JayL Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Now that Nazism and communism have fallen, these atheist guys love to point out 'bad sciences' they practiced. When those regimes were strong, the same guys have thoroughly admired the scientific managements of their society unaffected by religions. Yeah. Right. The thing is that the governments were not more "sciency" than any other regime. In what sense do you mean that nazism and communism were scientifically based? And how come scientists fled to America away from those countries if they were so "sciency"? Scientists did not flee to USA because they were scientists. They fled because they were Jews. ( Or in cases of non Jews like Fermi, they hated fascism. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Hey look! It's another Christian poster who comes across as condescending, insufferable, lies about their credentials, has no grasp of rudimentary history, routinely ignores points directed at them, and can't even use basic grammar. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Scientists did not flee to USA because they were scientists. They fled because they were Jews. ( Or in cases of non Jews like Fermi, they hated fascism. ) Sure. That's true. Have you seen this book? http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1559705647 Before Hitler's rise to power, Germany outstripped the rest of the world in its scientific achievements. Between 1901 and 1932, German scientists won one-third of all Nobel science prizes; from 1933 to 1960, however, Germany won only eight of these prizes. Medawar, the widow of renowned immunologist Peter Medawar, and British physician Pyke collaborate to narrate an engrossing story of how England and the United States benefited from Hitler's expulsion of Germany's leading scientists. The authors observe that at least 20% of these biologists, physicists and chemists were dismissed from their university posts because they were Jews. Others left the country because of their opposition to Hitler and his regime. In Britain, scholars such as historian G.M. Trevelyan, biochemist Frederick Gowland Hopkins, and geneticist J.B.S. Haldane formed the Academic Assistance Council to help relocate and support displaced German scientists, among them physicist Erwin Schr”dinger, who originated the theory of wave mechanics; and biologist Hans Krebs, the father of the famous Krebs Cycle, which describes the oxidation of carbohydrates into energy. German refugee scientists who won acclaim in the United States include Einstein; Edward Teller, the "father of the H-bomb"; and Enrico Fermi, who split the atom. Medawar and Pyke point out that several scientists remained in Germany, most notably Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, in an attempt to preserve German science in its pre-Hitler expressions. Yet the authors refrain from casting moral aspersions on those who stayed or on those German academics who apparently did not help their Jewish colleagues. This engaging story of the demise of science in Hitler's Germany and the subsequent rise of science in England and the United States compellingly chronicles a little-considered aspect of WWII history. In other words, "science" wasn't Hitler's strong suite. He picked racism over science and lost science because of it. Soviet picked statism and stalinism over science, and lost science as a result. USA picked science over racism and ideology, and won science. "If the dismissal of Jewish scientists means the annihilation of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science for a few years!" -Adolf Hitler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Hey look! It's another Christian poster who comes across as condescending, insufferable, lies about their credentials, has no grasp of rudimentary history, routinely ignores points directed at them, and can't even use basic grammar. Amazing. When truth hurts, one can always resort to ad hominem attacks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 In other words, "science" wasn't Hitler's strong suite. He picked racism over science and lost science because of it. Soviet picked statism and stalinism over science, and lost science as a result. USA picked science over racism and ideology, and won science. Racial theory in Nazi Germany developed out of academia as a scientific subject. Soviet Union's highest civilian honors usually went to scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 When truth hurts, one can always resort to ad hominem attacks.... Oh obvious troll, you have disarmed me! I haven't seen you demonstrate how communist Russia and Nazi Germany were "scientific" as you described them. Both societies valued science as a means to an end (and those ends were usually greed and politics), but you trying to say they failed because they were based on "scientific principles" is...well, interesting to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 In other words, "science" wasn't Hitler's strong suite. He picked racism over science and lost science because of it. Soviet picked statism and stalinism over science, and lost science as a result. USA picked science over racism and ideology, and won science. Racial theory in Nazi Germany developed out of academia as a scientific subject. Soviet Union's highest civilian honors usually went to scientists. Racial theory though had history in the 17th and 18th century even Thomas Jefferson in some correspondence at least considered it. So