Hi;

For the enlightenment is upon man, for the first time he will crawl up from the yoke of his masters and stand erect.

Cool article.

1) A big upheaval in math is coming so that may help.

http://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=14117

2) If the math is not supporting the biologists favorite theories maybe they should be examining their theories. You only have to watch Expelled to see that they are trying to force a public relations paradigm ( similar to the Lysenko affair ) on science.

Richard Feynmann wrote:

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Only a minority of scientists are taking this point of view, most others are pissed off at them.

No, not a minority, most are afraid to speak. That's not science, that's Nazism. Remember the Velikovsky affair or theory. Carl Sagan's own words about.

Carl Sagan - Cosmos wrote:

The suppression of ideas has no place in Science.

So ticked off that they are bouncing dissenters off their jobs? There is a word for that and it isn't science. That's why the math and biology don't jive. One is wrong, think you know which I'm betting on.

its panel on the Limits of Understanding seemed to question whether math could be reliable at all.

At all? Didn't this statement bother you at all? What, math doesn't work because they won't or can't use it correctly? Because it might be exposing the fallacy of their dogma?

What is "that"?

Sorry for being vague. Persecuting dissenters is akin to Nazism. It is not unique to Nazism.

You haven't seen Expelled, then.  I don't know how many have lost their jobs. According to the reports disagreement with biological dogma is grounds for termination and more. Good thing Carl is gone, I don't think he would like to see that. The documentary is worth a look, even if you don't agree with it.

Just a coincidence that they are now criticizing math for coming up with different answers then the ones they want?

Anyone not using mathematics for technological developments will be left behind.  The problem will take care of itself.

I admire you for believing that. I just dont think it will.

Yes, but criticizing ideas is a necessary part to a free market of ideas.  Otherwise, there is no "survival of the fittest (idea)".

Yes. Difficult to define the extent of the persecution. The doc goes into some detail. It is a definite grey area so nothing will be done until it is too late.

I would like to see an example of a single scientist who was fired for not believing in evolution.

Only one way to prove it personally...

Still the page MIF directs us too, is what bakes my potato. Have you ever had the unfortunate experience of working ( doing math ) for one of these life sciences guys?

The doc?

Short for documentary.

Which is?

Trying it for yourself. If you get a nice teaching position, veer off from the party line. See what happens. Most people believe that persecution doesn't exist in science but won't take the chance. So do they really believe it? Remember the passage in Contact, the book. Eleanor wouldn't put her face up to the pendulum ball, even though physics assures us each swing is slightly shorter.

At first it seemed like people being forced out of science for going against the accepted theories, and now it seems to be because they think math may not be as useful as it once seemed.

I think they are both unacceptable.

They also seem to have a complete misunderstanding what math is.

Agreed, I feel that if the math doesn't back up their theory then something is wrong with their theory. I don't think questioning math is the answer. If they want to head back to a prehistoric era where they didn't use mathematics or computers, that's fine with me. As a matter of fact I have been expecting it.

Nash, J, F. is not exactly who I had in mind. But if you want to I am willing to examine his life as told in the book by S. Nasser. Not the movie. Yes, Nash got some persecuting. He was ridiculed by both A. Einstein and the great John Von Neumann. There are a lot fishy occurrences in his life. That's for later.

Contact, written by Carl doesn't agree with some of your assertions. As a matter of fact Eleanor Arroway's work is shut down by the Presidents science advisor for no other reason other than it is unpopular. Now was Carl just writing a novel. Or is he trying to say something?

As you know Poincare, Kronecker and others essentially drove Cantor mad and out of mathematics, Sometimes people are denied the fame they deserve in their lifetime due to scientific persecution.

Of course he also overturned everything that was known about economics and what is now referred to as game theory.

Well not exactly everything. Dantzig, Morgenstern and Von Neumanns work literally define that field. Next to that, Nash's equilibrium is just an addition. Did you know even as late as the night of the presentation of his Noble prize the committee was arguing about whether he should even get it. Why did it take them almost 40 years before his work was even known? JFN was the biggest secret in the world. When the movie came out people asked who is John Forbes Nash Jr.

The purpose of the persecution being described in Expelled is not the suppression of knowledge, that may not be possible. But to delay it by years, decades or even centuries.

