Philosophy Now Forum

In this thread, let's talk about David Berlinski.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwHzUEWtKq4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnjnIwDkN0o

Who is David Berlinski, and why should we talk about him? What are the links about?

Oh, we'll all love this Bob:

David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American educator and author. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement. - Wikipedia

The Voice of Time wrote:Oh, we'll all love this Bob:

David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American educator and author. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement. - Wikipedia

Critic of evolution. Please, give me a break!!!

Kuznetzova wrote:In this thread, let's talk about David Berlinski.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwHzUEWtKq4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnjnIwDkN0o

Kuznetzova;

I think that David Berlinski is a very interesting man, and I thank you for bringing these videos to my attention.

I find your threads interesting, informative, and always well written and thought provoking. Thank you for sharing.

Gee

Berlinski says things in this interview that are factually false. He then continually makes analogies that are primitive, transparent, and utterly destroyable. I am shocked that the interviewer sits there passively and allows him to make these analogies right in front of him.

I could nearly go sentence-by-sentence in this interview, dispatching each argument in turn. But I would prefer to do that after someone on this forum actually watches them. (I don't mean to get into details right now but..) that he should quote John von Neumann as someone who supports what he is saying, that is breathtakingly asinine.

Well Kuznetzova;

His comments about school and education, at least in the US, were spot-on correct.

His questions regarding evolution and the diversification of species in evolution is something that I also find improbable with regard to "natural selection". But I also find it improbable that the balance that is in all ecosystems is there by "chance", and find it amazing that the "instincts" of all of these different species just happen to match their needs and the needs of the ecosystems that they "happen to" thrive in.

So, although I have no doubt that evolution took place pretty much as Darwin's theory suggests, it seems unlikely that it took place with the motivator that Darwin's theory suggests. So science either needs to clarify this aspect of the theory, or it needs to call itself a "religion" that believes in miracles.

Your threads are always thought provoking.

Gee

Gee wrote:So science either needs to clarify this aspect of the theory, or it needs to call itself a "religion" that believes in miracles.

it's unfortunately a common mistake that people think religious vocabulary makes sense in science. Miracle is not a word in science, except when the mad doctor awakens his frankenstein with a lightning bolt, though you could argue whether the mad doctor's sentence is really a throw of miracle belief or just the fleshing of an exclamation mark.

Gee wrote:But I also find it improbable that the balance that is in all ecosystems is there by "chance", and find it amazing that the "instincts" of all of these different species just happen to match their needs and the needs of the ecosystems that they "happen to" thrive in.

Gee, saying it's improbable that something is balanced by "chance" is like saying it could've been unbalanced. However, when something becomes unbalanced, it is the condition for its deterioration and ceasation to exist. So, the condition for something to exist is that it maintains a balance, that's why flames disappear when oxygen-supply is depraved, and the situation known as "burning" is taken off balance.

The word "balance" in science means the supply of conditions for continuation. The conditions must be met, and as such the conditions, which in turn is the universe spoken about from a specific angle, are the "creators" of situations we name as content of "balance". In other words, the universe and all that is inside it has created itself. As good an explanation as any But really I think the reason for the resistance against any idea other than this one, is that any other idea supposes there exists things which really doesn't make a difference if they exist or not. I mean, it doesn't make a difference to anyone if there is a god and if he created Earth and the Universe or not. In the end, he is useless, and the people who put their faith in him, suspicious, and with great reason, as there have never been a lack of people who will eliminate the capacity to do something about anything by referring to something for which cannot or is very inefficient at being mastered.

God and his concepts might as well be called the "dead end", because it never gets you anywhere but in your head, which can be useful as a psychological stimulus but doesn't change the environment (except as an extended cause for change in psychological mood).

The Voice of Time wrote:

Gee wrote:So science either needs to clarify this aspect of the theory, or it needs to call itself a "religion" that believes in miracles.

it's unfortunately a common mistake that people think religious vocabulary makes sense in science. Miracle is not a word in science

Which would be why I said that it "needs to call itself a "religion".

Gee

The Voice of Time wrote:

Gee wrote:But I also find it improbable that the balance that is in all ecosystems is there by "chance", and find it amazing that the "instincts" of all of these different species just happen to match their needs and the needs of the ecosystems that they "happen to" thrive in.

Gee, saying it's improbable that something is balanced by "chance" is like saying it could've been unbalanced. However, when something becomes unbalanced, it is the condition for its deterioration and ceasation to exist.

Agreed. We have been working very hard to rebalance ecosystems that we have inadvertently unbalanced with regard to forests, underwater reefs, the ozone layer, etc. Nature seems to be very good at balancing her systems and rarely fails. The Dakota Badlands or the Dead Sea might be called failures as they don't seem to support life, but these are rare, if one considers all of the ecosystems on Earth. So you think that nature does this by "chance"?

The Voice of Time wrote: In other words, the universe and all that is inside it has created itself. As good an explanation as any

I like it. Is this part of Darwin's theory? Cause if it is, then I will withdraw my objection.

The Voice of Time wrote: But really I think the reason for the resistance against any idea other than this one, is that any other idea supposes there exists things which really doesn't make a difference if they exist or not. I mean, it doesn't make a difference to anyone if there is a god and if he created Earth and the Universe or not. In the end, he is useless, and the people who put their faith in him, suspicious, and with great reason, as there have never been a lack of people who will eliminate the capacity to do something about anything by referring to something for which cannot or is very inefficient at being mastered.

God and his concepts might as well be called the "dead end", because it never gets you anywhere but in your head, which can be useful as a psychological stimulus but doesn't change the environment (except as an extended cause for change in psychological mood).

I lost you. What does "God" have to do with this?

Gee

God is the best example, that's what he has to do with it. And the criticism that affects him here and creationism in general are applyable to other forms of understanding the universe as created by something else than itself.

If the universe created itself, it wouldn't matter to the universe how it looked like, so it would be "random". However, if you created an exterior personality, that personality might have preferences about how the universe looks like. So, my point being: universe is created by chance, because anything else requires something else than the universe shaping the universe.

That's nice guys, but is anyone interested in specific aspects of the interview with Berlinski?