PS sorry for the "silly" remark. Guilty.

This, too, is pseudo-academic babble:



What are "legal behaviors"? What do you mean by "cross sectioned"? What does it mean to say that "[t]he Constitution has no physical reference"? What is a "physical reference" anyway?

Your examples of the "apartheid" context are sorely lacking:



How does that call into question the validity of the conclusions of those scientists? If scientific research leads to a conclusion that can be used to goad policymakers into decisions that are uncomfortable, unwanted, or unfortunate for some people, that does not invalidate the research.



Again, what does that have to do with the validity of the underlying research? You're describing a political problem, not a method for finding fault with the research itself.



This, too, is politics, and has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the underlying scientific research. If you want to criticize politicians, I'm sure you will find plenty of welcome allies here. But you are using political examples to make points about science, which is nonsensical.



I have no idea how this supports your argument.



Are you saying that every single university in the United States uses an employment contract with the same terms, and that Agamben has investigated all of them? If not, then this point is flawed on its face. Aside from that, however, you have still not given an example that gets to the validity of the underlying science. You are simply complaining that the political atmosphere that enables and limits the institutions and financial support for science is--surprise!--imperfect.



I have no idea what you are saying here.

If I accept your premise that the Alien in not bound by physics (?) then it is be definition a God, and your basis is a logical identity (Alien = God), and you can't move to any next step with that, so your logic is still invalid.

Apologies -- The "ad hominem" (not actually, but whatever) was an aside, and not part of my argument.

You have this exactly backwards. A analogy is a fallacy when similar properties in generalized into a proof of overall equivalency of properties.

For example:

A car has a "motor".
A bacterial flagella has a "motor" (similar properties).
A car has a "designer". (Another property)
Therefore a bacterial flagella has a "designer". (Falsely attributed property)

False analogies usually break down way before all properties have been found dissimilar.

Thanks for the compliment.

I would love to see your arguments on the cost of believing us. Assuming you are a monotheist, you evidently find very little or no cost in believing us in the multitude of Gods you do not believe in. Why so much greater cost for one more God?

I'm sorry Richard, the argument looks even worse to me than you've described it. As I read it, the argument seems to be that since both the car and bacteria have a motor then logically they both must use unleaded 87 Octane gasoline.

Plotinus, may I ask if English is your first (or primary) language?

Peter:

The critique is of agency. You argue (as most of you do) that science exists absent "value." Fine. Once the scientist (or anyone) APPLIES the science for "good" or for "progress" or for "justice" or to "save," it become about agency. It morphs into human behavior, and thus the critique. The "pseudo-babble" is nothing more than the critique of B (or the application). Most logical positivists, rationalists and empiricists have a difficult time wrapping their heads around the critique. They assume because something is "valid" it is inherently "good." If you don't like the deconstruction framework, I can point to the non-sequitor.

Let me use another model (Toulmin):
Claim: Science must be applied/believed.
Grounds: Science is "True" or "Valid."
Warrant: Because something is true or valid, it must be believed or applied.
The warrant is a non-sequitor and there is no inferential connection between the claim and the grounds. Without this articulation, it's just another flawed set.

On the law stuff: How is your allegiance to the Rule of Law any different to my allegiance to God (from a logical/positivist paradigm)? Your accusations are enjoyable, but answer the question. You cannot function in paradigmatic chaos, so I will continue to babble.

RC: Alien is God. Fine, my point. . . both share identity in the syllogism. So why is one uniquely easier? Your definition of an analogy as fallacy IS the definition of an analogy. While most analogies are inductive, all inductive positions cannot be fallacies (See Fisher and Weinbrenner--Narrative Paradigms and Fantasy Analysis).
On the "debate" stuff: Let's suppose we debate, you posit evolution and physics are valid. . . . So what? It's the next step of the proposition that is important. "Stop creationism" or "Religion is thus oppressive" or "Faith is just bad form" or whatever. It becomes a value or policy proposition at that point, not one of fact. Your attempt to capture my ground and mix burdens as the advocate becomes troubling. Your premise as an agent cannot "steal" my ground. . . the human behavior of "believing" or "subscription" is not sufficient. . your begging the question. "The Science is True therefore must be believed?" The ascription of Truth requires belief.

Calladus. . . on the language question:

King Arthur once said "This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."

Finally, there was no answer to the Malthusian position. Logically it is "true." Why don't we employ it as policy or a value set?

Plotinus -- Thanks for continuing the discussion.



You seem to be refusing to acknowledge the basic rules of logic.

Your original statement:

P1. Alien is unknown.
P2. God is unknown
P3. One unknown cannot have more value than another unknown.
C1. Alien and God are equally unknown.

You agree the to the identity Alien = God, so perform the substitution:

P1. God is unknown.
P2. God is unknown
P3. One unknown (God) cannot have more value than another unknown (God).
C1. God and God are equally unknown.

Trivial, as you can see. You are arguing against yourself at this point. A good sign it is time to call it a day on a particular position. Nothing wrong with that, if your arguments are not purely dogmatic.



This seems obvious, and I have not seen anyone object to this. I am unclear how it adds an support to the specific false analogies you have used, as it does not rule out some inductive positions cannot be fallacies, only that all are not.



I am not really following you here, but regardless, I see no evidence to support a claim that your particular form of faith is superior to all other forms of faith, or superior to a lack of faith.

Are evolution and physics valid? As utilized in the pursuit of science, obviously, as they have shown tremendous predictive power, consistency (both externally and internally), and universality (all scientific knowledge, regardless of the field or specialty, or the method of of discovery, is in agreement on the core factual knowledge). For these exact same reasons, religious theories such as cosmological origins or creationism have failed as axioms upon which to develop knowledge.

Unlike science, religion never converges -- it continually splits into a greater number of theistic positions at odds with the other theistic positions. It lacks any core knowledge upon which to build a consensus, and forces a defense of one's particular position through dogmatic reasoning. Unlike science, religion lacks any experiential knowledge one could draw from to form trustworthy conclusions in the absence of theory.

You seem to be proposing with your argument that the purpose of the debate is to "Stop Creationism" or declare "Religion is Oppressive", but this misses the point. Even without science, religion creates policies that are the result of the underlying ideological intolerance. Religion is a philosophy that rejects reason; this means it can never reach any conclusion that can be accepted without unreasoned belief. Your inability to articulate (not personally, just representatively) and defend your assertions demonstrates how religious thought, due its dogmatic position, is unable to arrive at even the simplest of logical constructs without false premises and inductions.

A review of human history shows that this has led to much human suffering, and almost all conflicts in our modern world have at their root religious dogmatism. It also shows that secular thought, and a trust in the power of science, allows rational, reasonable people to live in peace, even when surrounded by religious intolerance.

My conclusion is that science is not the destroyer of religion. Religion is the destroyer of religion.

Most of your comment seems to be a rejection of any position that challenges your authority based upon some privileged status you feel entitled to. You objection does not seem to be to the validity of my position, it seems to be an objection that I would argue my position with you at all -- there is some price of admission on my part has not been met.

I return back to your inability to admit a simple error in logic in your Alien/God analogy. Without a dogma to defend, I simple note my errors and move on. You however, seem to feel that any admission of fallibility is an fatal attack upon your dogmatic beliefs. You respond with a claim that you stand upon unassailable ground.

This shuts the door to any rational communication, I am sure you would agree.

Again, thank you for the response, especially considering the multiple debates you are engaged in at this point.

Okay, I'm going to take this slowly to see if I understand you.



I agree that Apartheid is bad. It is defined by Wikipedia as: "(an inhumane act) committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

The way in which you used the term "academic apartheid" would seem to mean that you believe that academia has the power to systemically oppress and dominate non academics, shutting them out of the process of science.



Who is "Most"? Most scientists? Most government figures? Most religious figures? What do you mean when you say, "Hypo Testing"? Are you speaking of using people as unknowing test subjects?

I agree that there are problems in getting solutions screened before applying them to real people. Thalidomide comes to mind as a good example. But in the case of thalidomide it was rushed into use politically and commercially, not scientifically. Sometimes science has been rushed due to immediate danger - early polio vaccines were tested unsuccessfully on thousands of children, causing allergic reactions and a few deaths. Your citing baby formula is an excellent example of decisions based upon business and profits, and not decided upon the facts - for example that in most cases, breast milk is the better food for babies.



This would seem to be a truism. Any time you apply knowledge you do so under the morals of the society you live in, which are always "socially constructed", no matter what you blame your moral structure on. We are social creatures. All social creatures that we have studied show evidence that they evolve systems in order to support their social structure. In lower animals, these systems are little more than instinct - like with bees. Bonobos are an excellent example of a more evolved species that does apply a moral code of conduct.



My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.