Are you trying to say something?

When am I not? I don't agree that criticism and destroying someone's career, Cantor's for instance are the same thing. Nor should they be part of science or mathematics. Scientific review and forums is an acceptable means of examining ideas. Persecution of the individual because of his dissent is not. Cantor was criticized by more than 2 mathematicians. Kronecker being influential won out in Cantor's lifetime.

True this is rarer in math. Although it is now going on to opponents of a certain British mathematician of tremendous influence.

The life sciences exhibit this persecution much more frequently. We only have to look at Linus Pauling, Otto Warburg, Alexander Fleming and many others to see that their work was criticized to the point of extinction. Delaying useful scientific ideas for decades. This is what Carl is talking about with the fictional character Eleanor Arroway. And unfortunately with Velikovsky, who was bashed so much by the Astronomical community that even Carl felt bad for him.

Is this rhetorical?  The answer is well known, and it has nothing to do with him going "against the party line".

This is somewhat incorrect, it is not well known. The Nasser book hints that JFN's problems were due to his work for Rand. The movie makes other claims. Since JFN was the technical adviser for both this is somewhat disturbing.

You keep claiming there is persecution, but refuse to give an example of anyone being fired because they believe in intelligent design.

Nothing to do with intelligent design, Richard Dawkins is a believer in intelligent design. I would rather you see the documentary, than fill these posts with my interpretation of it. According to the documentary 3 or 4 people interviewed were destroyed not fired because of dissent. When I watch it again I will take careful pains to write their names down and the other scientists who still have their jobs and are afraid to speak out.

In the old days when creationism held sway people were fired or jailed for disagreeing. No one finds this unbelievable, Yet people do not believe that nasty bureaucrats, are doing it now.

Incidentally, employers almost never relate the correct reason for dismissal. If you are fired, reasons are written down which of course makes their position stronger ( covers their hineys so to speak ). If they wrote the correct reason they would be sued or dismissed themselves. This I can speak of from personal experience.

Ricky wrote:

Certainly Kronecker was attempting to destroy his idea, or rather, his philosophy.  You have provided no evidence that Kronecker wanted to destroy Cantor, the person.

From Grattan Guiness and Dauben p 89. And from some passages I have read from various books whose titles have escaped me, I am sorry for that.

Poincaré referred to Cantor's ideas as a "grave disease" infecting the discipline of mathematics,

Kronecker's public opposition and personal attacks included describing Cantor as a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth.

Writing decades after Cantor's death, Wittgenstein lamented that mathematics is "ridden through and through with the pernicious idioms of set theory," which he dismissed as "utter nonsense" that is "laughable" and "wrong"

Cantor's recurring bouts of depression from 1884 to the end of his life were once blamed on the hostile attitude of many of his contemporaries,

Statements such as those would bother anybody. Perhaps a great deal and are exactly what is happening today.

So powerful was and is the influence of Kronecker and Wittengenstein that some historians have tried to gloss over this vindictiveness as the causative agent of Cantor's mental problems.

Ricky wrote:

Why not just say who instead of waiting for me to ask?

For some of the answers you will have to see my link ( under big upheaval in math ) in post #2. It is more controversial than this!

What part of their work?  With Pauling and Warburg I take it you're referring to their involvement with cancer.  But what of Fleming?

Yes, 4 nobel prizes between them and they were both laughed at, chased out of their respective countries and denied tenure. The book Vitamin C and the Common Cold will explain Paulings problems. Fleming discovered penicillin and was actually laughed at, at symposiums delaying the refinement of it for decades. This is why I am inclined to believe Sternberg the first victim of Expelled.

Nothing to do with intelligent design, Richard Dawkins is a believer in intelligent design.

Ricky wrote:

Evidence?

I am glad you asked that. It perhaps lends some insight as to why some scientist called him reptilian and a crummy philosopher. In the documentary he is pinned down by Old Ben and he states, he believes in Intelligent panspermia, (First started by the great Svante Arrhenius). He is willing to accept that an alien species shot spores to earth and that is how life began here. "Since Darwinism and present day biology do not know how life began - R Dawkins" He also admits that he is willing to accept any intelligent design as long as it is not God! Please see the documentary, it is right there.

In the United States?  Name one.

