Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean, if you're talking about societies then you'll often want to go with a social anthropologist, or if they're a historical society then a historian, like Dr. Bret C. Devereaux, who studies ancient military history and societies around the ancient Mediterranean and Rome in particular but dipping into the wider fields of the European Middle Ages and a few bits beyond.

Is Dr. Devereaux one of your favorite sources?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is Dr. Deveraux one of your favorite sources?

He's good at re-contextualizing stuff like the Roman Empire as well as its contemporaries, like the Spartans, plus he's also a good source for like picking apart how Game of Thrones and other fantasy works. He's an interesting source.

I don't really read a lot of serious works of academic literature and since my main focus of interest to study is Medieval and pre-Modern military history, I just really buy any book that catches my fancy. I don't have a favourite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He's good at re-contextualizing stuff like the Roman Empire as well as its contemporaries, like the Spartans, plus he's also a good source for like picking apart how Game of Thrones and other fantasy works. He's an interesting source.

I don't really read a lot of serious works of academic literature and since my main focus of interest to study is Medieval and pre-Modern military history, I just really buy any book that catches my fancy. I don't have a favourite.

Ok. Thanks for sharing that. It helps me to understand where you're coming from.

Just know that despite that even though I, too, enjoy playing games, I do read a lot of serious works of academic literature, and I've been doing so for a very long time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok. Thanks for sharing that. It helps me to understand where you're coming from.

Just know that despite that even though I, too, enjoy playing games, I do real a lot of serious works of academic literature, and I've been doing so for a very long time.

I'll be honest, my 'academic' literature is from companies like Osprey Publishing and Helion & Company.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll be honest, my 'academic' literature is from companies like Osprey Publishing and Helion & Company.

I appreciate your honesty on that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I appreciate your honesty on that.

I am very much an amateur in every sense of the word.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am very much an amateur in every sense of the word.

Where games are concerned, or even where the study of game theory is concerned, I'm also very much an amateur.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And who do you think we should be listening to?

You mentioned three long dead philosophers ("Jesus", "Marx", and "Nietzsche") that have nothing to do with your vaunted "philosphopy of Science".

I'm not really seeing much in the way of any discernible teaching finesse in your comments here, Hans.

What makes you think I was teaching finesse? Or teaching at all?

You're simply cutting down some random example that you don't happen to like. I don't like Dawkins and you don't have to like him either, but you're not directing our attention to who we should be getting the "better" information from so we can all become better educated boys and girls.

It turns out that the clip was far worse than I thought after just watching it. The interviewer was trying to get Dawkins to talk about social "Darwinism" and race "science". He was a fool for answering the questions, but it is just a representation of how much Dawkins is about politics these days. (As the YT channel pages for the clipper and the interviewer indicated that that's what *they* are all about too.)

Obviously, philosophers aren't needed to understand Darwin's work on evolution. But as Einstein has intimated, they are needed in the sciences, however, for other reasons. Somehow, you keep flouting that point, and essentially for the reason Einstein (and philosophers of science) have spelled out.

As noted above, you mentioned phiilosphers that have nothing to do with the anything related to evolution or the philosphy of science.

So, now it's my turn to SMH

That's odd, since my head shaking was about Dawkins and the rail he flew off of two decades ago, and not you. If you want to make a discussion of Darwin and Evolution about yourself like Mr. Invisible, feel free.

 

[SelfSim]

@2PhiloVoid: I'll answer your following question from your post#529. I am unfortunately tied up with other things to do in my real life, so I probably won't have the time to continue this rather curious sub-discussion. It doesn't really focus on Dawin/ToE, so we'll just have to keep it in obeyance and for another time, another place.

I offer my below post as an explanation, (an fyi), of where I was coming from.

We can come up with an operational definition of 'know' that works better for a scientific thinker.
That's way more practical than 'justified true belief' nonsense .. (that's for sure).

Oh, really? Do tell! And who exactly are your scholars of choice who have influenced your opinion on this? I would love to know!! Thus far, I see nothing but opinion on your part. For me, I'll stick with a bit of Einstein as a starting point for my Philosophy of Science over and against whatever "working" definition that merely "working" scientists may hold individually (and usually hold aloof for other, more expansive and relevant philosophical (i.e. sometimes Ethical) considerations.

