TrueTomHarley

Yes, it is true, but I prefer to let the self-absorbed blustering wanna-be Darrow donkey think that I am writing to him and for him, and allow him to entertain the possibility that I am just making it all up on the fly. Nobody else has a problem with the pebbles he stumbles over.

Shermer gives no data as to what scientists gravitate to what faith. I would imagine the majority go to faiths that have no issue with evolution. My own personal physician, a practicing Catholic, might be one of them. He, after I had asked about how his practice is weathering Covid restrictions, said it has had no impact on his practice, and added (unbidden), “they never should have shut the State down—they didn’t follow the science,” demonstrating once again the increasing reality that “science” is what anyone says it is. Politicians these days take just the opposite approach on the basis of “following the science.” Still, some scientists trickle into Jehovah’s Witnesses. It takes awhile to reach critical mass, but I would imagine that they eventually originate our science material. A lot of brothers seem to think that David Splane, or some brother who got straight A’s in high school science, holes up for a weekend or two and then writes our material, but I think it must be as I wrote in Tom Irregardless and Me: Regardless of venue, the model of seeking intellect on an as-needed basis, works. Dr. Gene Hwang is a professor emeritus at Cornell University. He was, for years, among the most published authorities on statistics. His work provides mathematical support for scientists who study gene function. Dr. Hwang became a Witness in the late 1990’s and associated for a time with the nearby Ithaca Congregation. Although my wife and I visit Ithaca frequently (the terrain is spectacular) I have never met Dr. Hwang. What I write next I’ve just made up. Okay? I don’t want Dr. Hwang approaching me some fine day saying: ‘Why are you telling lies about me?’ The following is mere fiction. But it is historical fiction. It will be parallel to the truth. It will be Mark Twain’s take on history: it doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. For all I know, it is the truth. After many years a Witness, Bethel approaches him: “We’re having a little trouble in our science department,” they say. “We don’t know much about it, but we want to be sure whatever we print is cutting edge. Could you look it over, offer suggestions, and maybe write something yourself?” Today there are two excellent brochures for those who would grapple with questions regarding evolution: ‘The Origin of Life – Five Questions Worth Asking,’ and ‘Was Life Created?’ Not to mention periodic articles in the Watchtower and Awake magazines. That can be done with just a handful of scientists? Yes. Our scientists don’t squabble. They don’t fight turf wars. They’re not the ones who think of their own careers and who scheme to undermine their rivals. Pretentious ones don’t become Witnesses to begin with. The one who declares we must, above all, “not let a Divine Foot in the door,” stays far away from us and doesn’t muddy the waters. Our scientists are humble and honest hearted, if few. They know how to bring their gift to the altar so that God’s organization is up to speed in an area hardly its line of expertise. By the way, what kind of a teacher is Gene Hwang? He gets up and down ratings at ratemyprofessors.com, but the one that sticks is: “Although he has a very thick accent, he genuinely likes teaching (a rarity at Cornell) and cares about his students. He makes sure that everyone understands the material.” It’s a description so typical of Jehovah’s Witnesses: he ‘genuinely likes teaching’ and he ‘cares about’ people – a rarity among professors so caught up in their research that students are a distracting nuisance to them. If Dr. Hwang gets any bad ratings, they can be chalked up to ratemyprofessor.com’s bad rep among professors: lazy students have equal say with industrious ones; the only way to appease the former is to award easy A’s. Nonetheless, even those who had trouble with his accent, found him, to the person, a decent human being – again, entirely typical of the faith he represents. Another thing I found myself largely agreeing (but for one important caveat) with Michael Shermer about was his end-of-lecture contention that there need be no conflict between religion and belief in God; just adjust your mindset, if you are a believer, as to how He brought life and you are home free. It won’t work for Witnesses, who realize the ransom sacrifice is key to alleviating suffering, and also that that sacrifice becomes meaningless in the absence of an Adam. But it will work for many church traditions where that truth was long ago discarded for gobbledygook about the trinity. The trinity makes the ransom of Christ as meaningless as does the evolution theory, so why not just cut out the middleman idea? Makes sense to me. If your sole objection is that “The Bible says what it means and means what it says,” well—I’m not willing to die on that hill. I’ll concede that perhaps symbolism or metaphor is at work somewhere. However, I do believe in the ransom sacrifice of Christ and all the elucidation that stems from it, so I do have to die on it, hopefully not literally. I’d even be willing to entertain a combining of the two ideas, as though that evolution produces hominids to the point where God says, “Okay, this one is Adam.” But there are all sorts of things that don’t fit here, so someone else will have to hash it out, maybe JWI on a subsequent thread. Or maybe Kos can squeeze it in between interpretations of prophesy, once he finishes discerning any possible connection with “standing where one ought not in the holy place” with rioters invading the Capitol.

