While I enjoyed Any Rand's books, I really think that as a personal
philosophy, most of her ideas are rather---oh shucks, why don't I just
say it: they suck. I thought it was very interesting that she used
the railroad as the symbol of independence when (what was her
character's name Dagney Taggart?--Lord, it's beeen years since I read
those books!) anyway, Dagney and her lover, those independent ones,
keep the whole economy going while the rest of world mooches. Funny,
but the history of the railroad in this country has been one long line
of government subsidies from the time the railroads were laid (i.e.
given a mile on each side of the railroad for every mile laid) to the
present. Why is it that big business and everyone else always wants
big government off of our backs---except when it comes to subsidies,
tax breaks, etc. etc. The philosophy of Ayn Rand and her ilk, if I
understand it correctly, would applaud Hitler for gassing all those
useless mentally retarded children--aren't they just taking up
resources that our brighter kids could use? I saw her on the Phil
Donahue show years ago and, frankly, she ought to have stayed with novel
writing--the novels are pretty darned good. Just call me Jane Gault!
> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 21:54:32 -0600
> From: Nathaniel Hall <natehall@worldnet.att.net>
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Logic
> Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
>
>
> Nathaniel Hall wrote:
>
> > chardin wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Nathaniel Hall <natehall@worldnet.att.net>
> > > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > > Subject: Re: virus: Logic
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chardin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I enjoy a good debate and am especially interested in beliefs vs.
> > > > > reality and "how we know what we know." Also, while I think the
> > > > > scienifitic method is good, I feel that science and scientists have
> > > > > become the new "religion" and priests of our age.
> > > >
> > > > Religion is a belief system with faith considered as a legitimate means to knowledge. Faith is a
> > > > belief independent of logic or the senses. Science would be better described as an "ideology or
> > > > philosophy" rather than a religion because science by it's very nature is opposed to faith.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your definition of "faith" is interesting. It is as though it is an
> > > ephemeral cloud that appears out of nowhere and rests upon a
> > > person's head.
> >
> > Exactly. Most of the time it's a rather old cloud passed from generation to generation from some half
> > starved folks who made it up in the first place.
> >
> > > Most of the people of faith I have encountered have
> > > "reasons" for what they believe.
> >
> > Then is it faith we are talking about here?
> >
> > > While it is true that many people
> > > are instilled with a religious belief as children and find it hard to
> > > question that, it still does not follow that they have no reasons for
> > > their belief. Their reasons may not seem valid to you, but it does
> > > not follow that in their scheme of things, the reasons are not
> > > logical.
> >
> > Logic is a non-contradictory chain of reasoning built on known facts. What facts are they building on?
> > (My experience is they build instead on a certain book and take that as undeniable proof )
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > When I speak of science as a religion and scientists as a new breed
> > > of priests, I do this based upon experience. I have a good friend
> > > who is an atheist who nonetheless looks to science, in my opinion, as
> > > a religion. He gives great credence to anything published in
> > > scientific journals. Science has become so technical today and
> > > the jargon so alien to normal vocabular, that one might as well say
> > > the mass is given in Latin. When you press him for particulars about
> > > a particular methodology in science, he admits that he does not
> > > understand himself but has "faith" in those who do understand it,
> > > namely, the guys in white coats(the new priestly garb).
> >
> > That's too bad. Tell him good science first and foremost is based on good experiments. Theories come
> > and go but experimental results are good forever.
> >
> > > His basis for doing this is that of
> > > "peer review." There again, he puts faith in this method of keeping
> > > the boys/girls in white honest. I, on the other hand, as a skeptic and
> > > observer of the system, see potential for "ole boys club" and
> > > collusion or if you prefer the ole "scratch-my-back- and-I'll-scratch
> > > yours-routine. Granted, on the surface it does seem like the system
> > > ought to work and many times it no doubt does, yet it still leaves a lot
> > > of room for error. I think it did work in the infamous Cold Fusion
> > > case, but that was a hard science issue that could be proved false or
> > > true by experimentation--rather quickly. In medical science, for
> > > example, I don't think it can
> > > work as well as there are too many variables and conducting human
> > > trials are more difficult. This leads to all the wild claims--salt
> > > is bad for you, cholesterol values have meaning (good and bad), milk
> > > probably causes "hardening of the arteries." etc. etc. etc.
> >
> > Do you know that most ulcers are usually caused by a particular bacterium? The "old boys" network was
> > rigidly opposed to this idea at first. Drug companies with billions to lose in the antacid business
> > certainly didn't like the idea. (The fellow who made the discovery referred to the drug company-doctor
> > alliance as the "acid mafia") Still this nobody doctor from Australia prevailed. Why? Because he was
> > right, because he could prove it.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The point I disliked about Dawkins article "Viruses of the
> > > Mind" was his continual thumping of the table to show that if only all
> > > these sick religious people would think critically, objectively, etc.
> > > as scientists, then the world would be better. The truth of the
> >
> > > matter is that scientists, as human creatures, fall victum to all
> > > those same evils that afflict others, i.e., excessive ego, greed,
> > > power grab, etc. The publish or perish syndrome, the race for
> > > grants, the funding of the pharmaceutical industry, the desire for
> > > patent rights, all of these affect science so that "pure" science is
> > > difficult to find.
> >
> > Then I'm much worse than Dawkins. Not only do I claim faith is a vice, but that rational self interest
> > is the good , and capitalism as the only moral form of government! I'd like to take credit for all
> > the arguments leading up to this amazing set of beliefs but Ayn Rand gets the credit here.
> > The Nateman
>
>
>
>