An operational definition of 'knowing' is:

The odds a person would give on being right (like, '95% certain'), where the odds can be deemed as correct, if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. (If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they know).

Note this means we would generally never assess our odds as 100% (not if we wish to break even in the long run), so we do not use the notorious standard that to 'know' something, it must always end up being 'true'. Philosophers arrived at 'justified true belief' as their attempt at a definition they can use in philosophy, but to me that's a classic example of what they'd like to mean, rather than what they really mean .. it's a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use the word at all.

Yep.. there's a bit of opinion at the end there .. but hey, this is the C&E forum and not the science forum, yes?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You mentioned three long dead philosophers ("Jesus", "Marx", and "Nietzsche") that have nothing to do with your vaunted "philosphopy of Science".

Oh. So, you'renot able to answer my question for which the answer you've given really has nothing to do with.

What makes you think I was teaching finesse? Or teaching at all?

I'm not assuming anything about any atheists here on CF, but...................I do notice a typical response pattern among a number of you.

It turns out that the clip was far worse than I thought after just watching it. The interviewer was trying to get Dawkins to talk about social "Darwinism" and race "science". He was a fool for answering the questions, but it is just a representation of how much Dawkins is about politics these days. (As the YT channel pages for the clipper and the interviewer indicated that that's what *they* are all about too.)

That's interesting that you chose to watch the video. I didn't post it in order to instruct anyone. I posted for another reason.

As noted above, you mentioned phiilosphers that have nothing to do with the anything related to evolution or the philosphy of science.

I've barely begun to mention anything. And here you are to attempt to scuttle my statement before I can move further with it.

I'm not AV. You might want to consider that in your constant critiques of what it is you "think" I'm saying or have so far said.

That's odd, since my head shaking was about Dawkins and the rail he flew off of two decades ago, and not you. If you want to make a discussion of Darwin and Evolution about yourself like Mr. Invisible, feel free.

Now, you're just pushing rhetoric, of the sort that shows you really don't care about engaging on the subject matter or any embedded nuances that may be present within it. You critique, and then you deflect with, "but I don't really care, I don't really care." Which is it? You obviously care enough to show up and be heard, for what reason, I don't know. It's not apparently for educating any of us.

I've had about enough of your obfuscation, Hans. When I see that sort of retort from atheists, I start being suspicious about their motives for being here on CF. And that's disappointing because I know you have more smarts than that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid: I'll answer your following question from your post#529. I am unfortunately tied up with other things to do in my real life, so I probably won't have the time to continue this rather curious sub-discussion. It doesn't really focus on Dawin/ToE, so we'll just have to keep it in obeyance and for another time, another place.

I offer my below post as an explanation, (an fyi), of where I was coming from.

That's fair. And sensible.

An operational definition of 'knowing' is:

The odds a person would give on being right (like, '95% certain'), where the odds can be deemed as correct, if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. (If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they know).

Note this means we would generally never assess our odds as 100% (not if we wish to break even in the long run), so we do not use the notorious standard that to 'know' something, it must always end up being 'true'. Philosophers arrived at 'justified true belief' as their attempt at a definition they can use in philosophy, but to me that's a classic example of what they'd like to mean, rather than what they really mean .. it's a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use the word at all.

Yep.. there's a bit of opinion at the end there .. but hey, this is the C&E forum and not the science forum, yes?

Ok. You are admitting here that you rely primarily upon probability, which I understand for the purposes of doing science. I don't agree with relying upon your definition too much more than I'd risk taking Pascal's Wager seriously (which I don't and never have in any strict sense), but I do appreciate how you've made the effort to describe your personal view about the workings of "knowledge" as you generally apply it across the whole of your life (at least, I'm guessing that you consistently apply probability outside of your work even while at home or the grocery store). I guess you can now tell me whether you tend toward the Frequentist's position or instead the Bayesian position.

Actually, philosophers have debated among themselves and come up with more than merely one system, or framing, of what they think knowledge can be and how to justify one's beliefs. What's more is that some scientists have also been philosophers, and in this, I'm only referencing from the time of Descartes to today. I hope you realize this, not that it will affect whatever scientific work you may be doing, but it can affect how anyone else perceives how anyone SHOULD justify, or demonstrate, or "prove" their beliefs about Christianity, even in the face of the Theory of Evolution as it stands today, well beyond old Darwinian definitions.

 

[SelfSim]

That's fair. And sensible.