It is a little bit like—in fact, it’s exactly like—what is now done in teaching the Bible to those of non-Christian background. One drawback of the Live Forever book and the Truth book before it was that they assumed people were indoctrinated with church teachings. But as the ministry increased outside of the West, the situation more and more became a matter of teaching church doctrines to people who had never believed (or knew) them in the first place just so as to tell them to forget them—they’re wrong. Why teach them in the first place? Present study material does not teach them. It deals with them in supplemental or appendix form if students have an issue with them, but otherwise lets them slide.

Why does he do this? After declaring ad hominem attacks off limits, he does nothing but engage in them throughout his lecture series. It would not be apparent in transcript form, but it audio it is pronounced. Each time he quotes an advocate of creation, or “pseudoscience” or “conspiracy theory” or—in short, anyone he disagrees with, he lowers his tone to convey paranoia or lunacy. It is better to vow not than vow and not pay. I would never swear off ad hominem attacks. Although I agree with his rationale to ‘attack the faulty idea, not the faulty person,” some people have such disagreeable ad hominems that you almost can’t help but call them out on it. In fact on matters of philosophy, psychology, or behavioral science, is an ad hominem attack not directly relevant? If the ideas they peddle were any good, wouldn’t they have done more for them personally? So I haven’t ruled them out. But he has. That’s way it is so blatant when he continually indulges the temptation them through inflection.

What to do with the Education chapter of Dear Mr Putin? It’s such a mess. Far too undisciplined. Just because comments look good in one setting doesn’t mean they are freely transferable. Put it on the back burner for a time? It may benefit from some new gleanings from the #michaelshermer Great Courses lectures on skepticism.

Not to worry. Elon Musk tried to recruit me for an alien search space expedition. “I’ve got preaching to do,” I told him. “I can’t blow my time on that nonsense.”

Notwithstanding quirks as Michael Shermer’s forsaking his own ad hominem attack ban to indicate by voice intonation that those who oppose him are nuts, I overall appreciated very much his Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist. I learned a lot as to how they think and I came to find I agreed with Shermer in many things. Alas, skepticism, when it becomes a movement, is like all new trends of the world. What might work if it was to try to integrate itself into the overall pattern rather than take over fails when in opts for the later goal. Overall, a measure of skepticism is a good thing. But it is also covered by verses such as ‘does not the palate test out words?’ ‘a fool believes every word, but the wise one considers his steps,’ and so forth. When skepticism imagines itself the be-all and end-all, then what could be beneficial becomes a way to stifle discovery. It throws the baby out with the bathwater in its presumption to be THE answer to life. It reminds me of my friend Bud, who fixed many a clunker for me back in the day. An old-school mechanic, he was disdainful of the then newfangled electronic diagnosis methods. He told me of the younger guys of the shop stymied when such methods told them there was nothing wrong with a certain car. “Well,there must be something wrong with it,” he said, “It doesn’t run.” Shermer’s lecture of evolution vs creationism was fascinating as it laid out four distinct battles (in the U.S) of the “war:” the Scopes trial of 1925, the later battle that Genesis be given equal time with evolution, the next battle to declare creation a science, and give it equal time on that basis, and finally the stage of “intelligent creation,” which makes no mention of religion at all (but whose proponents almost always believe in the God of Abraham, Shermer says, no doubt in violation of another one of his rules of thinking that one’s religion is relevant to the merits of whatever ideas he brings to the table). I agree with Shermer that “creation science” is not science, and said it here on JWI’s 607 thread: “It’s not, and we shouldn’t argue that it is. That does not mean that it is not reasonable. It is eminently reasonable, and the fact that science has not endorsed it says more about the limitations of science than it does about creation. Furthermore, whatever Shermer may do in his private capacity, in his public capacity as Great Courses lecturer, he acknowledges that there are some places that science is not equipped to go, and therefore he passes no judgment on those places. What we should be arguing is not that our beliefs are scientific, but that science is a flawed system for measuring existence. In some areas it works pretty well; in others it comes up empty handed. When it attempts to encroach on what Shermer says it is not equipped to encroach, it becomes an overall obstacle to gaining insight and @Araunais right—it becomes a false god and those who follow it where it has no authority become it’s “clergy.” Shermer’s contention that creation science is not science, upheld by the U.S Supreme Court in 1987, gives me renewed respect and some insight into the reasoning of the WTS, who at least since that time have not said that it is. Instead, we have become accustomed to reading such things as “the Bible is not a book of science, but it is in harmony with true science.” Materialists will choke at this phrasing, for they assume that ALL science is true, and if it is not there is no other way to correct the problem than a further advance of science. But the WT’s phrasing is in accord with the truth that not everything is examined physically; some things are examined spiritually, and when science encroaches on that field where it has but clumsy and inapplicable tools, it is apt to come up with something other than “true science.” I’ve previously coined a category of materialists with the acronym SPCA—“science/philosophers/cheerleader/atheists.” These are not the same as scientists though there is overlap. Scientists just go about doing science. Michael Shermer acknowledges that many scientists believe in God, no doubt because they sense there are limitations to science. But SPCAs assume human science is all there is and ram it down everyone’s throat as the be-all and end-all. It is also worth noting that the Bible never speaks of proving faith in a scientific way. Instead it speaks of “taste and see that Jehovah is good.” Can you really prove that something tastes good? Plainly it is subjective. It will appeal to some hearts and not others.

