| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Jul 2005 12:02:50 AM |
|
|
The origin of the fault in natural selection is from a denial, and
ignorance of the concept of decision. The faulty theory of natural
selection represents the summum of science's weakness to be able to
deal with the phenomeon of decision. Here we have a theory, where those
that apply it use the language of decision, but then at the end turn
around and deny that there was any decision at all, that it was all
mechanism and force. Evenso sometimes they say chance was involved,
chance is then not said to be covered by the theory, but said to
operate outside it. And even when they admit chance is involved in the
result, they do not have a name for the point where the chance is
realized or negated.
To an extent, it is good that scientists are ignorant about the concept
of decision. Because it is no good to be aware of the concept without a
foreboding sense of ethics about it. Our common knowledge states that
consciousness occurs at a point of decision. What may occur therefore
at a point of decision, is pain. Now what could be worse then a bunch
of scientists experimenting with points of decision, without any sense
of ethics about it? That would be to have the likes of Mengele in
science again.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Jul 2005 06:36:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The origin of the fault in natural selection is from a denial,
And the evidence for that would be?
and
ignorance of the concept of decision.
And the evidence for that would be?
The faulty theory of natural
selection represents the summum of science's weakness to be able to
deal with the phenomeon of decision.
And the evidence for that would be?
Here we have a theory, where those
that apply it use the language of decision, but then at the end turn
around and deny that there was any decision at all, that it was all
mechanism and force.
And the evidence for that would be?
Evenso sometimes they say chance was involved,
chance is then not said to be covered by the theory, but said to
operate outside it.
And the evidence for that would be?
And even when they admit chance is involved in the
result, they do not have a name for the point where the chance is
realized or negated.
And the evidence for that would be?
To an extent, it is good that scientists are ignorant about the concept
of decision.
And the evidence for that would be?
Because it is no good to be aware of the concept without a
foreboding sense of ethics about it. Our common knowledge states that
consciousness occurs at a point of decision.
And the evidence for that would be?
What may occur therefore
at a point of decision, is pain. Now what could be worse then a bunch
of scientists experimenting with points of decision, without any sense
of ethics about it?
Well for me, being doused in pertol, having it set alight and then
having the fire put out with hammers springs to mind. But that is
infinitely preferrable to posting unsupported assertions on Usenet and
expecting to be taken seriously fo no reason than anyone but yourself
can fathom.
That would be to have the likes of Mengele in
science again.
And the evidence for that would be?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Sorry, its again all just so much a fairy tale, zero supporting
evidence, conclusions from no premise at all, no logic, no structure and
no reason to believe that you are making any sense at all. You really
should learn to give examples of how all this stuff you believe relates
to the real world, then you may start getting some respect for your ideas.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Jul 2005 09:32:22 AM |
|
|
Whatever.
Vacaous goalbased reasoning about "success" is what you are here
supporting.
Knowing zero decisions in 15 billion years of history is your
intellectual life now.
To consider emotions as sophisticated machines is your intellectual
future.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 01:13:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Whatever.
Vacaous goalbased reasoning about "success" is what you are here
supporting.
I am amazed that you can even write, because the evidence that you
cannot read is fairly strong. I have posted a number ot times that
evolution has no goals, it has outcomes.
Knowing zero decisions in 15 billion years of history is your
intellectual life now.
What is a "zero decision"?
To consider emotions as sophisticated machines is your intellectual
future.
What ever that means.
All you do is make assertions and supply no evidence. When you finally
arrive at the conclusion that that mode of thinking is pointless, you
will be able to progress you ideas with other people.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 04:51:58 AM |
|
|
And, with much patience, I've shown you about 10 times how Darwinists
identify the workings of natural selection with the goal of the fittest
coming to dominate the population.
The assertion that there is no goal inherent to the theory is based on
nothing more then say-so. We've always had the evidence of Darwinists
talking in valueladen terms, now we have the evidence of exactly where
in the framework of natural selection this valueladen talk comes from.