Ok. You are admitting here that you rely primarily upon probability, which I understand for the purposes of doing science. I don't agree with relying upon your definition too much more than I'd risk taking Pascal's Wager seriously (which I don't and never have in any strict sense), but I do appreciate how you've made the effort to describe your personal view about the workings of "knowledge" as you generally apply it across the whole of your life (at least, I'm guessing that you consistently apply probability outside of your work even while at home or the grocery store). I guess you can now tell me whether you tend toward the Frequentist's position or instead the Bayesian position.

Lol .. I explained the context of the operational definition as being a useful one, when thinking scientifically, (which obviously isn't all of the time). When I'm thinking scientifically, I need to clear my mind of the beliefs that plague (and often delude) all of us humans.
The operational definition is useful tool for checking that I'm not doing that, when it matters.

Actually, philosophers have debated among themselves and come up with more than merely one system, or framing, of what they think knowledge can be and how to justify one's beliefs. What's more is that some scientists have also been philosophers, and in this, I'm only referencing from the time of Descartes to today. I hope you realize this, not that it will affect whatever scientific work you may be doing, but it can affect how anyone else perceives how anyone SHOULD justify, or demonstrate, or "prove" their beliefs about Christianity, even in the face of the Theory of Evolution as it stands today, well beyond old Darwinian definitions.

Science is all about justification, is sketchy on truths, and never about beliefs.

Christian believers and scientific thinkers should also be aware of that when invoking scientific hypotheses, theories, laws, principles, conclusions etc.

That rarely happens in these forums, is my experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol .. I explained the context of the operational definition as being a useful one, when thinking scientifically, (which obviously isn't all of the time). When I'm thinking scientifically, I need to clear my mind of the beliefs that plague (and often delude) all of us humans.
The operational definition is useful tool for checking that I'm not doing that, when it matters.

And I'm not adverse to seeing things from a probabilistic frame, I just don't rely on that due to a number of philosophical considerations.

Science is all about justification, is sketchy on truths, and never about beliefs.

Yes, it's provisional in nature. Most of us who have been educated in one of the various sciences, whether hard or soft, sort of know this.

Christian believers and scientific thinkers should also be aware of that when invoking scientific hypotheses, theories, laws, principles, conclusions etc.

Yep. We're well aware of that. At least, I am.

That rarely happens in these forums, is my experience.

Yes, it's rare all around from what I can tell. But that's usually par for the course when extrapolating from the statistical spread.

That, and for the fact that no one is perfect or utterly immune to Dunning-Kruger Syndrome in their justifications.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think 'god' has to be figured into scientific work, and I do so out of respect for the idea of what an actual Supreme Being would be rather than as a ideological motif by which to explain what seems to be unexplainable where questions of origins are of interest.

I was a little bit taken aback by your "has to be" given your oft professed "methodological naturalism" regarding science and your training. The appropriate verb is "is not" and "should not be" before "figured".

Plus, there are always other pertinent philosophical questions that also remain ever present alongside the assumption and implementation of ToE, like some of those which Dawkins mentions in the following clip:

While I am sure there are moral and ethical conundrums driven by our evolved minds and bodies, this is not one of them. Dawkins allows himself to drawn into discussing (rather than slamming down against) social "darwinism" and race/intelligence. Just because the natural process of evolution is or can be brutal, does not require us to apply the mechanisms of evolution to "improve" ourselves. I don't know if Dawkins is getting old and slow or he is just to deep into his social commentary, but I seem to recall the earlier Dawkins would have shut down such nonsense.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For some reason this was related to the ToE being a "sacred cow". (Mmm, sacralicious)

An example would be anyone who thinks that the ToE somehow alleviates them of having to engage, or in believing, the relevance of the Bible.

There is nothing about *anything* that requires anyone to 'engage" the "relevance" of your holy book. I am alleviated from "engaging" with, believing in, or considering the "relevance" of the Bible because I exist, just like I have no similar obligation to consider any other holy book in my daily life, or profession.

In that vain, I'd start historically with Darwin himself, move on then to the likes of Nietzsche and Marx, and then onto anyone else at any time who has since thought the ToE somehow alleviates them of valuing the person of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Savior.

Obviously, not everyone who is a scientist or who takes the ToE as being valid has alleviated themselves in this way.

Who needs the ToE to not care about Jesus as a "savior"? Not I or any other person. It is irrelevant if Friedrich or Karl thought they could use ToE that way, even if they did make that claim.

 

[BCP1928]

The arguments are largely political, anyway.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh. So, you'renot able to answer my question for which the answer you've given really has nothing to do with.

I engaged with Warden and referenced the video because I didn't want to get into whatever that other bit about Jesus and ToE was about. I might have gotten a little bit of what was going on in the background mixed up. After reviewing it, it looks like you are stating Nietzsche and Marx used the ToE to alleviate their "valuing" Jesus as "savior", I don't know if that is right or not, but I think I confused your reference to those two philosphers and ToE as being about understanding the ToE.

I did finally engage in your original posts with the video to clear this up and to note that no one needs to ToE to not value or engage Jesus or the Bible.

I'm not assuming anything about any atheists here on CF, but...................I do notice a typical response pattern among a number of you.

Perhaps you are seeing things that aren't there, but my comment on the video was a comment on the video not an attempt to "teach" anything.

That's interesting that you chose to watch the video. I didn't post it in order to instruct anyone. I posted for another reason.

The two reasons that came to mind first were:

1. Dawkins reflects your social politics here.
2. To use Dawkins strapping of himself to the rock of social "darwinism" to drag him or ToE down.

So what was it actually?

I've barely begun to mention anything. And here you are to attempt to scuttle my statement before I can move further with it.

As I said just above, I likely misunderstood your reference to 19th century philosophers.

I'm not AV. You might want to consider that in your constant critiques of what it is you "think" I'm saying or have so far said.

You've done just about as much cover/defense for him as any non-creationist I've seen in these here parts on this thread alone.

Now, you're just pushing rhetoric,

And here I thought I was just trying to clear up any confusion as you seem to think I was "SMH" your statement rather than what Dawkins said in the video.

of the sort that shows you really don't care about engaging on the subject matter or any embedded nuances that may be present within it.

The subject matter is the alleged fraudulence of Darwin (and by implication his theory). i engage with that fine.

You critique, and then you deflect with, "but I don't really care, I don't really care." Which is it? You obviously care enough to show up and be heard, for what reason, I don't know. It's not apparently for educating any of us.

I don't like people who talk false smack about science.

I've had about enough of your obfuscation, Hans. When I see that sort of retort from atheists, I start being suspicious about their motives for being here on CF. And that's disappointing because I know you have more smarts than that.

I have stated my motives before many times. I can do so again. I came here to discuss science and pseudoscience. I have later branched out to some discussion of politics, particularly bad and factually false claims. Unfortunately, religion keeps getting in the way of those discussions as do assumptions made by religious people (almost all of whom here are Christians) about everyone else having the same relation to their god.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was a little bit taken aback by your "has to be" given your oft professed "methodological naturalism" regarding science and your training. The appropriate verb is "is not" and "should not be" before "figured".

I see I stand corrected.

While I am sure there are moral and ethical conundrums driven by our evolved minds and bodies, this is not one of them. Dawkins allows himself to drawn into discussing (rather than slamming down against) social "darwinism" and race/intelligence. Just because the natural process of evolution is or can be brutal, does not require us to apply the mechanisms of evolution to "improve" ourselves. I don't know if Dawkins is getting old and slow or he is just to deep into his social commentary, but I seem to recall the earlier Dawkins would have shut down such nonsense.

Or maybe Dawkins has learned a few things since then, just as has Jerry Coyne and Stephen Pinker, and he's trying to play "gingerly" since there's a new smackdown taking place in "progress"?

On another note, since you mentioned something about humanity not being required "to apply the mechanisms of evolution" for self-improvement, I take it that you see folks like Ray Kurzweil as cranks?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For some reason this was related to the ToE being a "sacred cow". (Mmm, sacralicious)

Yeah. It sort of is because not everyone sees the practicality or the justification for using Methodological Naturalism as the assumed modus operandi, right. On a certain level, it is a philosophical choice to do so where science is concerned.

There is nothing about *anything* that requires anyone to 'engage" the "relevance" of your holy book.

Obviously. Paul the Apostle, and I think Jesus too, would agree with your epistemologically laced statement here.

I am alleviated from "engaging" with, believing in, or considering the "relevance" of the Bible because I exist, just like I have no similar obligation to consider any other holy book in my daily life, or profession.

