co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Friday, January 25, 2019
Suspecting Soviet Imperialism ...
Why Isn’t Intelligent Design Science?
Tomorrow's World Viewpoint | 3.V.2017
4:59 In a sociological sense, I find this ideological bigotry very scientific ... that is, very typical of today's scientific community.
I don't find it a very philosophical criterium for excluding ID, though.
But along with the "why" comes a "when"?
To Newton and to Riccioli alike, ascribing actions to God (and angels, in Riccioli's case) was clearly not unscientific.
Newton was asked what would happen if the gravitations of orbits came in an imbalance and answered God would set them on balance again.
To Riccioli, angels moving (under God's orders) celestial bodies through the void was the celestial mechanics he found astronomically correct (while admitting he could not empirically exclude 1) God doing it Himself, 2) God creating them with automatic tendencies, like Kepler's magnetism, by extension Newton's gravitation, 3) celestial bodies being alive and moving).
Yet no one doubts Newton was a great physicist and Riccioli a great astronomer.
So, this rule "no supernatural causation allowed" is as absent from them as the offside rule to Medieval football.
B U T with the offside rule, we have public acts by football associations and similar stating when they introduced it.
"Offside is one of the laws of association football, codified in Law 11 of the Laws of the Game."
Now, "The extant Laws date back to 1863 where a ruleset was formally adopted by the newly formed Football Association." and "Some notable differences between the 1863 laws and the modern game are listed below: ... There was a strict offside rule, under which any player ahead of the kicker was in an offside position (similar to today's offside rule in rugby union). The only exception was when the ball was kicked from behind the goal line."
In other words, we can date the offside rule (in a stricter form than today) to the 1863 Laws of the Game by the then Football Association.
Would anyone mind trying to trace "no supernatural causation allowed" to when that became the rule of any scientific institution at all, and if so, which one?
I have a suspicion we are dealing with some kind of Sovietic imperialism within the scientific community (similarily the inadequate Miller Urey experiments are in response to an even less adequate theory by the Soviet scientist Oparin).
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 1:34 AM
Labels: Tomorrow's World Viewpoint
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment