|
Home > Archive > Politics and Medicine > October 2004 > Open Challenges to All Science Bigots!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Open Challenges to All Science Bigots!
|
|
|
| There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
the determinism demanded by science. The basic issue remains
inescapable. If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral
responsibility for them. The fundamental flaw of the scientific
worldview is, thus, its failure to explain how free will must be
subject to causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans are
different from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
base and carnal desires with his free will.
Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
My first challenge is for any science person is to rationally explain
how the scientific worldview can account for FREE WILL, which just so
happens to have been the basis of the Western system of Justice in
America for the last 200 years. Please explain how free will must be
subject to causality and, yet, remain free without making a public
fool out of yourself. The facts are that no rational explanation can
be provided by the scientific worldview. Ergo, the scientific
worldview is fundamentally defective.
Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was a direct
reference to the existence of the soul. Today, it primarily means the
mind, or mental faculty, of a person; directly due to the corrupting
influence of the scientific worldview upon Western society.
Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It ultimately
places a direct attack upon the Christian faith and its belief in the
physical existence of the soul. Determinists suggests that our health
is merely a choice between scientific biomedicine and anti-science
alternative medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real choice is
between scientific determinism and classical Western morality, values,
and virtues.
My next challenge for any science person is to rationally explain how
the scientific worldview does not directly attack all Judeo-Christian
religious beliefs, especially but not limited to beliefs in the
physical existence of the human soul (both before and after death), or
at least 50 percent of the population of the United States who hold to
these religious, and last but not least the Republican political party
which openly claims that America was founded upon the Christian Faith
and its belief in the physical existence of the human soul. The facts
are, no simple rational explanation can be provided. Ergo, the
scientific worldview is fundamentally defective.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
prevention.
| |
| Darryl 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| >There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
>concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
>the determinism demanded by science. The basic issue remains
>inescapable. If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral
>responsibility for them. The fundamental flaw of the scientific
>worldview is, thus, its failure to explain how free will must be
>subject to causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
>worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans are
>different from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
>base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
>Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
>biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
>medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific
Search For The Soul".
| |
| markd@toad-net.com 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
|
Intresting, there is nothing like comparing apples to peanutbutter. If
you want us to accept your having some knowledge of western philosophy and
of theology, you must first critique the several flaws in your logic and
the presuppisitions on which they stand. For an intresting book that
touches on the topic of both science and human will:
"How we Believe"
M. Shermer
>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
>concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
>the determinism demanded by science. The basic issue remains
>inescapable. If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral
>responsibility for them. The fundamental flaw of the scientific
>worldview is, thus, its failure to explain how free will must be
>subject to causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
>worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans are
>different from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
>base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
>Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
>biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
>medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
>
>My first challenge is for any science person is to rationally explain
>how the scientific worldview can account for FREE WILL, which just so
>happens to have been the basis of the Western system of Justice in
>America for the last 200 years. Please explain how free will must be
>subject to causality and, yet, remain free without making a public
>fool out of yourself. The facts are that no rational explanation can
>be provided by the scientific worldview. Ergo, the scientific
>worldview is fundamentally defective.
>
>Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was a direct
>reference to the existence of the soul. Today, it primarily means the
>mind, or mental faculty, of a person; directly due to the corrupting
>influence of the scientific worldview upon Western society.
>
>Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It ultimately
>places a direct attack upon the Christian faith and its belief in the
>physical existence of the soul. Determinists suggests that our health
>is merely a choice between scientific biomedicine and anti-science
>alternative medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real choice is
>between scientific determinism and classical Western morality, values,
>and virtues.
>
>My next challenge for any science person is to rationally explain how
>the scientific worldview does not directly attack all Judeo-Christian
>religious beliefs, especially but not limited to beliefs in the
>physical existence of the human soul (both before and after death), or
>at least 50 percent of the population of the United States who hold to
>these religious, and last but not least the Republican political party
>which openly claims that America was founded upon the Christian Faith
>and its belief in the physical existence of the human soul. The facts
>are, no simple rational explanation can be provided. Ergo, the
>scientific worldview is fundamentally defective.
>--
>John Gohde,
> Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
> http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
>The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
>prevention.
| |
| Larry Hoover 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
|
"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com...
> Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
> biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
> medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
Do you really need an explanation why your premise is fallacious?
Stay in the twit-filter, twit.
Lar
| |
|
| Troll in disguise...why don't you practise some safe sex and go fck
yourself!
Now that would also be caring about prevention! Please - don't spread your
genes.
| |
| Socialism is a Mental Disease 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 26 Sep 2004 05:14:49 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>
>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
>concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
>the determinism demanded by science.
>
Science doesn't "demand" any determinism. You should stop reading 19th
century science books and start reading (at least) 20th century
science books.
>
>The basic issue remains inescapable.
>
Indeed, that you have no clue about what you are talking about.
--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |
|
| In article <16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
> Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
> biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
> medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
Perhaps the twisted version of science that exists in your head says
that, but science itself says no such thing.
Troll.
[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
| |
|
|
"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com...
> There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
> concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
> the determinism demanded by science. The basic issue remains
> inescapable. If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral
> responsibility for them.
You're in the wrong forum. You need to go to a forum on religion or
philosophy.
Science deals with that can be answered experimentation.
Questions like why are we here, what is morally right and do we have free
will belong in the realm of philosophy and religion, not science.
> The fundamental flaw of the scientific
> worldview is, thus, its failure to explain how free will must be
> subject to causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
> worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans are
> different from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
> base and carnal desires with his free will.
Again, science has no veiw on this. It outside the field of science.
> Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
> biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
> medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
I don't recall scientitists saying this or this being part of science.
Again, this is an issue for philosophy, not sceince.
> My first challenge is for any science person is to rationally explain
> how the scientific worldview can account for FREE WILL, which just so
> happens to have been the basis of the Western system of Justice in
> America for the last 200 years. Please explain how free will must be
> subject to causality and, yet, remain free without making a public
> fool out of yourself. The facts are that no rational explanation can
> be provided by the scientific worldview. Ergo, the scientific
> worldview is fundamentally defective.
No. There a bumch of questions that are in the science arena, like what will
happen to the earth when the sun blows up, what is an atom and why do people
sleep at night. Do we have free will, is it ok to the yell movie in a
crowded fire station and does god exist are not questions that can be
answered by science.
> Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was a direct
> reference to the existence of the soul. Today, it primarily means the
> mind, or mental faculty, of a person; directly due to the corrupting
> influence of the scientific worldview upon Western society.
Again, the existance of the soul and the afterlife is not an area that
science deals with.
> Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It ultimately
> places a direct attack upon the Christian faith and its belief in the
> physical existence of the soul.
Actually, it says that the existance of God and the soul is not something
that we can test, and that it is not part of science. It belongs to the
realm of religion and philosophy, not science.
> Determinists suggests that our health
> is merely a choice between scientific biomedicine and anti-science
> alternative medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real choice is
> between scientific determinism and classical Western morality, values,
> and virtues.
No. Science and religion are complementary areas of study, with some
overlap. Whether particular alternative medicine theories are accurate is an
area for science. Morality, values and virtues belongs to philosophy and
religion.
> My next challenge for any science person is to rationally explain how
> the scientific worldview does not directly attack all Judeo-Christian
> religious beliefs, especially but not limited to beliefs in the
> physical existence of the human soul (both before and after death),
If you can provide scientists with an experiment that will test the
existance of the soul, then this particular question belongs in the realm of
science. however, if you can't, then this question doesn't.
As far as the beleif that Christ came to the earth around 2000 years ago,
was the son of God, came back from death, heaven and all that, this is a
question for religion and philosophy, not science.
> or
> at least 50 percent of the population of the United States who hold to
> these religious, and last but not least the Republican political party
> which openly claims that America was founded upon the Christian Faith
> and its belief in the physical existence of the human soul.
Actually, history shows that values of America was based on the Christian
faith. All pesidents have been christians so far, and most Americans have
been raised with the JudeoChristian background.
What republicans have to say about this, I don't care.
> The facts
> are, no simple rational explanation can be provided. Ergo, the
> scientific worldview is fundamentally defective.
Wrong. The scientific is fundamentally limited to questions that science can
deal with. questions about why we exist, God and morals belong to the realm
of philosophy and religion.
Read Stephen J. Gould's books, espeically his "Rock of Ages" book.
Jeff
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
> http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
> The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
> prevention.
| |
| Stobius 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| "Leo" <fupkonto@hotmail.dk> wrote in message news:<41571673$0$212$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
> Troll in disguise...why don't you practise some safe sex and go fck
> yourself!
>
> Now that would also be caring about prevention! Please - don't spread your
> genes.
Yes, a Christian Republican troll, usually the worst kind because they
aren't even entertaining.
| |
| GMCarter 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 26 Sep 2004 05:14:49 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
>concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
>the determinism demanded by science.
This premise is false.
Genetics influences determinism (e.g., eye color, possibly more
complex factors like general emotional disposition). Free will doesn't
mean you can fly. But it means you have a choice to open your heart or
close it to the beauty of the world.
The notions are not mutually exclusive.
Science is a beautiful tool that can help ask questions, design
experiments and discover new interpretations and aspects to the matrix
of existence. It can be a hideous waste of time. It can be turned
toward means of destruction or creation.
Faith can be a guide to more decent living and a more sublime
appreciation of our evanescent existence. Or it can be used for
crusades, beheadings and other atrocities.
Both approaches can become confused over topics such as determinism
and free will.
George M. Carter
| |
| Alan Turley 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 26 Sep 2004 05:14:49 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
>concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
>the determinism demanded by science.
Eat the poison fruit much?
You have been deceived by your professional education, and John can
show you how if you'll just visit his website, to reduce his entire
argument to one bite-sized assertion.
A quick Google search can reveal the mystery of the troll's message
for what it is - the prelude to yet another round of self-promotion
and ignorance on parade. Save yourselves the finger cramps due any
more response; he is quite beyond intellectual rehabilitation.
The author of this gibberish is none other than John Gohde, who has
altered his e-mail address slightly to escape the quiet confines of
many bozo bins.
@~
| |
|
| Darryl <umpolung@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific
> Search For The Soul".
My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| "Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Do you really need an explanation why your premise is fallacious?
>
> Stay in the twit-filter, twit.
>
> Lar
My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| "Leo" <fupkonto@hotmail.dk> wrote:
> Troll in disguise...why don't you practise some safe sex and go fck
> yourself!
>
> Now that would also be caring about prevention! Please - don't spread your
> genes.
My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| stobius2000@yahoo.com (Stobius) wrote:
> Yes, a Christian Republican troll, usually the worst kind because they
> aren't even entertaining.
We are starting to make progress, now. 
So, looking at the bigger picture Republicans are anti-science.
Christians are anti-science. Everybody in the American Judicial
System is anti-science. In other words, just about everybody in the
United States of America is actually anti-science except for a handful
of Liberal Academic @3*4#@!s.
Just like I thought! It is not just about alternative medicine.
There is a bigger picture here!
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| Orac <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the twisted version of science that exists in your head says
> that, but science itself says no such thing.
I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| Alan Turley <arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A quick Google search can reveal the mystery of the troll's message
> for what it is - the prelude to yet another round of self-promotion
> and ignorance on parade. Save yourselves the finger cramps due any
> more response; he is quite beyond intellectual rehabilitation.
>
> The author of this gibberish is none other than John Gohde, who has
> altered his e-mail address slightly to escape the quiet confines of
> many bozo bins.
This was NOT an opportunity for the mentally ill to show the world
just how paranoid that they truly are.
I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| markd@toad-net.com wrote:
> Intresting, there is nothing like comparing apples to peanutbutter.
Too bad that I cannot say the same about your reply.
> If
> you want us to accept your having some knowledge of western philosophy and
> of theology, you must first critique the several flaws in your logic and
> the presuppisitions on which they stand. For an intresting book that
> touches on the topic of both science and human will:
>
> "How we Believe"
>
> M. Shermer
My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> This premise is false.
It is very easy to say that my premise is false. I believe that YOUR
premise is false, so your comment helps no one.
> Genetics influences determinism (e.g., eye color, possibly more
> complex factors like general emotional disposition). Free will doesn't
> mean you can fly. But it means you have a choice to open your heart or
> close it to the beauty of the world.
> The notions are not mutually exclusive.
No they are not. Science says that Free Will can be explained i.e.,
is caused by biology and therefore there is a causative factor to Free
Will. But, if Free Will is caused by Chemistry then it is NOT Free
but simply the end result of a chemical equation. So, if Free Will is
truly Free then it is NOT caused by Chemistry and is thus without a
causative factor. And, Ergo the Scientific Worldview is a few beers
short of a six pack.
> Science is a beautiful tool that can help ask questions, design
> experiments and discover new interpretations and aspects to the matrix
> of existence. It can be a hideous waste of time. It can be turned
> toward means of destruction or creation.
>
> Faith can be a guide to more decent living and a more sublime
> appreciation of our evanescent existence. Or it can be used for
> crusades, beheadings and other atrocities.
>
> Both approaches can become confused over topics such as determinism
> and free will.
This part of your reply is non-responsive to my Challenge.
--
John Gohde
| |
| markd@toad-net.com 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| "My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response ."
Succinctly, We rule you uninformed and ignorant of the basic knowledge of
logic 101. You imply having knowledge of science and theology, the
content of your "question" betrays your sophomoric ignorance of both. My
response stands, when you can explain the flaws in your logic then we can
talk, apples and peanutbutter indeed.
| |
|
| "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
Longer replies are sometime worthy of a long response. 
> You're in the wrong forum. You need to go to a forum on religion or
> philosophy.
No, I am in the correct forum. I want responses ONLY from ego driven
science people. Or, from physicians.
> Science deals with that can be answered experimentation.
>
> Questions like why are we here, what is morally right and do we have free
> will belong in the realm of philosophy and religion, not science.
The easiest way to avoid admitting that the scientific worldview is
fundamentally flawed is to discount the question. Sorry, but I was
NOT born yesterday. It was a valid question that has been simmering
within me for over one year.
>
> Again, science has no veiw on this. It outside the field of science.
Factually, correct. However, while science is immortal and goes on
forever. Ego driven science people voice their point of view on
alternative medicine, and these types of subjects all the time. These
forums are people rather than science driven forums. And, these
science people also specifically attacked spiritualism, or the science
of the human soul, during the 19th century. They are of course also
active in these forums. There is a bigger picture here than just
anti-science alternative medicine. And, it is about time that
somebody introduced it. So, I did. I did, I did, ... I did.
