Print Story Is anyone interested in how the Nietzschean argument plays out?
Diary
By lm (Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:35:44 AM EST) (all tags)
The Christian Problem? Perhaps a better title would be the Problem of SOME Atheists Setting a Double Standard. Or, best yet, The Problem with Humans.

Some thoughts on this and other things. Do not expect coherence. I've been busy off and on puking my guts out.



Some people might read my comments in the article I linked to and think that I'm engaged in tauroscatologizing. I'm not. You, see in order to be engaged in tauroscatologizing, one needs to have no concern for the truth. And I do have a very high regard for the truth. What I was doing in my comments in that article was assuming that strict materialism was indeed the case and to see if that assumption got me to the same point where it got the author of the article. Well, it didn't. It did, however, finally bring me to really understand the position of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Or at least I think it did. If you want to comment on this particular issue, please do it over there rather than in this diary.

My fever is gone for good it seems. I'm still coughing. And today my head began filling with snot. I've had so much drainage into my stomach that I've begun throwing up. Or at least I'm assuming that this is why I'm throwing up. My stomach doesn't hurt. I don't feel nausea. Sometimes, I just need to hurry to the throne room and make a few prostrations to the Porcelain Queen. I don't know why that is.

Discover magazine has more than a few great articles in the April issue. (I'd link, but even though I've received the April issue in the mail, it isn't up on their website yet.) The first was on one of my favorite topics, making oil out of rendering plant remains. The only large scale factory that does this in the US has a cost of about $100 per barrel. But that barrel is not of crude, it is of oil of sufficient grade to be consumed by power utilities with no further processing. Once oil starts to take off again, technologies like this will flourish.

The other article that intrigued me was the profile of Mary Schweitzer, the scientist currently almost single-handedly creating the field of molecular-paleobiology. She made the news around the world when she first discovered organic material inside the fossilized bones of a T. rex. A devout Evangelical Christian, She instantly got hit with insults galore from both scientists and fundamentalists. From the scientist side came charges that she was a fraud and that her discoveries were not scientifically possible and were a product of her faith-based imagination. From the fundamentalist side came the charge that she was going to burn in hell unless she recanted her belief in evolution. But her finds are amazing. She's soaked some fossil bones in dilute acid which dissolves the fossils and leaves only organics behind, what looks like a network of portions of blood vessels, still in an organic state. Good stuff. The next step is to extract DNA and make a bunch of baby T. Rexes, no?

I need to get the show on the road. Despite the mucus and phlegm, I've got a road trip to make to work on Ye Olde House of Doom.

And a letter to write.

< Say what you like, just spell my name right ... | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Is anyone interested in how the Nietzschean argument plays out? | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Dude, by blixco (4.00 / 2) #1 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 11:04:13 AM EST
I dig everything you write, regardless of how fever-crazy you are.  Watching you over the years develop and hone your sense of self vs. spirit (or maybe not vs.) has been really pretty amazing.

In re: baby T Rex, I totally want one.  Can we breed miniature T Rexii?  A toy T Rex?  Make little sweaters for them?  Little hats?

Hell yeah.  Technology kicks ass.
---------------------------------
Taken out of context I must seem so strange - Ani DiFranco


I think what you'd end up with by Rogerborg (4.00 / 2) #2 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 12:21:34 PM EST
Is a bunch of baby Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.

I would comment over at Ko5, but for some reason they don't seem to appreciate having the hive mind prodded with a stick.  It's almost as though you're either with them, or with the Terrorists Republicans.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.


tauroscatologizing? by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #3 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 01:46:25 PM EST
Wow. That stumped me for a moment till I broke it down.

Nice word. I'll have to think of a way to drop it into conversation.

To my mind, there's no point in arguing with atheists, fundamentalists or any other kind of ists - people rationalize their beliefs and become arrogant and defensive when those beliefs are challenged.

Until we can figure out how to rid humanity of the tribalism that underpins everything we do, there's just no point.




I would love to take credit for that word by lm (2.00 / 0) #8 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:19:46 PM EST
But when I first found out about Dr. Frankfurt's new book on the topic and searched the internet, this site is one of the few that actually had copies of the article as published in years gone by.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Schweitzer by Gully Foyle (4.00 / 1) #4 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 02:05:52 PM EST
Last I heard, the criticism from the science side was that she'd claimed to have recovered original organic material when the evidence for that was inconclusive. As far as I know it's still inconclusive. The pliable stuff certainly isn't mineralised per se (since it didn't dissolve during the extraction process), but it's not necessarily the original material either.

Also, cells dissolve themselves pretty well on death so, even if these actually are preserved cell membranes, there won't be any dna inside...



I don't mind valid criticism by lm (2.00 / 0) #7 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:16:22 PM EST
The article in Discover brought up a good deal of that. What I'm talking about is the criticism that she's saying this simply because she's a Christian. Bulverism doesn't become science. Then there the scientific version of fundamentalists represented in this anecdote:

``I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said `Well, what data would convince you?' And he said, `None.'''


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

I guess I'd need to read the article. by Gully Foyle (2.00 / 0) #16 Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 06:43:55 AM EST
In all the to-do over this last year I never saw the Bulverist argument being made without the real objection being made first. Something like a fleshed out version of: "Her argument is flawed for these reasons so there's no grounds to insist that this is the original organic material, I suspect that she's making this claim/convinced herself because she's a fundie". The second clause by itself would be what you're objecting to, but with the first clause in place, it isn't.

Seems like kind of a weirdo argument to make anyway. The only way her Xianity would have any bearing on this was if she was a closet creationist, and I haven't seen anyone accuse her of that.

Nice word choice by the way. I hadn't heard of Bulverism before, and Lewis' essay introducing it was interesting. Of course, he was an anti-Bulverist, so what did he know?

[ Parent ]

i'm not going to directly comment on the issue by gzt (2.00 / 0) #5 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 03:42:06 PM EST
...so i'll comment here. i've been reading descartes lately and i particularly agree with your reading of the effects of cogito.

i hope you get well soon.



What part of the Cartesian corpus are you reading? by lm (2.00 / 0) #10 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:33:54 PM EST
My favorite is the Discourse on Method, which, I believe is the key to understanding the rest of Descartes' writing. It is also, I believe, the key to understanding modern society. The US of A, as but one example, was (in part) created by Masons as a grand Cartesian experiment.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

both method and meditations. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #13 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:49:38 PM EST
and i agree. i mean, i had seen this before and read both before, but now it seems that much clearer. pity he was such a horrible scientist.

[ Parent ]

dear mr lm sir by nathan (4.00 / 2) #6 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 08:14:12 PM EST
This is a love letter to your rhetoric. I have never seen a diary get so utter pwned since the days of www.adequacy.org.

Part of what makes your series such fun is that it's clear that no-one there knows what to make of you; they can only mutter platitudes as you brutally tear up their talking points. It's like watching a butcher reduce a cow's carcass to chops: totally one-sided violence.

Your example proves that the Jesuits are like some sort of spooky Shaolin masters, knocking down fools with their mystical arts like a wrecking ball.



Thanks for the kind words by lm (2.00 / 0) #9 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:26:15 PM EST
And I think you need to refine your thinking of Jesuits. While it is true that I went to a Jesuit college, the philosophy department is stuck in something of a time warp, representing the Jesuitism of the 1950s. 21st century Jesuits are a very different breed indeed.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

yeah by nathan (2.00 / 0) #18 Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 03:16:00 PM EST
Today, they're gay.

[ Parent ]

I'd comment over there by martingale (2.00 / 0) #11 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:41:45 PM EST
but I don't read kos, it's too full of domestic US politics for my taste. It's the part of k5 that I never liked without the redeeming bits. Nice going though, I think you are a bit too wordy for them. Cut your comment size in half so that potential replicants aren't overwhelmed and can latch onto an idea and run with it.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$


i think if he cut the length down... by gzt (4.00 / 1) #14 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:51:11 PM EST
...it'd be too dense for them to comprehend.

[ Parent ]

s/rexes/reges/g [n/t] by martingale (2.00 / 0) #12 Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:43:52 PM EST

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$


drainage by LilFlightTest (2.00 / 0) #15 Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 01:50:48 AM EST
is a source of vomit, as you suspected. i learned this the hard way, after puking up a large gutload of goo.
Send me to Austria!


I Don't Know Nothing About No Philosophizing by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #17 Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:51:18 AM EST
But do I hope you feel better soon.



Is anyone interested in how the Nietzschean argument plays out? | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback