s Selective Skepticism
    People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem. They typically cite Darwin’s famous “horrid doubt” passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.”
    But, of course, Darwin’s theory itself was a “conviction of man’s mind.” So why should it be “at all trustworthy”?
    Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his “horrid doubt” selectively — only when considering the case for a Creator.
    From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his “inward conviction … that the Universe is not the result of chance.” It was in the next sentence that he expressed his “horrid doubt.” So the “conviction” he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance.
    In another passage Darwin admitted, “I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man.” Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: “But then arises the doubt — can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”
    That is, can it be trusted when it draws “grand conclusions” about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey’s “instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.”
    In short, it was on occasions when Darwin’s mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/

    Another primary reason that ‘truth’ can never be grounded within Darwin’s theory is because Darwin’s theory is based on reductive materialism, where it is held that everything, every facet of life, is ultimately reducible to its material constituents.

    Yet ‘truth’ itself, particularly ‘eternal truth’ is an abstract property of the immaterial mind and therefore ‘truth’ itself will forever be beyond the scope of any possible reductive materialistic explanation.

    11. The Argument from Truth
    This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine.
    Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
    Truth properly resides in a mind.
    But the human mind is not eternal.
    Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
    https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11

    In drawing this distinction out that there “must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside”, it is very interesting to note that Christ alone, among all the major religions of the world, uniquely proclaimed Himself to be the source for all truth, i.e. “The Truth”,

    “If you were to take Mohammed out of Islam, and Buddha out of Buddhism, and Confucius out of Confucianism you would still have a faith system that was relatively in tact. However, taking Christ out of Christianity sinks the whole faith completely. This is because Jesus centred the faith on himself. He said, “This is what it means to have eternal life: to know God the Father and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent” (John 17:3). “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Buddha, before dying, said in effect, “I am still seeking for the truth.” Mohammed said in effect, “I point you to the truth.” Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Jesus claimed to not only give the truth, but to be the very personal embodiment of it.”
    http://commonground.co.za/?res.....way-to-god

    One final note. Previously I stated that, “Science,,, is a very powerful tool for revealing what is true about reality.”

    And currently our two most powerful theories in science are Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

    And yet, despite the fact that both of those theories are confirmed to almost absurd levels of precision, both of those theories simply refuse to ever be unified with each other into a single overarching mathematical theory of everything.

    In fact, there turns out to be a ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that separates the two theories.

    Moreover, theoretically the two theories contradict each other to the point of literally blowing the universe apart. Here is a post where I touch upon that fact,,

    (August – 2020) Yet we do not have just one mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that describes the universe. We have two theories, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, that simply refuse to be unified into a single overarching ‘theory of everything’.
    In fact, there is an infinite mathematical divide that separates the two theories.,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/god-and-mathematics-why-does-mathematics-work/#comment-710479

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    And as was also touched upon in the preceding post, if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an ’empirically backed’ reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

    September 2020 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-edition-of-inference-review-features-richard-buggs-james-shapiro-and-larry-krauss/#comment-713367

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178

    The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019
    What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

    To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    Verse:

    John 14:6
    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  12. 12
    Belfast says:

    Hi VL
    Try this for white science
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03066150.2017.1395857?journalCode=fjps20
    “The ‘white science’ he embodied expanded as the Revolution sought out nonwhite agriculture across the global South.”
    There’s also German Science.

  13. 13

    Science is not, and cannot be, a truth-finding enterprise. That is the sole domain of logic. The better the logic of scientists, the more useful models they can develop. Science gathers information; logic sorts that information into descriptive models based on the premises employed. Ideally, when the models fail to incorporate valid information in any model under a premise, logic is employed to check the premises and adjust them to accommodate the new information. Usually, though, scientists resist changing certain assumptions even in the face of incontrovertible evidence; that is a failure of their logic, not of science.

    Science is the process developing useful models, not “finding truth.”

  14. 14

    Currently, most science is operating under a necessarily false assumption: that it is investigating a world that exists outside of mind. Science can only be investigating, and modeling, a category of mental experience. It is rather absurd to claim that science is in the business of “finding truth” when it is being conducted under a necessarily false assumption, and clinging to that false assumption in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.

    Let that sink in: the assumption is not only necessarily false; the evidence clearly shows it is false. Yet people still insist the assumption is “true.”

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    William J Murray claims,

    Science is not, and cannot be, a truth-finding enterprise.

    Interesting claim seeing that WJM typed that statement on a computer that would not even exist save for the unique ability of empirical science to separate what is true about reality from what is false about reality.

    I think that I can safely assume, without fear of contradiction, that the same can be said for every other modern invention that exists. i.e. they would not exist were it not for the ability of empirical science to separate what is true about reality from what is false about reality.

    IBM Research labs
    Our labs
    The world’s toughest problems extend to the far reaches of the globe. That’s why we’ve invested in 19 world-class research facilities spread across 12 laboratories on six continents, where we can be immersed in regional challenges. These labs are collaboration hubs where more than 3,000 researchers cross-pollinate ideas that lead to major breakthroughs.
    https://www.research.ibm.com/labs/watson/

  16. 16

    BA77,

    Science doesn’t do any such thing. Science can only provide increasingly useful models of categories of experience. To the degree it can accomplish that depends entirely on correct application of logic. Only pure, deductive logic extending from self-evident truths can provide true statements about reality. Inductive logic informs the process of creating useful models; deductive logic is the only thing that can discern truth or evaluate the truthfulness of a proposition or statement..

    Problematically, modern science is operating under an untrue premise.

  17. 17

    BTW, my computer and all technology that exists was generated by people investigating mental phenomena in a particular category of mental experience, regardless of what anyone might otherwise characterize that process as.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, you are just taking your claims way too far when you state, “Science is not, and cannot be, a truth-finding enterprise.”

    I did not mean to denigrate the essential role that logic plays in science in any way, shape or form. and I am sorry if you thought that I was doing that, but I am just saying that empirical science is also essential to any “truth-finding enterprise” we may employ.

    The fruit that empirical science has produced, for instance the computer sitting right in front of you, is the ‘self-evident’ proof that empirical science is very useful in helping us separate what is true from what is false.

    Regardless of whatever you characterize what we experience the physical world as being, (i.e. as being material or as being purely mental), that still does not negate the central role that empirical science plays, and has played, in any “truth-finding enterprise” that we may wish to employ.

    Without empirical science to help us more properly, and exactly, separate what is true from what is false,, you simply are twisting in the wind or even cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Francis Bacon, 1561–1626
    Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water.
    https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html

    Again, contrary to what you have claimed, empirical science is essential to any ‘truth finding enterprise’ we may employ.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to the good.

  19. 19

    Let me put it this way:

    Logic, by itself, can find many truths. Take the logic out of science and what do you have? A bunch of people examining samples, taking measurements, making notes, talking about their experiences and no way to make any sense out of any of it.

Leave a Reply