I agree. You have no clear obligation to do it.

Who needs the ToE to not care about Jesus as a "savior"?

Well, Hans, as an apologist, I'm concerned for the fact that I see Christians falling away from the faith every day for exactly this reason (which is one of several reasons, really, rather than the only one).

Not that you need be concerned over whatever sympathy pains I have for people and for what I think is leading them on in life for the worse.

Not I or any other person. It is irrelevant if Friedrich or Karl thought they could use ToE that way, even if they did make that claim.

It's really not irrelevant, and you're showing here that it isn't irrelevant. It's all politics; in fact, it always has been and it always will be, ultimately.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I engaged with Warden and referenced the video because I didn't want to get into whatever that other bit about Jesus and ToE was about. I might have gotten a little bit of what was going on in the background mixed up. After reviewing it, it looks like you are stating Nietzsche and Marx used the ToE to alleviate their "valuing" Jesus as "savior", I don't know if that is right or not, but I think I confused your reference to those two philosphers and ToE as being about understanding the ToE.

Yes, you hit upon the mark. I commend you for sticking it through momentarily to reach this realization about folks like Nietzsche and Marx.

So, you get an "A" on this first assignment.

I did finally engage in your original posts with the video to clear this up and to note that no one needs to ToE to not value or engage Jesus or the Bible.

They don't need it, but as I alluded to earlier, we live in a world and time where people are amply MIS-learning the ToE and it ends up, whether by hook or crook, being the wedge that drives them away from their earlier faith. It doesn't have to happen that way, but it does often enough every day.

Perhaps you are seeing things that aren't there, but my comment on the video was a comment on the video not an attempt to "teach" anything.

And I think it'd be great if you atheists (and I tire of having to delineate fellow human beings as such, but since they insist on that road of thought) could do more than merely critique the Christian Faith. Obviously, there are some like, say, Joshua Bowen who do, but not all of you do.

The two reasons that came to mind first were:

1. Dawkins reflects your social politics here.
2. To use Dawkins strapping of himself to the rock of social "darwinism" to drag him or ToE down.

Wow. I guess he does tend to do #1, but I'm not sure he does #2.

And I don't think he's gone the way of Herbert Spencer.

As I said just above, I likely misunderstood your reference to 19th century philosophers.

Ok. But yes, the ToE has been misused here and there, among this leader or thinker, since the time of Herbert Spencer, Marx and Nietszche. And I hope it's obvious I'm only citing them. One can easily enough take a year by year survey of very prominent thinker since 1865 and see what he (or she) has done with the ToE in political terms.

You've done just about as much cover/defense for him as any non-creationist I've seen in these here parts on this thread alone.

Oh, good gracious. That's a bit much. I've barely "defended" him, and I definitely have not agreed with the way his denomination interprets the Bible, but you guys act like I turned into the Green Goblin and stole away Aunt May for having even dared to say a few associative words in his favor. Oh, boo hoo. You'll just have to suck up the fact that both he and I are, however differentiated in form, Pre-millennialists where theology is a part of our outlook on world politics.

Stop clutching those pearls. If you'd learn something about denominational differences of interpretation and dogma, you'd spare yourselves the self-inflicted decision to "reform" (or cancel, these days) folks like AV.

And here I thought I was just trying to clear up any confusion as you seem to think I was "SMH" your statement rather than what Dawkins said in the video.

You're clarification is appreciated since the tendrils of meaning seem to splay themselves across too many various tangents in a forum setting.

The subject matter is the alleged fraudulence of Darwin (and by implication his theory). i engage with that fine.

ok

I don't like people who talk false smack about science.

Well...............................................................................then you and I are going to have some major contentions since I'm a philosopher and I tend to see the world through shades of Mary Shelley. Let's just say, I'm a scientific cynic and I see the bastions of "science" as a double-edge sword.

And this is in addition to whatever issues you and I may actually AGREE UPON where pseudo-science is assessed.

I have stated my motives before many times. I can do so again. I came here to discuss science and pseudoscience. I have later branched out to some discussion of politics, particularly bad and factually false claims. Unfortunately, religion keeps getting in the way of those discussions as do assumptions made by religious people (almost all of whom here are Christians) about everyone else having the same relation to their god.

Again, thanks for the clarification. Now I know where to expect the logistical lines of our respective motivations to intersect.