Why you think they should strive to capture the nuances of what both you and they think is faulty is beyond me. They’ll live.

Did you know?... 92% of the world’s atheist evolutionists play drums. But they will only do Also Sprach Zarathustra

The return on His Odiousness. After a two day absence, I was getting worried. The secret to any good Western is to have a villain, and in Alan one finds a villain to make The Magnificent Seven look like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir

I can life with the thought that they could, other areas in which the Creator planted life. What of the verses that such-and-such is being played out before all creation? Possibly that is relatively speaking, just as “in all the inhabited earth” can mean all the earth they knew about at the time. It is speculation of no practical significance. If we ever did contact any aliens, they would say, “Mind your own business! Straighten up your own act before you try to export your plague-like thinking elsewhere!”

What are the names of this Witness and forum?

JWI: Two questions. Does this heady stuff of yours offer me any way to slam God’s organization without doing any work? If so, how?

After he (Alan) sends the mathematicians out to the pasture, not wishing to deal with their evidence that squelches his theorizing, and (Shermer) lets them remain there, he (Shermer) brings them back when it suits his purpose to do so. Regarding SETI (search for extraterrestrial life) he declares that at present the verdict is “unambiguously ambiguous.” He should say the verdict is that there is no life outside earth, for elsewhere he makes a big show of how science should say, “This is what we know about such-and-such at present.” Well, at present, we “know” that there is no extraterrestrial life. Shermer acknowledges not a trace of it has been found. Yet why does he waffle on the verdict, saying that the evidence is ambiguous? Because of the mathematicians that he previously vanquished! This time their probability comes in handy, and he relies upon “What are the odds, what with all the galaxies, and all the stars, and all the planets, and all the planets at just the right temperature, that life has not evolved there as it does here?” The mathematicians may inwardly grumble that, “Well, you didn’t listen to us in the first case, why are you listening to us now?” but if so, they don’t say it. They are glad to be readmitted into the heady club.

When I mentioned to Alan that various mathematicians had ruled anything other than micro evolution undoable based on probability alone, he responded: “LOL! Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists...” Of course! The masters of that joined-at-the-hip branch of science, mathematicians, calculate all that is involved and declare the odds against it happening greater than all the atoms in the universe! Freed from this inconvenient truth, the evolution proponent continue merrily to build their castles in the sky. You would think that if you demonstrate one position is impossible, that would mean that the competing position must be true. If your car keys are not in your purse, after you have turned it inside out and searched every square millimeter of it, they just might be in your ignition. This obvious logic doesn’t wash with evolutionists. This is due to the ballyhooed “fallacy of negation,” which uncovers for them that if you discredit one position, the observer is not forced to accept the other. The “fallacy of negation” is not rejected when it is in the evolutionist’s interests to embrace it, however. For example, on the other thread, notice how Alan maintains that not even finding the “poop” of the wandering Israelites means that they were not there and did not wander. The rules of science that Shermer outlines have a number of “heads I win, tails you lose” aspects to them. He doesn’t put it that way of course, but he does concede that “science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations of observations. Without passing judgement on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith.” (quoted from the amicus brief to the 1987 Supreme Court) He does not go on to say (as Alan would) that because their consideration is left to “the domain of religious faith,” that means they are BS. Possibly he does not even think that, since he points out that many scientists believe in God, and he does not say (as Alan would) that they are deluded fools. One of the “heads I win, tails you lose” components of science, with regard to the above mentioned “fallacy of negation” that can be suspended when it is in their interests to do so, is the stipulation that “a new theory needs evidence in favor of it, not just against the opposition.” Coupled with the above statement that science is not equipped to examine supernatural explanations, it means advocates of creation will never catch a break in their court. Shermer appears modest enough (unlike Alan) to recognize this, as he reiterates that the inability of science to evaluate spirituality means no opinion is rendered as to the “truth of falsity” of spiritual [supernatural] matters. It is a drawback of his system, and he seems to know it. He doesn’t condemn what he can’t measure. He is like the mechanic that shows up with a toolbox of wrenches, only to find that a screwdriver is needed, upon which he says “Sorry, I can’t fix the car.” Then his assistant Alan shows up with his toolbox also equipped with only wrenches. Upon learning that a screwdriver is needed, he declares screwdrivers are only the imaginary tools of superstitious morons.