The fact that alternative medicine is anti-science is totally besides
the point once you realize that the majority of the population and the
long established institutional systems of the United States, like the
Judicial System, are in fact anti-science.
Hell! Obviously, even our President George Bush is anti-science when
he places a band on stem cell research. So, being anti-science in and
of it self is no big deal. In fact, I would say the phrase that
something is anti-science is totally meaningless.
>
> I don't recall scientitists saying this or this being part of science.
The ONLY thing that I am interested in are the ego driven science
people who have a morbid compulsion to interject these types of
conclusions into threads on these forums.
> Again, this is an issue for philosophy, not sceince.
Again, a mute point.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> crowded fire station and does god exist are not questions that can be
> answered by science.
Again, the question posed is: Is there a physical explanation for
Free Will? If there is, then it follows that free will is
deterministic and therefore NOT Free. If it is NOT deterministic,
then the scientific worldview is unable to explain all phenomena
experienced by man. And, Ergo, there then is more to being human than
pure chemistry. Ergo, the scientific wordview would thus be fatally
flawed or incomplete. And, hence, my point in starting this thread.
>
> Again, the existance of the soul and the afterlife is not an area that
> science deals with.
Correct again. But, once again individual ego driven science people
have done so quite often.
For example, William A. Hammond, MD the first surgeon general of the
Unites States, did so during the 1880's.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually, it says that the existance of God and the soul is not something
> that we can test, and that it is not part of science. It belongs to the
> realm of religion and philosophy, not science.
Again, individual ego driven science people have done so quite often.
I call them Science Trolls on these forums.
>
> No. Science and religion are complementary areas of study, with some
> overlap. Whether particular alternative medicine theories are accurate is an
> area for science. Morality, values and virtues belongs to philosophy and
> religion.
>
>
> If you can provide scientists with an experiment that will test the
> existance of the soul, then this particular question belongs in the realm of
> science. however, if you can't, then this question doesn't.
Science people had no problems attacking Spiritualism during the
1880's whatsoever.
> As far as the beleif that Christ came to the earth around 2000 years ago,
> was the son of God, came back from death, heaven and all that, this is a
> question for religion and philosophy, not science.
>
>
> Actually, history shows that values of America was based on the Christian
> faith. All pesidents have been christians so far, and most Americans have
> been raised with the JudeoChristian background.
>
> What republicans have to say about this, I don't care.
>
>
> Wrong. The scientific is fundamentally limited to questions that science can
> deal with. questions about why we exist, God and morals belong to the realm
> of philosophy and religion.
The remainder of your reply is non-responsive to my simple challenge.
--
John Gohde
| |
| Socialism is a Mental Disease 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 27 Sep 2004 16:58:19 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>
>Sorry, but I was NOT born yesterday.
>
This explains why you are senile.
--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |
| Joann Evans 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| N-H-P wrote:
>
> Darryl <umpolung@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
> succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
>
> Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.
> --
> John Gohde
So, it must be a 'science person' right here in one of these
newsgroups? Do you not believe in doing some research?
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
| |
|
| In article <16a9b594.0409271431.6db49bd3@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
> Orac <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.
No, my reply doesn't accept your premise and therefore doesn't fall into
your trap, troll.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
| |
| Joann Evans 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| N-H-P wrote:
>
> stobius2000@yahoo.com (Stobius) wrote:
>
>
> We are starting to make progress, now.
>
> So, looking at the bigger picture Republicans are anti-science.
How do you support that unqualified assetion?
> Christians are anti-science.
How do you support that unqualified assetion?
> Everybody in the American Judicial
> System is anti-science.
How do you support that unqualified assetion?
> In other words, just about everybody in the
> United States of America is actually anti-science except for a handful
> of Liberal Academic @3*4#@!s.
How do you support that unqualified assetion?
Do you see what others are saying? Your leaps of logic are far too
large and unsupported for meaningful discourse.
Oh, but I guess I'm a 'non-response' too....
> Just like I thought! It is not just about alternative medicine.
'It?' Any particular 'It'?
> There is a bigger picture here!
There always is. But not all parts of a picture have much to do with
all the others....that's what sweeping generalizations can get you.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
| |
|
| In article <16a9b594.0409271414.5f265098@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
> Darryl <umpolung@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
> succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
>
> Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.
That's OK, I rule your question a "non-challenge."
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
| |
|
| In article <16a9b594.0409271437.7d335440@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
> Alan Turley <arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> This was NOT an opportunity for the mentally ill to show the world
> just how paranoid that they truly are.
But apparently it was an opportunity for people like you to parade their
ignorance of science for all to see.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
| |
|
| In article <16a9b594.0409271453.19552285@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
> Science says that Free Will can be explained i.e.,
> is caused by biology and therefore there is a causative factor to Free
> Will.
Really?
Where?
You're clearly confusing probabilistic influences of genes with
causalities. Our behavior is undeniably influenced by our genetic
makeup, but it's probabilities, not causation. Do go do some reading
before you make a bigger fool out of yourself than you already have.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
| |
|
| In article <16a9b594.0409271425.1dde19ee@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
> stobius2000@yahoo.com (Stobius) wrote:
>
>
> We are starting to make progress, now.
>
> So, looking at the bigger picture Republicans are anti-science.
No. Only some Republicans--some Democrats, too.
> Christians are anti-science.
Nope, only some are, mainly fundamentalists.
>Everybody in the American Judicial
> System is anti-science. In other words, just about everybody in the
> United States of America is actually anti-science except for a handful
> of Liberal Academic @3*4#@!s.
Not exactly, although your statements do reveal you to be rather
ignorant of science. Whether that makes you "anti-science," I don't know
yet, but clearly you appear ignorant of the basics of biology.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
| |
| Joann Evans 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| N-H-P wrote:
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Longer replies are sometime worthy of a long response.
>
>
> No, I am in the correct forum. I want responses ONLY from ego driven
> science people. Or, from physicians.
'Ego driven?' You've already made up your mind, it seems. This is
also not part of science.
>
>
> The easiest way to avoid admitting that the scientific worldview is
> fundamentally flawed is to discount the question. Sorry, but I was
> NOT born yesterday.
Ask a scientist those questions, and he can only answer them in
philosophical or religous terms. As could anyone else.
> It was a valid question that has been simmering
> within me for over one year.
How long you let it cook doesn't change the non-scientific nature of
the questions.
>
> Factually, correct. However, while science is immortal and goes on
> forever.
Explain, please. You are the only one I've heard say such a thing.
> Ego driven science people
You seem to be concerned with biases, but again, your own biases
show. Do you fundamentally believe there is no other kind of 'science
person' (whatever that is) than an 'ego driven' one? Do you believe
*non* science person (whatever that is) can be ego driven?
Linking the two in that manner is one of those unsupported leaps of
logic that make meaningful discoures with you, difficult to impossible.
I'm tiring of this already.
> voice their point of view on
> alternative medicine, and these types of subjects all the time. These
> forums are people rather than science driven forums.
Perhaps that's your problem.If I follow the above, those who do
science can't be 'people.' Maybe that's why you believe you can't find a
'science person.'
> And, these
> science people also specifically attacked spiritualism, or the science
> of the human soul, during the 19th century. They are of course also
> active in these forums. There is a bigger picture here than just
> anti-science alternative medicine. And, it is about time that
> somebody introduced it. So, I did. I did, I did, ... I did.
Hey, pat youreslf on the back all you want. No one here will do it
for you.
> The fact that alternative medicine is anti-science
Proof of that 'fact?'
> is totally besides
> the point once you realize that the majority of the population and the
> long established institutional systems of the United States, like the
> Judicial System, are in fact anti-science.
Objective truth is not subject to majority vote. But it *is* open to
all the interpretation you want.
But as someone once said long ago in the magazine Science News, with
respect to certain aspects of theoretical physics; "Science, like
physics, not only must be done, they must be *seen* to be done,
according to first principles."
> Hell! Obviously, even our President George Bush is anti-science when
> he places a band on stem cell research.
He's very much for the science and technology underlying ballistic
missile intercept...
But his position on stemm cell research comes from personal religous
and philosophical beliefs, and an unwillingness to alienate those voters
who may share his views. The only querstion is, how much of one factor,
versus the other, is one of those things subject to interpretation.
But if you're suprised that politics isn't entirely 'scientific,'
(And even in science, we still deal in ethics...don't think so? Try to
carry out some sorts of experiments on humans.) then you really haven't
lived....
> So, being anti-science in and
> of it self is no big deal. In fact, I would say the phrase that
> something is anti-science is totally meaningless.
Good. No one's used it in this thread but yourself.
>
> The ONLY thing that I am interested in are the ego driven science
> people who have a morbid compulsion to interject these types of
> conclusions into threads on these forums.
So...all you want is for us to support what you already believe?
Okay. All your assertions, even the contradictory ones are true.
You're absolutely right. You discovered the secret. You know everything.
Now go away.
>
> Again, a mute point.
Not because you say it is. (And I assume you meant 'moot.') This
logic would mean all things are On Topic in all Newsgroups, in spite of
their names.
>
>
> Again, the question posed is: Is there a physical explanation for
> Free Will?
Yes. But it's not yet clear as to what it is. Explanations abound,
with no good means of determining which one is correct, if any yet
proposed explanation is correct.
> If there is, then it follows that free will is
> deterministic and therefore NOT Free.
'Physical' doesn't necessairily mean 'deterministic.' Certain quantum
phenomena are quite physically real and measurable, but quite
unassailably random.
> If it is NOT deterministic,
> then the scientific worldview is unable to explain all phenomena
> experienced by man.
That may possibly be. But this particular line of argument doesn't
prove it. Nor does it tell us what those 'other' phenomena may be.
> And, Ergo, there then is more to being human than
> pure chemistry.
No, there's other kinds of things going on there that are physics,
but not strictly chemestry. (Personally, I think some of the things
Roger Penrose has said about the mind are valid, but as he would be the
first to say, the foundations of his arguments depend on *currently*
unknown physics, such as a complete understanding of quantum gravity.)
But not having a full explanation of something today does not mean
the answer must be something outside of science. This is whre
Creationists fall down. To basically say that something is so because
'God did it' makes it impossible to further uderstand it. God isn;t here
to ask. And it encourages lazyness in understanding how the Universe
works, because when one runs out of 'physical' explanations and resorts
to actions of a Deity, one doesn't try to look farther, to discover a
subtle, but explanable phenomena that is actually responsible.
Even if one believes in supernatural forces, they should always be
the explanation of absolute last resort.
> Ergo, the scientific wordview would thus be fatally
> flawed or incomplete.
Science is *always* incomplete. There is never the assumption of full
and complete knowledge. (Even if it happened that one knew 'everything,'
one might never be *sure* that one did. And that takes us into things
like the Incompleteness Theorem, and on into philosophy, and away from
science. That, and things like the existence of God, become matters of
faith, no longer lending themselves to logical proof.
The only thing that 'science' takes on faith is that the Universe
*is* understandable. And in the extremes, even that could be wrong. But
you have to make sure you've *really* reached the extremes, and not
giving up at the merely difficult....
> And, hence, my point in starting this thread.
>
>
> Correct again. But, once again individual ego driven science people
> have done so quite often.
*Anyone* is free to speculate. Being a so-called 'science person' (I
don't pretend to be able to get into all their heads, to know how 'eog
driven' they might be, as you do.) doesn't mean you give up the right to
speculate.
I believe paranormal phenomena exist, even though I readily admit
that the evidence isn't as strong as I might like. I'm willing to be
proven wrong. But if they do exist, I also assume they also involve
physics we don't curently understand, and would eventually incorporate
into physics as we currently understand it. If it should indeed be that
mind and consciousness somehow survives the death of one's physical
body, we should be able to say how and why. (As the SF writer Charles
Platt once said, with respect to what happens to it during cryonic
suspension; "If souls exist, we don't know the rules by which they
operate." And that's true. *IF* they do, we don't. But it's reasonable
to think that there *are* such rules, if that's the case.)
> For example, William A. Hammond, MD the first surgeon general of the
> Unites States, did so during the 1880's.
Okay, so?
>
>
> Again, individual ego driven science people have done so quite often.
> I call them Science Trolls on these forums.
>
>
> Science people had no problems attacking Spiritualism during the
> 1880's whatsoever.
The spititualists seemed to having problems proving their case. You
don't have to be a so-called 'science person,' just skeptical. I said
above that I believe paranormal phenomena exist...it doesn't mean I
believe *anyone* who claims to have such talents actually does. If
someone says they went to the Moon last week, I'd be skeptical too, even
though we *know* that it's physically possible to do so.
Granted, some people will never accept some things that are too far
outside their worldview (Einstine was never fully accepting of quantum
physics, for example), but that doesn't mean you uncritically swallow
everything presented to you, either. Or believe in contradictory things.
either one of them is wrong, or a more thorough understanding of the
system means the seeminbg contradiction disappears. [We've long
understood why bees fly, for example. Original assumptions involved
rigid wings.])
>
> The remainder of your reply is non-responsive to my simple challenge.
In other words, you don't want *your* world view and intellectual
laziness challenged.
Or, of course, you only came here to XXXX with us. (Though I gave
benefit of the doubt, for the moment.)
Either way, I'm done. See ya...
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
| |
| Darryl 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| >> It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific
>
>My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
>succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
John God,
A search of your text turns up no hits on explicit*, succinct* or "own
words". Implicitness doesn't count on USENET.
>Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.
<gasp> Neo's in trouble.
| |
| Alan Turley 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 27 Sep 2004 15:37:53 -0700, John wrote:
>I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.
Appropriate isn't it? Your challenge, a begged question rather than a
real question, is a non-question. So, non-responses might be the most
complementary responses you should hope for. Good luck with that.
@~
| |
| Piezzo Guru 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| Not-Healthy-Person is only here for trolling. It has a long history.
"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:4158ACAD.F54A698A@frontiernet.net...
> N-H-P wrote:
>
> So, it must be a 'science person' right here in one of these
> newsgroups? Do you not believe in doing some research?
>
>
> --
>
> You know what to remove, to reply....
| |
|
| markd@toad-net.com wrote:
> "My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
> succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
YES, and I am still waiting for a serious reply.