It comes from illegitemately positing a goal of optimal fitness, where
we can easily see that that the underlying process does not have this
tendency, because the process is commonly most likely to result in the
less fit sweeping to fixation.
It is regrettable that you sustain a fault which makes one of the main
theories in science to be a kind of ideology, supporting related
ideologies.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dabbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
26 Jul 2005 02:51:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
And, with much patience, I've shown you about 10 times how Darwinists
identify the workings of natural selection with the goal of the fittest
coming to dominate the population.
The assertion that there is no goal inherent to the theory is based on
nothing more then say-so. We've always had the evidence of Darwinists
talking in valueladen terms, now we have the evidence of exactly where
in the framework of natural selection this valueladen talk comes from.
It comes from illegitemately positing a goal of optimal fitness, where
we can easily see that that the underlying process does not have this
tendency, because the process is commonly most likely to result in the
less fit sweeping to fixation.
"Optimal fitness" or the "most fit" doesn't mean the
smartest, the strongest, the fastest, or the best looking. It simply
means that the one to reproduce is the one that is most fit. It could
be the slowest in the group, or the ugliest, or something else that
gives it the opportunity to reproduce.
For an example, while the strongest males in the group fight each other
for the right to mate, a small weak male that posed no threat and was
therefore ignored sneaks in during the confusion and mounts the female
becoming the most fit because he was the one to pass on his DNA. He
wasn't the strongest but he was the "most fit" to complete the
task. After many generations the males become smaller and weaker
because of this.
It is regrettable that you sustain a fault which makes one of the main
theories in science to be a kind of ideology, supporting related
ideologies.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
When are you going to start clicking on the TOP "Reply" link and
not the BOTTOM "Reply" link? The "Reply" link that appears
before the body of the message, "SHOW OPTIONS>REPLY", is the one that
quotes the message. Why is this so difficult for you? You appear to be
stumped by the simple things.
People ask you for definitions because you use words in a completely
different context than science does, such as "most fit". You look
like a complete idiot when you use established terms but have your own
private definition for them. You may think that you appear to be on
higher ground when you mock them for asking you but in reality you look
like a net kook.
How can you expect people to trust you on more complex issues when you
get three simple things wrong in every post?
Cheers,
Back to lurking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
27 Jul 2005 02:36:48 AM |
|
|
- natural selection posits the result of optimal fitness
- now I identify myself in terms of natural selection, I am an
organism, then my goal is optimal fitness
It doesn't matter I don't like ugly people, if ugly people are more
fit, then I should achieve the result of ugly people dominating the
population, as the goal nature has given me, but actually Darwinism.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
27 Jul 2005 03:02:03 AM |
|
|
And let's remember folks what Ariew and Matthen are saying is that most
all Darwinists, eminent distinguished accomplished darwinist scientists
included, have it wrong, and they have it right, about the fundamentals
of natural selection.
There seems to be some incredulity in regards to this being possibly
true, or that it is possible to fudge over a mistake like positing a
valueladen goal in a theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
27 Jul 2005 12:45:34 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2005 01:02:03 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
And let's remember folks what Ariew and Matthen are saying is that most
all Darwinists, eminent distinguished accomplished darwinist scientists
included, have it wrong, and they have it right, about the fundamentals
of natural selection.
There seems to be some incredulity in regards to this being possibly
true, or that it is possible to fudge over a mistake like positing a
valueladen goal in a theory.
What I've seen so far is that you have constructed a strawman of natural
selection which you just endlessly claim to be the one that scientists use,
and it matters very little how many times it is explained to you. You are
committed to a fallacious appeal to consequences, and thus this strawman is
essential to your strategy.