OMG! What a mess Chapter 7 (Education) is. Good for maybe the first 10 paragraphs, then it veers everywhere, with waaaayyyy too much snark punctuating the solid material. I’m not sure any snark belongs there at all. Major overhaul ahead.

Of course! This will be on your grave marker. It is like the cute story of when my 5-year-old walked away from the door and said, “Why did that lady say there is too much of me?” What she had actually said was, “You’re too much!” But in your case, the 5-year-old’s reasoning is spot-on, proving that wisdom comes from the mouths of babes: There is too much of you.

It is impossible that a master taunter as yourself would not understand, knowing your political views, why I would refer to you as a “Proud Boy.” I want to see another Donald Duck explosion. Don’t let me down on this. You never have. Don’t start now. I even entertain the theory that @JW Insiderkisses up to you (not to say that he does agree with your core chronology) more than he would otherwise simply because if he does not you will launch into such a tantrum of insults that you will screw up his thread that he has worked so hard to keep exclusively devoted to his topic of interest. I’m not completely sold on my theory, in fact I don’t know that I believe it at all, but it is still worth making the point to underscore how impossible it is to deal with someone of higher than average IQ coupled with the EQ of an infant.

so says our own resident Proud Boy, whose primary skills are emitting insults and taunts

‪I estimated a word reduction of Chapter 6 (Statecraft) of 50%. In fact it is even more, 52%, 11400 words is reduced to 5460. Far too rambling previously. Tightening it up.

They tend to. It is like what Max Planck wrote: “ “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Michael Shermer, the well-known skeptic, quotes Max on this—he is aware of it, and he seems to think it a mere tendency that can be averted by simply taking in more knowledge. (just like the crafter of Alan’s DK video thinks that taking in more knowledge is the cure to Dunning Kruger effect, rather than the far more effective ‘taking in more humility.’) It is all intellectual with these characters. They so easily blind themselves to the corrosive effect of ego and money. Though to be fair, one can also read too much into the “all things written beforehand were for our instruction” that we may never do as they did. When the errors of Peter or Moses are illustrated with the notion that ‘now that we have reviewed their mistakes, we will not make the same,’ I say, “What—are you kidding me? We’re going to outshine Moses or Peter? Of course we’ll make the same.” I don’t think this latter part is fair, that they “do not have any respect for the truth.” What I think happens is that they have constructed a system in which new truths are nearly impossible to reach them unless they build upon old truths, after which they may tweak them a little bit. Despite comparisons to how scientists threw over the earth-centered view of the solar system for the sun-centered, revisions of that magnitude simply cannot happen today. Shermer’s quite proud of this, how science is structured so as to not be easily overturned by upstart ideas—it keeps out the “pseudoscience,” he maintains. That it does, but it also keeps out genuine challenges to “real” science. When push comes to shove, science is no more immune than anyone else to a horror of thinking that maybe certain foundational stones of what it is built might be off. They circle the wagons when ideas are substantially challenged no less than anyone else. They are as prone to resist new thinking as is anyone else. They are too proud of the structure they have built, and have built it too rigid to consider fundamentally challenging ideas.

What do you mean “waste of time?” Short of being crucified, there is no better way to test ability to keep oneself “restrained under evil.”

In other words, they are whatever you want them to be. Your video says just the opposite.

If you’d give a little bit more attention to you adhominem, it wouldn’t happen. Low information people are prone to overestimate their command of a subject? Is that really such a profound observation so as to wait for Dunning and Kruger to give it academic endorsement? Just read up on the “fool” in the Bible and you will pick up the same. Nor does ad hominem have much to do with Dunning Kruger. If it did, you would be in the corner wearing a DunningK cap that could be seen from Mars. If you could come out of yourself for five minutes, you would realize that I display the very opposite of Dunning Kruger on this forum. Per the DK definition, I should be expected to try to dominate that endlessly long 607 discussion, overestimating my ability, and thereby displaying my ignorance. Instead, I’m aware that I don’t know much about the subject, and so I sit it out. So while DK might be a notion worthy of a pamphlet, it has little application here. You just seize upon it because you think it makes a good insult.

Of course, Dunning Kruger can work as you say but it can also work in the following way (per Wikipedia): Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool. Finally, the weavers report that the emperor's suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that Emperor Alan is wearing nothing at all! Emperor Alan then sneers at the stupid little tyke, too stupid to know he is stupid, and laughs at his Dunning Kruger limitations. I think that is the application that more readily applies here, don’t you?