Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:47 am
Yada, yada, yada from someone who cannot or refuses to answer a couple of simple questions about their beliefs and assertions upon a philosophy forum, troll that doth make you.
Here's some more yada yada for de deaf.
From a philosophical perspective, I was considering a series of questions leading to a question, rather than asking dopey questions of another. Come along for the stroll, if it's not a great imposition on one's time, since any fool can read a book about evolution.
The Theory of Evolution has been used as a basis for understanding the world. Based on the broad vision of the theory that correlates with observable fact, some folks have used the knowledge of organic processes to lessen suffering in the world.
For the lay, of what use is this knowledge other than as an understanding of another’s understanding?
For a daily instance of understanding of another’s understanding, it’s like stepping into an elevator. Someone, namely the licensed elevator inspector, understands elevators. You likely understand little more than how to punch a button, up or down. And if you do understand more, so what, if you aren’t a licensed inspector.
Maybe you know a bit about pulleys and motors and such, shafts and codes to stop only at certain floors, you may even know of tensile strength, but in the overall scope you don’t know like the inspector knows, for he or she or is licensed, for public safety by the community, and immune to influences other than duty.
How does the lay lessen suffering with knowledge of the theory? And, how does the field of philosophy qualify one as a licensed elevator inspector, and if you get the drifting metaphor, is the licensed philosophy inspector fidelius to duty?
For the fact is, unless you directly and personally use the knowledge to lessen suffering in the world, then the theory of evolution has a problem, and that’s folks. Why? Look at early progressivism, Sanger and the gang, and what that has led to, namely, a concept that fewer of the wrong kind of folks is good for the world. Just ask Iceland. In the meantime the population of the world increases. Logically, it will keep on increasing with the right kinds of people, so that there will be less suffering in the world.
How has that worked out since the idea was spawned back in the days of burgeoning science in the applied field of genetics, other than with GMO food, at which many shrink in horror while ignoring other horrors.
When you think about it, the theory of evolution, which is not a scientific law, is merely a golden idol. Unless it is directly being used to ease suffering in the world in the course of daily activities, then it is merely a distraction from what’s going on, like twiddling thumbs in simpler times when there was simply nothing else to do. And to pre-answer pedanticists, eating GMO food doesn’t count as a daily activity.
One might suspect that folks so interested in evoluuution as a conversational pastime might have an interest other than evolution that fills the lungs with the wind of pontification. If one is not a rep for Monsanto, then of what use is the pastime? Is sailing such a course the definition of a troll?
What do you think is going on with the world? If the edifice of civilization that is precariously balanced by the trust of the international, interconnected banking system should tip the wrong direction too fast and too far, like when a fat kid in N. Korea squats on the seesaw, of what use is this knowledge of Darwinism in preventing the tiptation that launches the skinny kid off the seesaw?