your dishonest if your going to say the Third Reich invented scientific racism. The Soviet Unions highest honours went to sciences for more economic reasons they anything. They were trying to catch up to the west in a few decades, what took the west 200 if not more. So it makes sense they pushed things like math, science and engineering hard. Because that is what they needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Racial theory in Nazi Germany developed out of academia as a scientific subject. Soviet Union's highest civilian honors usually went to scientists. "If the dismissal of Jewish scientists means the annihilation of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science for a few years!" -Adolf Hitler Says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 ( Marxian dialectical materialism ) Also, Dialectical Materialism is primarily a philosophical school of thought. When applied to scientific fields like Biology, Stephen Jay Gould said it best, "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded because some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 "During the 1930s and the 1950s, Stalin replaced Lenin’s intelligentsia with a "communist" intelligentsia, loyal to him and with a specifically Soviet world view, thereby producing the most egregious examples of Soviet anti-intellectualism — the pseudoscientific theories of Lysenkoism and Japhetic theory, most damaging to biology and linguistics in that country, by subordinating science to a dogmatic interpretation of Marxism." (http://en.wikipedia....sm#Soviet_Union) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 ( Marxian dialectical materialism ) Also, Dialectical Materialism is primarily a philosophical school of thought. When applied to scientific fields like Biology, Stephen Jay Gould said it best, "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded because some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine." It is also used in some schools of historical studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 "During the 1930s and the 1950s, Stalin replaced Lenin’s intelligentsia with a "communist" intelligentsia, loyal to him and with a specifically Soviet world view, thereby producing the most egregious examples of Soviet anti-intellectualism — the pseudoscientific theories of Lysenkoism and Japhetic theory, most damaging to biology and linguistics in that country, by subordinating science to a dogmatic interpretation of Marxism." (http://en.wikipedia....sm#Soviet_Union) I was hoping Jay would know that, but I have started to doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 "During the 1930s and the 1950s, Stalin replaced Lenin’s intelligentsia with a "communist" intelligentsia, loyal to him and with a specifically Soviet world view, thereby producing the most egregious examples of Soviet anti-intellectualism — the pseudoscientific theories of Lysenkoism and Japhetic theory, most damaging to biology and linguistics in that country, by subordinating science to a dogmatic interpretation of Marxism." (http://en.wikipedia....sm#Soviet_Union) Good point. Many members of the intellectual community were shipped off to the Gulags, especially during The Great Purge. So I guess Academic Science was only held in high regard when you toed the political line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I was hoping Jay would know that, but I have started to doubt it. Jay's problem is that he's conflating "science" with "ideology." Science is a method to reach answers, and unfortunately, it doesn't always give the right answers. Ideology is the power behind politics. When ideology and science conflicts, ideology tends to lead governments. Good point. Many members of the intellectual community were shipped off to the Gulags, especially during The Great Purge. So I guess Academic Science was only held in high regard when you toed the political line. Like all regimes, only when science fits the end game is it approved. What gave America the power to rise above other countries in technology and economy? It wasn't the Pentecostal church or some Christian college, but science, engineering, and a government that allowed people to capitalize on inventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 *savors the moment adding the morontheist to his ignore list, not having done that for quite some time* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Besides making elementary mistakes in spelling and grammar, if you really were college-level smart, you'd have understood that raising the subject of Chaos Theory with End was pointless. You'd have noticed that he's got a strong anti-science bias. You'd have noticed that he wrongly thinks a lot of people treat science as a religious belief system and so they blindly put their 'faith' in it. You'd have noticed that he made a fundamental error in his opening message (which Thuriasz and Ouroboros picked him up on) about the predictability of sub-atomic particles. BAA. You are mistaken, my non-scientific friend. Behaviors of sub atomic particles are quite predictable under quantum mechanics. QED is the most accurately verified scientific theory out there!!! You are mistakenly conflating the accurate verification of QED with it's ability to accurately predict the behavior of sub-atomic particles. One is not the other. As a so-called trained physicist, you should know that Jay. So, now I'll call your bluff. Please cite the relevant scientific papers that demonstrate how it is possible to accurately predict the behavior of sub-atomic particles. Specifically, how the position and momentum of a particle can be simultaneously measured. Go for it! Now compare that with the weather science! Do you mean Meterorology? Why not call a branch of science by it's proper name, college boy? Or people trying to predict the stock market!! To address END's original point correctly, you have to bring up Chaos theory ( because he is asking predictability in between macro and micro scale. ) W -H -O -O -S -H ! That was the sound of the point in my earlier message going completely over Jay's head. Looks like you didn't get it. Oh dear! Please go back and re-read what I wrote and see if you can fathom it out. But of course, none of people on this board had any idea because you guys are all science READERS... Better a truthful science READER who never made it college, than LIAR who pretends that he did. Ok, now it is time to run to Wikipedia to educate yourself, BAA. (Congats on spelling the long word correctly this time, Jay!) p.s. If you want some help fixing the grammatical errors in your post Jay, just ask. Ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Oooooh! You're in luck Jay. I've got some travelling to do and won't be back online here until about Sunday 20th. That'll give you plenty of time to get your sh*t together and present those citations, to work out what I actually meant in my earlier message and to improve your grammar. Byeeeeee! BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Oooooh! You're in luck Jay. I've got some travelling to do and won't be back online here until about Sunday 20th. That'll give you plenty of time to get your sh*t together and present those citations, to work out what I actually meant in my earlier message and to improve your grammar. Byeeeeee! BAA. Whenever I talk about science, you seemed to prefer focusing on spelling and grammar. When you have something interesting to say in science - from your head, not copied from Wikipedia - you can always come back here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Or people trying to predict the stock market!! To address END's original point correctly, you have to bring up Chaos theory ( because he is asking predictability in between macro and micro scale. ) W -H -O -O -S -H ! That was the sound of the point in my earlier message going completely over Jay's head. Looks like you didn't get it. Oh dear! Please go back and re-read what I wrote and see if you can fathom it out. You did not have any point to add!! The fact is you guys could not address end3's question correctly because you do not what the heck Chaos theory is. Ok, now you know, thanks to Wikipedia. You can thank me for some science education, Bad Ass Atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 So, now I'll call your bluff. Please cite the relevant scientific papers that demonstrate how it is possible to accurately predict the behavior of sub-atomic particles. Specifically, how the position and momentum of a particle can be simultaneously measured. Go for it! The boy knows about the Uncertainty Principle!! Oh, that is so sweet.... Which book did you read from, BAA? 'The Amazing World of Atoms'?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Hey look! It's another Christian poster who comes across as condescending, insufferable, lies about their credentials, has no grasp of rudimentary history, routinely ignores points directed at them, and can't even use basic grammar. Amazing. When truth hurts, one can always resort to ad hominem attacks.... Um, wow. LOOK WHO'S TALKING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Hey look! It's another Christian poster who comes across as condescending, insufferable, lies about their credentials, has no grasp of rudimentary history, routinely ignores points directed at them, and can't even use basic grammar. Amazing. When truth hurts, one can always resort to ad hominem attacks.... Um, wow. LOOK WHO'S TALKING. Hey, I like Bad Ass Atheist. He is a very smart guy. I was just being sarcastic to get under his skin. Yes, it is unchristian of me to annoy him. I have to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriptor Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 You are mistaken, my non-scientific friend. Behaviors of sub atomic particles are quite predictable under quantum mechanics. QED is the most accurately verified scientific theory out there!!! Now compare that with the weather science! Or people trying to predict the stock market!! To address END's original point correctly, you have to bring up Chaos theory ( because he is asking predictability in between macro and micro scale. ) But of course, none of people on this board had any idea because you guys are all science READERS... Ok, now it is time to run to Wikipedia to educate yourself, BAA. Jay, just a word of advice. You are coming off as arrogant and condescending. You have no idea what the academic backgrounds of the posters on this board are. Granted, BAA has not studied physics at the college level, and he readily admits this. But this does not make him stupid or "non-scientific", and neither does it make him wrong. Furthermore, constantly referring to your own (unverified) academic credentials does not make you sound smarter. Exercise some humility. "For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." (Luke 14:11) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts