I don't think these dichotomies are all that seriously flawed though. I'll take rationality over superstition any day, the former has its limits but the latter is just fucked. I, for one, would love to see an end to religion, superstition and conservatism! Wouldn't you? I thought you were all radical 'n stuff?
well i do think it is seriously flawed. but i have already said what my choice would be within the silly frame work of this dichotomy.
This is some strawman horseshit and anybody who thinks like this is an idiot. If you think natural selection results in "the best" you don't understand natural selection. If serial killers were better adapted to surviving the next million years and they took over the world, that would not mean they were the "best" people, just that they were more successful in passing on their genes.
Again, strawman horseshit, if you don't think we understand that there are limits to our knowledge, then you don't understand much.
there is no doubt most people consciously or subconsciously think like this. these misinterpreted versions of Darwinian theories are nothing less than ubiquitous in the world we live in. they are all pervasive. just turn on the telly: the idea that "we are much more advanced than people who came before" permeates society, and overshadows any admission of the limits of our knowledge.
The whole point of science is that we don't take "faith" in it, we ask for results. If a scientist's ideas are proven wrong, they're toast. If some preacher says the world is going to end next week and it doesn't happen, then he'll just come up with more bullshit to explain why. That's "faith".
again, you fail to, and do not want to, see the bigger picture that i am talking about. Science is not nearly as objective as we'd like to think, as a simple analysis of the distribution of funding in any research department demonstrates. and our "Faith" in science and technology, for instance to potentially solve all of our problems, despite the obvious fact that technological development has caused most of our problems in the past century, is absurd. (and no i'm not a ludite and think we should revert to pre-industrial lifestyles. i am saying that our trust in the objectivity of science and technology to deliver us into a bright future is seriously ludicrous. the solution might be to do science in a more responsible way in the future, instead of using it to justify our selfish, greedy whims)
you yourself said anything can be used to justify anything. that is the gist of my point: science is no different from religion in this regard.
The bell curve has been disproven and discredited by scientists and academics. To claim that it is accepted in mainsream academia means you are either being disingenuous or you don't have a clue about its status anyway. Which one is it, zhao? Social and racial darwinism were popular ideas 50-100 years ago. Usually driven by mystical racial beliefs rather that scientific enquiry.
and yet it was on the best seller list for a
very long time, and remains hugely popular. ideas like this are still spreading like wildfire. it is part of this wave of "neo-darwinism", whether you like to face that fact or not.
Yeah, but it's just that your criticisms are usually smug, half-arsed and ill-explained.
i do my best. sorry if it's not good enough for you. here's an idea: why don't you come up with some ideas of your own, instead of trying to be mean to those of others, half arsed or not?
i am not a scientist, nor theorist, nor am i nearly as well read as others, but this does not mean what i have to say is not valid or important. and i'm still working a lot of this stuff out, learning as i go, but that doesn't mean my main points can be so easily dismissed as "horse shit".