Or is it a given that science is political and belief based, therefore it does not rank high enough to be apart of the overall title? I'm guessing the latter, as science seems to be more like a sub-category to Politics and Religion, like job promotions or award shows. It would be nice though, and rather sporting, if we gave threw them a bone and let them have third billing. I'm certain science would appreciate the charity, since most funding is given and not earned. Actually, instead of science, it would be more accurate to call it intellectual welfare. Yes, I like that. Politics, Religion and Intellectual Welfare. That has a ring to it.
But religion always is. When religion cock-blocks science, then it becomes political.
More often than not, science, at least in this country, is just another form of corporate welfare. Look at the research the National Institutes of Health does on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.
More often than not, science, at least in this country, is just another form of corporate welfare. Look at the research the National Institutes of Health does on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.
I would note Tim, that there is no shortage of religious institutions trying to dictate what is taught in a science class. Yet, there are no scientists who dictate to churches what they can teach in Sunday school.
"there is no shortage of religious institutions trying to dictate what is taught in a science class"there are no scientists who dictate to churches what they can teach in Sunday school."
There are many scientists who do not believe in God and express those views publicly in print and on the air.Is that not what the religious institutions try to do? Both sides believe their views are true, yet none has definitive proof, other than what they believe in their mind.
With the world's population growing rapidly extra carbon is our only hope to grow a adequate food supply. Today we have about 400 parts carbon dioxide per million.When dinosaurs roamed they had roughly 2000 parts per million.
Don't quote my exact numbers. NASA is well known for occasionally making wrong calculations.
without science results in superstition. An excellent example is an early 20th century practice called "Eugenics". Eugenics advocated the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population. These practices included human experimentation and extermination as well identification and classification of individuals. Chancellor Adolf Hitler was a great believer in Eugenics and was used as scientific rationale for the extermination of Jewish peoples and other undesirables as deemed by Nazi propangada or rather science.
-- Modified on 12/21/2010 11:39:18 PM
It's interesting that you mention Eugenics as practiced by the Third Reich.
There's just one problem with your argument Breaker. The Third Reich, like all fascist regimes, were quite religious.
Hitler himself was religious enough that he had the words, "Gott mit uns" printed on the belt buckles of Nazi soldiers. If you need the translation, it means, "God is with us"
Reich", what you say is true. However, Chancellor Hitler eventually replaced the Bible with one of his own and placing himself as God. Per my friend, Pastors had to teach sermons as outlined by the Third Reich. Eugenics was not only practiced by the Third Reich but other nations such as the United States. At one time, mentally challenged people (those missing a chromosome) were once sterilized in order to perfect human evolution.
Some of the worst atrocities in history were done in the name of religion.
I think we all might agree if you replaced the word religion with morality. Science often crosses some moral bounds, on that we can agree.
As to Religion without science, cmon Breaker, give me a break. Religion is, almost by definition, superstition. Trying to involve science with religion is a very weak attempt to sway agnostics into embracing religion. It just won't fly.
book. I could go make some arguments but frankly the Catholic Church is guilty of some of the worst atrocities namely the Crusades. Besides I'm tired from Christmas shopping and I rather be on a beach in Cancun enjoying the company of lovely ladies. So I will bid adieu for now and Merry Christmas and whatever you do, bet on Vick.
WTF, we can't agree on everything, now can we? lol
Two things we definitely agree on are the Catholic Church, and Michael Vick. or at least for the rest of the regular season.
Depending on the spread of course, I fully expect Philly to win out, and plan on betting accodingly.
Wasn't that a great comeback against the Giants, and what was that punter thinking? I doubt he will still have a job come this Sunday.
My Christmas season is great. Instead of Cancun, i am in Medellin Colombia. No beach, but perfect weather and all the beautiful women a man could ever hope for. If I were thirty years younger, I'd be fucking five or six a day, but alas I no longer have that in me, but I do manage at least a couple on a typical day. They are just too damn beautiful to pass up.
Hope you and yours have a very merry Christmas. I won't insult you by wishing you the more PC "happy holidays". Merry Christmas doesn't offend me in the least, why try to steal the joy of others?
Peace
GaGambler,"Merry Christmas doesn't offend me in the least, why try to steal the joy of others?"
Many other times you have failed to hide your civilized nature and intelligence.
and as far as coming across as a simple minded, uncivilized, smart ass. I am certainly not simple minded, and you forgot opinionated and arrogant.
wasn't actually watching the game, I could not believe it. When the score was 31-17, I thought to myself can Vick bring back the Eagles. The on-side kick was brilliantly executed. I kinda wish DeShaun Jackson would not do his theatrics. For a second my heart dropped thinking DJax might drop the ball before crossing the goal line.
Oh well time to meet the insurgents or as others call them, my family. Merry ChristmAS BUDDY.
-- Modified on 12/23/2010 11:46:51 AM
The scientific method may not be political, but science becomes political as soon as there is a profit to be made, or it goes against the morals of certain groups of people. Stem cell science and research is one of the most visible examples of late.
And, just as the scientific method is not political, neither is a persons spirituality. Now, when that spirituality becomes organized into a spiritual movement and organized religion, or denomination, then it can become political when that group tries to force other society members to live by their morals. Or, when someone sees what the religious groups has, and wants a piece of it. Much of religious persecution in Europe was the result of the land and resources certain religious groups possessed was coveted by another group with greater political power.
is biased. It is perhaps noteworthy to state Issac Newton, never considered himself a scientist but rather a natural philospher. A good book to read sometime is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. One of the many arguments Dr. Kuhn writes is that a scientist can never fully be objective because he is constrained often by his personal subjectivity and more importantly the generally accepted facts and theories of the contemporary social structure. Often times he agrues a scientist is stuck in a paradigm that is totally irrational. I venture to say, politics is this element of irrationality or as General Patton would say: "BULLSHIT".