You aren't interested in science at all, but rather in propaganda.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
28 Jul 2005 05:56:04 AM |
|
|
You are not interested to keep science free of valuejudgements, you
just indimidate everybody that questions if there is a valuejudgement
implicit in a theory, and that is supposed to be convincing. That is
THE trademark of pseudoscience, to mindlessly assert objectivity of a
theory, found time and again in the pseudoscientific racist darwinist
texts. Bold assertions that it is "Science", that it is "Objective",
and then what follows is quasi-religious drivel about selfish genes,
the purpose of life, why people exist, that people are born selfish,
Aryan superiority in the struggle for life, etc. all one and the same
kind.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
28 Jul 2005 09:55:44 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2005 03:56:04 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are not interested to keep science free of valuejudgements,
Well, science itself, like a hammer, has no value judgements. It is the
application of science and hammers where we must make such judgements.
you
just indimidate everybody that questions if there is a valuejudgement
implicit in a theory, and that is supposed to be convincing. That is
THE trademark of pseudoscience,
No, the trademark of pseudoscience is making assertions which you cannot
back up with evidence.
to mindlessly assert objectivity of a
theory, found time and again in the pseudoscientific racist darwinist
texts.
*****, Nando.
Bold assertions that it is "Science", that it is "Objective",
and then what follows is quasi-religious drivel about selfish genes,
You clearly don't understand what Dawkins is saying.
the purpose of life,
The only thing you're going to get from biology is reproduction. Anything
beyond that is the realm of philosophy and theology.
why people exist,
Is easily answered. Because there were people before them that gave to
them.
that people are born selfish,
It's very clear from behavioral sciences that things are a good deal more
complex than that, and nothing in evolutionary theory states that people are
selfish.
Aryan superiority in the struggle for life,
The Aryan struggle not only is not a notion in evolutionary biology, modern
human evolutionary biology reveals that the Nazis were full of *****.
etc. all one and the same
kind.
Does it ever bother you that your whole purpose here seems to be to create a
fallacious appeal to consequences?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
28 Jul 2005 10:33:55 AM |
|
|
Again you make several mindless assertions of science as objective,
without any standards. You should say, science *should* be objective,
as an ideal.
There was a flood of pseudoscientific Darwinism in Germany, and this
sort of tone of mindless assertions of objectivity, assertions of
scientific certitude was it's identifiable characteristic. It is like
you do now, especially with the bullying style that you do it. I dare
not criticize Dawkins or any Darwinist racist for lack of objectivity,
or else it's supposedly a fallacious appeal to consequences.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shackleton" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
28 Jul 2005 10:53:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Again you make several mindless assertions of science as objective,
without any standards. You should say, science *should* be objective,
as an ideal.
Science is objective by its nature. It is the human [mis]application of
the knowledge gained by science that can lead to unfortunate
circumstances.
The Nazis looked at what DOES happen in nature and twisted it to be
what SHOULD happen in society. They used a corrupted interpretation of
a natural process for their own evil ends.
Hitler wanted Jews and other people out of the way for emotional,
political, and cultural reasons. He used whatever means were at his
disposal to justify his actions in the eyes of the populace.
He played upon the fears and prejudices that already existed in the
society of the day.
There was a flood of pseudoscientific Darwinism in Germany, and this
sort of tone of mindless assertions of objectivity, assertions of
scientific certitude was it's identifiable characteristic. It is like
you do now, especially with the bullying style that you do it. I dare
not criticize Dawkins or any Darwinist racist for lack of objectivity,
or else it's supposedly a fallacious appeal to consequences.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
28 Jul 2005 11:19:57 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2005 08:33:55 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again you make several mindless assertions of science as objective,
without any standards. You should say, science *should* be objective,
as an ideal.
Science has no values. Scientists do.
There was a flood of pseudoscientific Darwinism in Germany,
We've already discussed this Nando. Anti-semitism had a long history in
Europe.
and this
sort of tone of mindless assertions of objectivity, assertions of
scientific certitude was it's identifiable characteristic.
Scientific certitude? Maybe laymen buy into that, but scientists do not.
It is like
you do now, especially with the bullying style that you do it.
Oh boo hoo, Nando. You spout crap, expect to be called on it.
I dare
not criticize Dawkins or any Darwinist racist for lack of objectivity,
You can criticize all you want. But if you're criticism has no merit, then
you're not going to get away with it.
Dawkins gets on my nerves, and we're both atheists. He's too evangelical
and enjoys pushing too many buttons, but still, he's a damn good scientists,
foibles and flaws aside.
As to racist Darwinists, I'm sure they've existed in some numbers, and
misunderstandings and lack of data coupled with longstanding beliefs as to
European supremacy has allowed a few to take such positions. But it is
science, mind you, that's falsified any particular claim that any population
of H. sapiens is somehow superior or inferior. We're simply too closely
related and, even at the widest separation, the longest isolation I know of
is the natives of Tasmania, and that was in the range of 10k to 15k years,
not an awfully long time if you consider that modern humans first appeared
150k years ago.7
or else it's supposedly a fallacious appeal to consequences.
I call 'em as I see 'em, Nando. By trying to lay various racist beliefs and
movements on to evolutionary theory, you aren't actually dealing with the
theory at all, but simply arguing that it leads to people doing bad things.
It's an appeal to consequences, you know, I know it, everyone knows it.
It's a common enough tactic. David Ford is trying to turn it into a fine
art, for instance.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 12:19:21 AM |
|
|
It is a common opinion among historians that the intellectual climate
of opinion that developed from the Darwinian revolution, occasioned a
man to reinterpret the bible in terms of a single few words of
"natural" law, "the strong should dominate the weak". It is your
delusion that it is only creationists who put the blame to the
darwinist discipline, because as we can all see, you hate creationists
no end.
Again all your response consists of is to just mindlessly assert a few
times words to the effect that science is objective.
Below is what you have approved of as objective science by your
mindless standards of objectivity:
"and as natural selection works by and for the good of each being, each
physical and mental endowment will tend to progress towards perfection"
(C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 12:56:09 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122614361.503101.73780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It is a common opinion among historians that the intellectual climate
of opinion that developed from the Darwinian revolution, occasioned a
man to reinterpret the bible in terms of a single few words of
"natural" law, "the strong should dominate the weak".
Please support this with evidence. Quote a few historians. Scientific
"laws" always say "this happens"; never "this should happen."
It is your
delusion that it is only creationists who put the blame to the
darwinist discipline, because as we can all see, you hate creationists
no end.
Hate the sin; love the sinner. We hate the lying, intellectual dishonesty,
and the political agenda. And of course it is only dishonest creationists
who use the term "darwinist" to describe today's biologists.
Again all your response consists of is to just mindlessly assert a few
times words to the effect that science is objective.
Scientists aren't objective; their discipline through its methods attempts
to be.
Below is what you have approved of as objective science by your
mindless standards of objectivity:
"and as natural selection works by and for the good of each being, each
physical and mental endowment will tend to progress towards perfection"
(C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
Darwin was wrong about many things. (That's why there aren't any modern
day "Darwinists.") This is one of them. Biologists today see natural
selection
as working on populations, not individuals, and they don't recognize it as
progressive or working toward a goal. Stop quotemining and learn some
science.
Deadrat
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 09:11:01 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
....
Below is what you have approved of as objective science by your
mindless standards of objectivity:
"and as natural selection works by and for the good of each being, each
physical and mental endowment will tend to progress towards perfection"
(C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
Darwin was wrong about many things. (That's why there aren't any modern
day "Darwinists.") This is one of them. Biologists today see natural
selection
as working on populations, not individuals, and they don't recognize it as
progressive or working toward a goal. Stop quotemining and learn some
science.
Darwin isn't talking about individuals here, but types of beings; i.e.,
species or subspecific varieties.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 01:26:19 AM |
|
|
Why don't you attempt a little more to correct science so it becomes
objective, seeing that you now demonstrate that you can do it.
Or to turn it around, about what things should you be subjective?
I'm supposing your answer would be decisions of people, including your
own. But you should apply that rule generally, and be subjective
towards all decisionpoints anywhere you may find them.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 06:58:44 PM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2005 23:26:19 -0700, in talk.origins
"nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com" <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1122618379.661819.57250@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Why don't you attempt a little more to correct science so it becomes
objective, seeing that you now demonstrate that you can do it.
You assume a fact not in evidence. Until you provide evidence to support
this claim, we will have to continue to recognize that this is nothing
but libel.
Or to turn it around, about what things should you be subjective?
Once again, without the reference to which you are commenting, your
comment is meaningless.
I'm supposing your answer would be decisions of people, including your
own. But you should apply that rule generally, and be subjective
towards all decisionpoints anywhere you may find them.
Twaddle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 08:36:49 PM |
|
|
The evidence that standard formulation of natural selection is
valueladen is in Ariew''s paper. Shut your eyes and say there is no
evidence.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 12:24:35 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122687409.577393.116410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The evidence that standard formulation of natural selection is
valueladen is in Ariew''s paper. Shut your eyes and say there is no
evidence.
That's right. Ariew is not a biologist. Quote some science.
Deadrat
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 12:19:06 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jul 2005 18:36:49 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
The evidence that standard formulation of natural selection is
valueladen is in Ariew''s paper. Shut your eyes and say there is no
evidence.
And why should anyone care about this paper? Clearly you do, but as you are
attempting to foist a fallacious appeal to consequences on us, I'm sure
you'd pick anything even remotely resembling a paper and claim somehow it
meant something.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 05:11:35 AM |
|
|
Maybe you should email Ariew as well:
----
to: Proffessor Andre Ariew, philosphy of biology, Rhode Island
University
hey *****,
Nobody cares about your paper. You're not even a scientist, so nobody
listens to you. Saying that the standard formulation of natural
selection has a valueladen goal just means that you're full of ***** and
a liar.
sincerely,
AC
----
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 05:01:13 PM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2005 03:11:35 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe you should email Ariew as well:
----
to: Proffessor Andre Ariew, philosphy of biology, Rhode Island
University
hey *****,
Nobody cares about your paper. You're not even a scientist, so nobody
listens to you. Saying that the standard formulation of natural
selection has a valueladen goal just means that you're full of ***** and
a liar.
sincerely,
AC
Or maybe I shouldn't give a damn about someone who is a "philosopher of
biology" (whatever that is) has to say on the subjects of evolution,
methodological naturalism, or the price of tea.
Oh, and I wouldn't compose a letter with "hey *****" anyways. Nice insight
into *your* character, however.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 12:11:16 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndeqiiv.v5h.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
Oh, and I wouldn't compose a letter with "hey *****" anyways.
I prefer 'beeyotch'.
--
Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 11:56:52 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 31 Jul 2005 03:11:35 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe you should email Ariew as well:
----
to: Proffessor Andre Ariew, philosphy of biology, Rhode Island
University
hey *****,
Nobody cares about your paper. You're not even a scientist, so nobody
listens to you. Saying that the standard formulation of natural
selection has a valueladen goal just means that you're full of ***** and
a liar.
sincerely,
AC
Or maybe I shouldn't give a damn about someone who is a "philosopher of
biology" (whatever that is) has to say on the subjects of evolution,
methodological naturalism, or the price of tea.
Oh, and I wouldn't compose a letter with "hey *****" anyways. Nice insight
into *your* character, however.
Or maybe you should not expect that Nando understand philosophy of biology any
better than he understand biology.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 12:08:13 AM |
|
|
You fudge over the valueladen comment in the paper because you have
your own theory about racism being tied to creationist species concept.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 12:28:23 AM |
|
|
*You* can't even describe the importance of the "value-laden" (note
the authors' spelling) comment in their paper, let alone tell us why the
paper makes any contribution to biology at all. And yet you seem
ready to read other people's minds. Go figure.
Deadrat
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122872893.523302.29840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You fudge over the valueladen comment in the paper because you have
your own theory about racism being tied to creationist species concept.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 12:15:17 AM |
|
|
wrote:
You fudge over the valueladen comment in the paper because you have
your own theory about racism being tied to creationist species concept.
Racism?! Where did THAT come from? And I don't know what you mean by
"value-laden comment."
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 08:22:01 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
You fudge over the valueladen comment in the paper because you have
your own theory about racism being tied to creationist species concept.
Racism?! Where did THAT come from? And I don't know what you mean by
"value-laden comment."
I checked with Ariew. He was aghast at the suggestion that "value-laden" here
meant anything moral, of course, as anyone who can *read* would be. Here is
the "offending" passage:
<bq>
IV. SEPARATING EVOLUTIONARY FORCES
Continuing our examination of evolutionary theory as a theory of forces, we
now ask how one should go about decomposing evolutionary force. Here it is
useful to introduce another context in which the notion of component force has
sometimes been used. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin are associated
with the claim that to appeal to natural selection alone as an explanation of
evolutionary change, and to underestimate the other factors, is a
methodological error to which they gave the name “adaptationism.” Footnote
They define this error as the belief that “natural selection [is] so powerful
and the constraints upon it so few that the direct production of adaptation
through its operation becomes the primary cause of nearly all organic form,
function, and behaviour” (256).
For the sake of the present argument, let us restate their critique in terms
appropriate to a theory of force. (At the end of section VII, we’ll consider
another way of stating it.)
Adaptationism_force is the view that natural selection is unopposed, or only
weakly opposed, by other forces of evolution, with the consequence that it
always achieves the optimal result, though in fact it is strongly opposed,
indeed often thwarted, by these other forces, in particular by genetic,
architectural, and developmental constraints.
[[[[This invites the following question in light of item 2 in the
characterization of theories of force in section II: what would happen if
selection were to act by itself? For in order to estimate how much of an
evolutionary outcome should be ascribed to non-selective constraints, and how
much to natural selection, Footnote we need first to appreciate the action of
the latter acting alone. Footnote In the context of the debate about
adaptationism, it is clear that the supposed action of natural selection as a
single factor is construed in terms of optima. The idea is that if natural
selection were to act on its own, it would achieve optima. Evolution does not
always produce optima, however, because natural selection is opposed by
constraints.
But this is an illegitimately teleological way of conceptualizing the action
of natural selection, that is, by specifying a result, and a **value-laden**
one at that. (Of course, the critics of adaptationism would say that their
opponents bear the blame for this. Still, they seek to mitigate the teleology
of their opponents by putting brakes on it. This is not the right move: they
should reject the teleological conception right from the start.) Nor is it
appropriate to conceptualize the “power” of natural selection by specifying an
optimum and asking how many obstacles it is able to overcome in achieving it,
or attempting to calculate the speed with which natural selection would
achieve an optimum acting “by itself.” ]]]] In population genetics, issues of
speed and of overcoming constraint are addressed in the context of an
underlying chromosomal structure; in evolutionary systematics, they are
considered in the context of pre-existing body-plans; in studies of
development, they are posed as questions of heterochrony (changes of
developmental sequences). So in fact, it is not at all clear that any sense
can be made of the idea of natural selection acting as an isolated force, if
this means “without the intrusion of constraints.” (We’ll return to this point
in the next section.) What we have here, therefore, is a violation of the
Newtonian idea that if an effect is to be analysed in terms of two forces
acting together, then a vector value has to be assigned to each acting
independently.
<eq> from
<http://www.philosophy.ubc.ca/faculty/matthen/Two%20Ways%20of%20Thinking%20About%20Natural%20Selection%20.htm>
From Matthen's page: Two Ways of Thinking About Fitness (with Andre Ariew):
Suggests a replacement for the idea that the theory of evolution is a theory
of forces. (This essay appeared in the Journal of Philosophy, 2002.)
The phrase is marked by asterisks. The term "value-laden" appears nowhere else
in that paper (as Nando, had he the brains of a banana slug, would know), and
here it simply means that a teleological approach to conceptualising selection
as a force is dependent upon some apriori assumptions that the end result is
what is best. In short, adaptationism.
Incidentally, in the ms version Ariew sent me (which I presume is the
published version - my library doesn't have a current subscription, for ghod's
sake), the term does *not* appear. In | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