> Succinctly, We rule you uninformed and ignorant of the basic knowledge of
> logic 101. You imply having knowledge of science and theology, the
> content of your "question" betrays your sophomoric ignorance of both. My
> response stands, when you can explain the flaws in your logic then we can
> talk, apples and peanutbutter indeed.
No replies worth replying today. Just the usually Toads foaming at the mouth.
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| In article <1096353823.8Q/X8OY8R+v2CO7YG9m3vQ@teranews>,
Alan Turley <arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2004 15:37:53 -0700, John wrote:
>
>
> Appropriate isn't it? Your challenge, a begged question rather than a
> real question, is a non-question. So, non-responses might be the most
> complementary responses you should hope for. Good luck with that.
Can a non-response to a non-question be the most appropriate response?
;-)
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
| |
| Darryl 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| >There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
>concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
>the determinism demanded by science. The basic issue remains
>inescapable. If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral
>responsibility for them. The fundamental flaw of the scientific
>worldview is, thus, its failure to explain how free will must be
>subject to causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
>worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans are
>different from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
>base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
>Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
>biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
>medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific
Search For The Soul".
| |
| markd@toad-net.com 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
|
Intresting, there is nothing like comparing apples to peanutbutter. If
you want us to accept your having some knowledge of western philosophy and
of theology, you must first critique the several flaws in your logic and
the presuppisitions on which they stand. For an intresting book that
touches on the topic of both science and human will:
"How we Believe"
M. Shermer
>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
>concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
>the determinism demanded by science. The basic issue remains
>inescapable. If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral
>responsibility for them. The fundamental flaw of the scientific
>worldview is, thus, its failure to explain how free will must be
>subject to causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
>worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans are
>different from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
>base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
>Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
>biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
>medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
>
>My first challenge is for any science person is to rationally explain
>how the scientific worldview can account for FREE WILL, which just so
>happens to have been the basis of the Western system of Justice in
>America for the last 200 years. Please explain how free will must be
>subject to causality and, yet, remain free without making a public
>fool out of yourself. The facts are that no rational explanation can
>be provided by the scientific worldview. Ergo, the scientific
>worldview is fundamentally defective.
>
>Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was a direct
>reference to the existence of the soul. Today, it primarily means the
>mind, or mental faculty, of a person; directly due to the corrupting
>influence of the scientific worldview upon Western society.
>
>Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It ultimately
>places a direct attack upon the Christian faith and its belief in the
>physical existence of the soul. Determinists suggests that our health
>is merely a choice between scientific biomedicine and anti-science
>alternative medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real choice is
>between scientific determinism and classical Western morality, values,
>and virtues.
>
>My next challenge for any science person is to rationally explain how
>the scientific worldview does not directly attack all Judeo-Christian
>religious beliefs, especially but not limited to beliefs in the
>physical existence of the human soul (both before and after death), or
>at least 50 percent of the population of the United States who hold to
>these religious, and last but not least the Republican political party
>which openly claims that America was founded upon the Christian Faith
>and its belief in the physical existence of the human soul. The facts
>are, no simple rational explanation can be provided. Ergo, the
>scientific worldview is fundamentally defective.
>--
>John Gohde,
> Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
> http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
>The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
>prevention.
| |
| Larry Hoover 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
|
"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com...
> Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
> biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
> medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
Do you really need an explanation why your premise is fallacious?
Stay in the twit-filter, twit.
Lar
| |
| Stobius 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| "Leo" <fupkonto@hotmail.dk> wrote in message news:<41571673$0$212$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
> Troll in disguise...why don't you practise some safe sex and go fck
> yourself!
>
> Now that would also be caring about prevention! Please - don't spread your
> genes.
Yes, a Christian Republican troll, usually the worst kind because they
aren't even entertaining.
| |
| Alan Turley 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:00:12 GMT, Orac wrote:
>Can a non-response to a non-question be the most appropriate response?
Maybe not, not the *most*. By some twist of oxymoronic irony,
deafening silence is likely the most appropriate response of all.
That's the course I'm lobbying for in John's non-debate.
@~
| |
| Piezzo Guru 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| It's quite easy to killfilter this boz using OE.
Open your filter builder and insert "comple XXXXing idiot" and you never see
him again.
"Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:PmD5d.74$tT2.57147@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
> news:16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Do you really need an explanation why your premise is fallacious?
>
> Stay in the twit-filter, twit.
>
> Lar
>
>
| |
|
| Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> You seem to be concerned with biases, but again, your own biases
> show. Do you fundamentally believe there is no other kind of 'science
> person' (whatever that is) than an 'ego driven' one? Do you believe
> *non* science person (whatever that is) can be ego driven?
I just love these kooks!
I pose an intelligent question that totally destroys the medical
scientism bullshit that is constantly being posted on these medical
ngs and these science bigots immediately begin babbling about the
purity of pure science.
I shall repeat once again. I am not writing about the process of pure
science. That means absolutely nothing. I am writing about the
medical scientism bigots who like to live on these medical ngs. In
other words, the so-called science of medicine.
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I believe paranormal phenomena exist, even though I readily admit
> that the evidence isn't as strong as I might like. I'm willing to be
> proven wrong. But if they do exist, I also assume they also involve
> physics we don't curently understand, and would eventually incorporate
> into physics as we currently understand it. If it should indeed be that
> mind and consciousness somehow survives the death of one's physical
> body, we should be able to say how and why. (As the SF writer Charles
> Platt once said, with respect to what happens to it during cryonic
> suspension; "If souls exist, we don't know the rules by which they
> operate." And that's true. *IF* they do, we don't. But it's reasonable
> to think that there *are* such rules, if that's the case.)
Back to the science of bio-medicine.
The science of the biomedicine theory of medicine says that a person's
mind is totally unimportant in a person's health. I introduced the
question of a person's psyche and right away you jump to paranormal
phenomena!!!
Huh? The topic is Free Will. Remember? And, the non-importance of a
person's mind in their health per the science of bio-medicine.
According to the science of medicine the mind don't count at all.
Behavior is simply a matter of the prescription medicine that you are
taking, dosing issues, and other matters of biology and biochemistry.
I bring up Free Will, and a bunch of Geeks previously started babbling
about the role of your mind; a factor not a part of the bio-medical
model of health advocated by physicians. And, now you are babbling
about paranormal phenomena!!!
Totally amazing and sad at the same time. But, totally predictable.
--
John Gohde
| |
| Socialism is a Mental Disease 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 29 Sep 2004 17:25:07 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>
>I pose an intelligent question
>
It was a retarded question, from a retard mind.
--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |
| markd@toad-net.com 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| "I pose an intelligent question"
No.
| |
| Joann Evans 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| N-H-P wrote:
>
> Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>
> I just love these kooks!
(shrug) So you gonna answer a question that's simpler than yours?
> I pose an intelligent question
You see, we have issues with that assertion, too.
> that totally destroys the medical
> scientism bullshit that is constantly being posted on these medical
> ngs and these science bigots immediately begin babbling about the
> purity of pure science.
You have already made up your mind. Nothing we say, other than total
surrender, will please you. This is as good a definition of a 'kook' as
any.
> I shall repeat once again. I am not writing about the process of pure
> science. That means absolutely nothing. I am writing about the
> medical scientism bigots who like to live on these medical ngs. In
> other words, the so-called science of medicine.
For which you must understand 'the process of pure science' for a
meaningful exchange to occur. Open-mindedness is an important part of
it. You aren't proposing a hypothesis or theory, you believe you already
know.
And you obviously don't.
I waste no more time with you. (For the record, I am no medical or
research professional.)
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
| |
| Joann Evans 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| N-H-P wrote:
>
> Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Back to the science of bio-medicine.
Note that you conviently snipped the preceeding parts relating to
scientists being willing to speculate on questions on or beyond the
fringes of science...
> The science of the biomedicine theory of medicine says that a person's
> mind is totally unimportant in a person's health.
False. There would be no need for, among other things, double-blind
studies, if that were true. They remove expectations of the subjects,
and biases of the researcher. A worhtwhile drug must work signifigantly
better than a placebo, because some people will improve on placebos,
because they *think* they might have the real thing.
Then there's the whole issue the effects of physically benign, but
nevertheless stress-filled environments.
No, we don't function like clockwork mechanisms, and no one has said
we do.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
| |
|
| Darryl <umpolung@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific
> Search For The Soul".
My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| stobius2000@yahoo.com (Stobius) wrote:
> Yes, a Christian Republican troll, usually the worst kind because they
> aren't even entertaining.
We are starting to make progress, now.
So, looking at the bigger picture Republicans are anti-science.
Christians are anti-science. Everybody in the American Judicial
System is anti-science. In other words, just about everybody in the
United States of America is actually anti-science except for a handful
of Liberal Academic @3*4#@!s.
Just like I thought! It is not just about alternative medicine.
There is a bigger picture here!
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| Orac <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the twisted version of science that exists in your head says
> that, but science itself says no such thing.
I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| markd@toad-net.com wrote:
> Intresting, there is nothing like comparing apples to peanutbutter.
Too bad that I cannot say the same about your reply.
> If
> you want us to accept your having some knowledge of western philosophy and
> of theology, you must first critique the several flaws in your logic and
> the presuppisitions on which they stand. For an intresting book that
> touches on the topic of both science and human will:
>
> "How we Believe"
>
> M. Shermer
My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> This premise is false.
It is very easy to say that my premise is false. I believe that YOUR
premise is false, so your comment helps no one.
> Genetics influences determinism (e.g., eye color, possibly more
> complex factors like general emotional disposition). Free will doesn't
> mean you can fly. But it means you have a choice to open your heart or
> close it to the beauty of the world.
> The notions are not mutually exclusive.
No they are not. Science says that Free Will can be explained i.e.,
is caused by biology and therefore there is a causative factor to Free
Will. But, if Free Will is caused by Chemistry then it is NOT Free
but simply the end result of a chemical equation. So, if Free Will is
truly Free then it is NOT caused by Chemistry and is thus without a
causative factor. And, Ergo the Scientific Worldview is a few beers
short of a six pack.
> Science is a beautiful tool that can help ask questions, design
> experiments and discover new interpretations and aspects to the matrix
> of existence. It can be a hideous waste of time. It can be turned
> toward means of destruction or creation.
>
> Faith can be a guide to more decent living and a more sublime
> appreciation of our evanescent existence. Or it can be used for
> crusades, beheadings and other atrocities.
>
> Both approaches can become confused over topics such as determinism
> and free will.
This part of your reply is non-responsive to my Challenge.
--
John Gohde
| |
| Bill Clinton 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| Bye Bye John Boy. Be a good boy and
go to the kill file.
John
\ \
\ \
\ \
| |
| | downward motion
| | toward ant
| |
| |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
>O-OO old piss ant john gohde
"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0409271416.5a42b704@posting.google.com...
> "Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
> succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
>
> Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
> --
> John Gohde
| |
| Lictor 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| N-H-P wrote:
> Factually, correct. However, while science is immortal and goes on
> forever. Ego driven science people voice their point of view on
> alternative medicine, and these types of subjects all the time.
No, science is perpetually re-evaluating and modifying itself. That's
the root of the scientific process, and the core difference with
religion. Religion is about believing, accepting something for the truth
is an act of faith. Science only accept a truth as one as long as it has
been demonstrated and has not been proven false. When the Ether theory
was proven false, it was discarded, and physics moved on to something
closer to a Universal truth.
On the other hand, scientists are human beings. They can have opinions
outside of their field of expertises. When a researcher goes to Church,
his believing in a god is not a scientific fact, it's an act of faith.
Likewise, plenty of scientific voice their opinions as citizens on
various issues, political or otherwise.
> Hell! Obviously, even our President George Bush is anti-science when
> he places a band on stem cell research.
His doing that was not a scientific act, I doubt he would even have
enough room in his head to graps what stem cells are. It was a pure
political act, and done for religious reasons.
However, religion has not always been anti-science. Some key scientific
discoveries (like genetics) were the doing of religious men, especially
Jesuits.
> So, being anti-science in and of it self is no big deal.
> In fact, I would say the phrase that
> something is anti-science is totally meaningless.
The fact that it can be done so casually and without thinking about the
consequences doesn't make that "not a big deal" and "meaningless". It's
like saying it's ok to kill people if you do it casually.
> Again, the question posed is: Is there a physical explanation for
> Free Will?
I guess chaos theory could explain part of the Free Will process. After
all, Free Will is merely our ability to pick non optimal paths to a
solution. The wise man has *no* Free Will, since he will only pick the
wisest option.
You seem to believe that science is still stuck in the 19th century and
its determinism. Since then, we have had quantum physics and chaos
theory, and a growing area of science is fairly comfortable in dealing
with non-determinism.
Anyway, you're the one claiming that Free Will exists. Many religions do
not agree with you. Psychology (which is part of science) tends to think
that our Free Will is severly bounded. Sociology (another part of
science) also leans this way. Why should science have to explain
something that maybe does not even exist?
> If there is, then it follows that free will is
> deterministic and therefore NOT Free.
Okay, then either Free Will does not exist, or it lies in the
non-deterministic nature of some phenomenon. Either we have no Free Will
at all, or our Free Will is the consequence of "bugs", because the
mechanisms involved in our brain are not fully deterministic. Or too
complex to be properly described in a deterministic fashion - which is
what the chaos theory is all about.
Either way, science does not really care. It's comfortable with handling
either hypothesis.
> If it is NOT deterministic,
> then the scientific worldview is unable to explain all phenomena
> experienced by man.
What phenomena? Free Will? We have no proof that it exist. If it does,
it's probably very limited. Maybe our Free Will gets exercised when
picking the vanilla ice cream over the chocolate one - but I even doubt
that. What you call Free Will is most of the time the complex sum of
several factors : your biological signals, your instincts, your
cognitions, your upbringing, peer presure, comformance drive... Whatever
variations you might show from one event to the next could be either put
on a somewhat different sub-set of factors among the thousands that are
integrated into your decision process.
Maybe a computer with a faulty memory chip has as much "Free Will" as
you do...
> And, Ergo, there then is more to being human than
> pure chemistry.
And there is more to science than chemistry. Neurology, biology,
sociology, psychology... are all part of science.
> Ergo, the scientific wordview would thus be fatally
> flawed or incomplete.
Or maybe you based your whole reasonning on a false hypothesis (Free
Will), and you have just "proven" that hypothesis wrong.
I think the "Free Will" concept is just a tool our complex psychology
uses to deal with the unacceptable.
| |
|
| "Piezzo Guru" <gabusey@hotnmail.com> wrote:
> It's quite easy to killfilter this boz using OE.
I have not changed my account in over 2 years.
Brains are worthless unless the operator uses them. What took you so
long to use yours?
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> You have already made up your mind. Nothing we say, other than total
> surrender, will please you. This is as good a definition of a 'kook' as
> any.
I am trying to ascertain whether or not I have to update my arguments
on my web site.
I am always willing to change my mind and often have. I am working on
the definition of natural health which I have changed many times since
I first wrote it last year.
Definition of Natural health
"Natural health is an eclectic self-care system of natural therapies
that builds and restores health and wellness by working with the
natural recuperative powers of the human body."
Basic Core Tenets of Natural Health
1)Natural Philosophy
2)Vitalism
3)Free Will
4)Holism
5)Individualism
6)Individualization
7)Victim-blaming
8)Prevention is better than cure
I have gone in fact from 4 Basic Core Tenets to 8.
So, far you guys have not given me any reason to change my Free Will
arguments.
--
John Gohde
| |
| markd@toad-net.com 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| Have you considered the ufo variable, their natural transdimensional
homeopathy technology, you might have to altrer a couple of items on your
list to make it fit, but as you say, you are a flexible kind of guy.
"So, far you guys have not given me any reason to change my Free Will
arguments."
| |
| Alan Turley 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 30 Sep 2004 15:02:10 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>I have not changed my account in over 2 years.
Perhaps it's a question of how you define "account" since your on-line
handle and e-mail address have mutated often within the last 2 years.
Some might expect you have a perfectly rational reason for this -
aside from evading the quiet solitude of kill file oblivion that is.
09/2004 - (N-H-P) johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
11/2003 - John 'the Man' DeMan@ffScience.com
11/2003 - John 'the Man' DeMan@ffMD.com
09/2003 - John 'the Man' DeMan[100]@hotmail.com
07/2003 - John the Man jhgohde@wmconnect.comSnarf
06/2003 - John the Man jhgohde@wmconnect.comVitalism
04/2003 - Jhgohde jhgohde@wmconnect.com
04/2003 - John the Man jhgohde@wmconnect.comMOOSH
09/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[87]@hotmail.com
08/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[83]@hotmail.com
08/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[79]@hotmail.com
08/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[78]@hotmail.com
08/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[77]@hotmail.com
07/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[73]@hotmail.com
However, the evidence might suggest an alternative conclusion to the
reasonable reader, even in Usenet.
@~
| |
| Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in message news:<16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com>...
> There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
> concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
> the determinism demanded by science. The basic issue remains
> inescapable. If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral
> responsibility for them. The fundamental flaw of the scientific
> worldview is, thus, its failure to explain how free will must be
> subject to causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
> worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans are
> different from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
> base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
> Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
> biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
> medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
>
> My first challenge is for any science person is to rationally explain
> how the scientific worldview can account for FREE WILL, which just so
> happens to have been the basis of the Western system of Justice in
> America for the last 200 years. Please explain how free will must be
> subject to causality and, yet, remain free without making a public
> fool out of yourself. The facts are that no rational explanation can
> be provided by the scientific worldview. Ergo, the scientific
> worldview is fundamentally defective.
COMMENT:
Why Ghode, you toothless wonder! What right has a person of your
mentality to use the word "ergo"??
FYI, it's possible that it is the "Western system of Justice in
America for the last 200 years" that is defective. You know—the one
that used to hang witches? That punished escaped slaves? That
approved at the supreme court level the forced sterilization of the
mentally ill (Buck vs. Bell)? The one that executed a lot of black
men for rape, but (for some reason) only if the accusers were white
women? The one that will allow you to execute juveniles and mental
defectives even today? And also the mentally ill, but *only* if you
medicate them into sanity first? But never, not once in Ameican
history, anybody who is wealthy? The system that won't allow further
DNA testing if it becomes available in cases where a person has
already been executed for a crime, due to a formal perceived need for
something called "judicial closure"?
All hail the Western system of Justice in America for the last 200
years. Any system that invented the electric chair and used it mostly
in the bible belt against black men, can't have enough good things
said about it. If any of its conceptions don't agree with science,
why, that's enough to damn science right there. Don't you all agree?
Has it occurred to you, Ghode, that "free will" is something you can't
even define, except by rejecting all the alternatives that make sense?
Take identical men (let God make perfect copies of man X), and present
them with the same difficult moral choice, over and over. Do they
always, in the same circumstances, always make the same choice? What
do those who believe in "free will" say?
If the choices are always the same, how are men different from
machines? And if not, if there is some element of randomness to the
choice that has nothing to do with the makeup of the people, then in
what respect are they responsible for their choices? Anybody who makes
the wrong choice can argue truly that only random chance kept him from
making a different choice, as indeed some of his identicals must have
done in the same circumstances.
"Free will" is a word used by people who don't like the idea that
human choice might be fully deterministic, AND who also don't like the
only alternative idea that it isn't fully deterministic, but rather
partly random. But since determinism and random chance are the only
alternatives it is possible to logically talk about in any action,
that leaves people who want "free will" which somehow doesn't involve
either one, sort of stuck. It's not my responsibility as a scientist
to help them out of their foolishness.
It makes no sense to punish machines for actions, though you might
want to restrain them if they're dangerous. As well beat an an
automobile for running badly. And if people are not fully
deterministic machines, but instead act for non-deterministic reasons,
with even less predictibility than the weather, or a quantum event, or
your car, then it makes even *less* sense to punish them.
But none of that keeps the justice system from punishing people. We do
it because we like it, not because it makes logical or scientific
sense. And Christians, who like pushishment as much as anybody (and to
tell the truth, maybe even more), have invented a lot of dubious logic
for doing what makes them feel good.
Like, I hope this isn't news?
SBH
| |
|
| markd@toad-net.com wrote:
> "My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
> succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
YES, and I am still waiting for a serious reply.
> Succinctly, We rule you uninformed and ignorant of the basic knowledge of
> logic 101. You imply having knowledge of science and theology, the
> content of your "question" betrays your sophomoric ignorance of both. My
> response stands, when you can explain the flaws in your logic then we can
> talk, apples and peanutbutter indeed.
No replies worth replying today. Just the usually Toads foaming at the mouth.
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| In article <16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
> Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
> biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
> medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
Perhaps the twisted version of science that exists in your head says
that, but science itself says no such thing.
Troll.
[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
| |
| GMCarter 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 26 Sep 2004 05:14:49 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free will
>concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western morality and
>the determinism demanded by science.
This premise is false.
Genetics influences determinism (e.g., eye color, possibly more
complex factors like general emotional disposition). Free will doesn't
mean you can fly. But it means you have a choice to open your heart or
close it to the beauty of the world.
The notions are not mutually exclusive.
Science is a beautiful tool that can help ask questions, design
experiments and discover new interpretations and aspects to the matrix
of existence. It can be a hideous waste of time. It can be turned
toward means of destruction or creation.
Faith can be a guide to more decent living and a more sublime
appreciation of our evanescent existence. Or it can be used for
crusades, beheadings and other atrocities.
Both approaches can become confused over topics such as determinism
and free will.
George M. Carter
| |
| Don Steiger 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| > All hail the Western system of Justice in America ...
The best justice system that money can buy.
| |
|
| Alan Turley <arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2004 15:02:10 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
> (N-H-P) wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps it's a question of how you define "account" since your on-line
> handle and e-mail address have mutated often within the last 2 years.
Perhaps it's a question how one uses their brain or lack there of?
I am a wealthy man. I own more than one account.
How many more degrees do you need before you can tell the difference
between a real account, and bogus accounts? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde
| |
|
| (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:
> FYI, it's possible that it is the "Western system of Justice in
> America for the last 200 years" that is defective. You know?the one
> that used to hang witches? That punished escaped slaves? That
> approved at the supreme court level the forced sterilization of the
> mentally ill (Buck vs. Bell)? The one that executed a lot of black
> men for rape, but (for some reason) only if the accusers were white
> women? The one that will allow you to execute juveniles and mental
> defectives even today? And also the mentally ill, but *only* if you
> medicate them into sanity first? But never, not once in Ameican
> history, anybody who is wealthy? The system that won't allow further
> DNA testing if it becomes available in cases where a person has
> already been executed for a crime, due to a formal perceived need for
> something called "judicial closure"?
YES, Mr. Doctor, please tell us the biochemical equation for lynching
black men and the forced sterilization of the mentally ill.
And, of course, the biochemical equation for convicting OJ in the
civil trial and letting him go in the criminal trial. Please tell us,
so that us mentally challenge laymen may the know the wisdom of
physicians that passeth all understanding.
--
John Gohde
| |
| Piezzo Guru 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| O.J Simpson
"Don Steiger" <sd00_2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102dc541.0410011247.3ac4edba@posting.google.com...
>
> The best justice system that money can buy.
| |
|
| (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:\
> Has it occurred to you, Ghode, that "free will" is something you can't
> even define, except by rejecting all the alternatives that make sense?
....
> Like, I hope this isn't news?
It appears that all I have to do is tighten up my viewpoints by
explicitly pointing out the strong connection to science with a few
quotations, as follows.
---------
Determinism is the philosophical theory that all phenomena are the
result of antecedent conditions and, thus, that there is no free will.
Natural health views determinism and free will as being mutually
exclusive.
"In the Christian tradition ... the belief hinges on a metaphysical
belief in non-physical reality. The will is seen as a faculty of the
soul or mind, which is understood as standing outside of the physical
world and its governing laws. Hence, for many, a belief in materialism
is taken to imply a denial of free will." (the Skeptic's Dictionary,
http://skepdic.com/freewill.html)
While opinions vary, there is a strong connection between the
scientific wordview, determinism, and materialism. "The scientific
doctrine of evolution has gone far towards obliterating the
distinction between external and internal compulsion, e.g. motives,
character and the like[, in support of a hard view of determinism]. In
so far as man can be shown to be the product of, and a link in, a long
chain of causal development, so far does it become impossible to
regard him as self-determined."(1911 edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica, http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DE/DETERMINISM.htm)
For biomedicine, internal determining causes such as a person's
neurochemical state is the key issue. The Natural Health ideology of
free will holds that the scientific wordview always looks for material
causes as the determinants of all human behavior due to its strong
connection to materialism. In medicine, physicians always looks for
material causes as the sole determinants of human illness. Medicine's
biomedical model (The On-line Medical Dictionary,
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?biomedical+model) of illness
totally discounts the existence of psychological factors in illness
and in health.
---------
John Gohde
| |
| GMCarter 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 1 Oct 2004 13:47:19 -0700, sd00_2002@yahoo.com (Don Steiger) wrote:
>
>The best justice system that money can buy.
And under Bush you are now:
Guilty until proven rich!
Send 'em to the concentration camp at Guantanamo!
| |
| GMCarter 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 2 Oct 2004 03:24:09 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:\
>
>...
>
>It appears that all I have to do is tighten up my viewpoints by
>explicitly pointing out the strong connection to science with a few
>quotations, as follows.
>
>---------
>Determinism is the philosophical theory that all phenomena are the
>result of antecedent conditions and, thus, that there is no free will.
>Natural health views determinism and free will as being mutually
>exclusive.
Who is Natural Health? A guru?
They define it axiomatically as mutually exclusive. So end of argument
for a closed mind.
George M. Carter
| |
| Socialism is a Mental Disease 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| On 29 Sep 2004 17:25:07 -0700, johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
(N-H-P) wrote:
>
>I pose an intelligent question
>
It was a retarded question, from a retard mind.
--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |
| Joann Evans 2004-10-04, 2:25 am |
| N-H-P wrote:
>
> Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Back to the science of bio-medicine.
Note that you conviently snipped the preceeding parts relating to
scientists being willing to speculate on questions on or beyond the
fringes of science...
> The science of the biomedicine theory of medicine says that a person's
> mind is totally unimportant in a person's health.
False. There would be no need for, among other things, double-blind
studies, if that were true. They remove expectations of the subjects,
and biases of the researcher. A worhtwhile drug must work signifigantly
better than a placebo, because some people will improve on placebos,
because they *think* they might have the real thing.
Then there's the whole issue the effects of physically benign, but
nevertheless stress-filled environments.
No, we don't function like clockwork mechanisms, and no one has said
we do.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
| |
| markd@toad-net.com 2004-10-04, 2:26 am |
|
It appears that we have another person here on the ng trying to connect
dots with a spray gun.
>It appears that all I have to do is tighten up my viewpoints by
>explicitly pointing out the strong connection to science with a few
>quotations, as follows.
>
>---------
>Determinism is the philosophical theory that all phenomena are the
>result of antecedent conditions and, thus, that there is no free will.
>Natural health views determinism and free will as being mutually
>exclusive.
>
>"In the Christian tradition ... the belief hinges on a metaphysical
>belief in non-physical reality. The will is seen as a faculty of the
>soul or mind, which is understood as standing outside of the physical
>world and its governing laws. Hence, for many, a belief in materialism
>is taken to imply a denial of free will." (the Skeptic's Dictionary,
>http://skepdic.com/freewill.html)
>
>While opinions vary, there is a strong connection between the
>scientific wordview, determinism, and materialism. "The scientific
>doctrine of evolution has gone far towards obliterating the
>distinction between external and internal compulsion, e.g. motives,
>character and the like[, in support of a hard view of determinism]. In
>so far as man can be shown to be the product of, and a link in, a long
>chain of causal development, so far does it become impossible to
>regard him as self-determined."(1911 edition of the Encyclopedia
>Britannica, http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DE/DETERMINISM.htm)
>
>For biomedicine, internal determining causes such as a person's
>neurochemical state is the key issue. The Natural Health ideology of
>free will holds that the scientific wordview always looks for material
>causes as the determinants of all human behavior due to its strong
>connection to materialism. In medicine, physicians always looks for
>material causes as the sole determinants of human illness. Medicine's
>biomedical model (The On-line Medical Dictionary,
>http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?biomedical+model) of illness
>totally discounts the existence of psychological factors in illness
>and in health.
>---------
>John Gohde
| |
| Alan Turley 2004-10-04, 2:26 am |
| On 1 Oct 2004 16:51:27 -0700, john wrote:
>I am a wealthy man. I own more than one account.
You | | |