Scope's Monkey trial.

I already know it's dishonest.

It is not correct to have passed judgement on something beforehand. To accept others opinions on topics is to deny your own intelligence. It is also unscientific. You may have difficulties acquiring the documentary, this is suspicious.

Perhaps he was harsher than you thought he needed to be, but this is just a question of degree; i.e. shades of gray.

At last some shades of grey. Something to argue about endlessly.

The books I read and daubner and grattan guinness, don't agree with that. What started as a clash of ideas ended in deep animosity. Kronecker, the more powerful man attempted and succeeded in destroying Cantor. Calling Cantor a corruptor of children and a charlatan is not scientific review, it is a personal attack. This is persecution, plain and simple.

Remember, we are not talking about math here. Compared to the life sciences, math is pristine. It's the life sciences who are being accused of persecution.

Ricky wrote:

Yes, Dawkins thinks panspermia is a likely candidate for the origin of life on Earth.  But this does not make him believe in an "intelligent designer".  Surely you see the large gap.

Ricky wrote:

By the way, your bias shows through here by putting, "intelligent" in front of panspermia.

This is the point, You must get the information first hand. I did not put intelligent design in front, he did. The googling you have done is their attempt to cover his incredible clumsiness  in saying that he believed in intelligent design as long as it wasn't God. I am quoting the incident in the documentary! It is rumored that his staff immediately went to work doing damage control on the internet. That is what you are seeing.

Panspermia without direction probably could not bring life to another star system. It is not considered feasible anymore. Some intelligent direction is a feasible viewpoint. He is willing to admit to that intelligence being extraterrestrial? Seems hypocritical to call upon that viewpoint when both the gov and the scientific community laugh at UFO eyewitnesses.

The man was tried for the teaching of evolution, not believing it.

When you pass laws stating that you someone cannot express his viewpoints that is persecution. He was an evolutionist, he believed in it. He could have been jailed. In that state it was and might still be against the law. That is exactly what the life sciences have done, passed laws forbidding the voicing of another opinion. It is amazing how similar Dawkinism and Creationism really are.

Ricky wrote:

Accept others opinions?  Who the heck said I ever did that?  No, I read the facts.

Those are not the facts, they are an account of the facts. They are second hand knowledge.

Ricky wrote:

The fact that they lied to the people who they interviewed.

Again, that is second hand knowledge and in no way affects the results, Everyone was asked pointed questions. Everyone answered them. If the Dawkins camp came out worse they should blame their ineptness. Admittedly Ben was able to outmaneuver Richard on several key points.

The fact that I've seen Ben Stein talk about his movie, making the connection of evolution and Hitler when it's well known there isn't one.

It is not well known that there isn't one, it is just unwise to state that there is. Especially if you are on some faculty.

Unfortunately Hiltler was a firm believer in Darwinism as he was also a false atheist. Stating that Darwinism is the reason they became atheists, although candid, for the sake of winning should have been left out.

The scientist whom Ben was talking to made the statement that Darwinism did not require Nazism, but rather Nazism required Darwinism.

You never answered my question: Is calling a charlatan a charlatan wrong?

No, it is just rude. Calling a man who is not a phony a phony is persecution.

How in the world could Cantor be a charlatan? He was on firm mathematical ground. His diagonal proof is correct as well as beautiful. None of them could find any holes in it. Attacking a man without any proof, making it clear that they disliked him, is persecution. Denying him positions, ridiculing him, this is persecution. How the heck is he a corruptor of children? Do you believe that? How did they get that out of set theory?

Are you joking here?  I can't fathom how you can relate James Arnold with Georg Cantor!

From the video you provided.

2:24 in:

So Prof dawkins, is not against Intelligent design, just certain types of designers, such as God - Ben

No answer from Dawkins! Watch your video again. . Stein, knew what his response would be. Richard was not ready to answer that question. How could he not be ready to deal with that question?  After having said he believed you might find the signature of an intelligent creator ( Aliens, what? ) inside of our biochemistry. That is directed panspermia! That is intelligent design. He believes in some form of Intelligent design, just not God.

I am not interested in what his public relations people came up with for him to say later. That is what he said on the spot. I do not believe that Ben Stein confused the great Richard Dawkins. It is the Dawkins camp trying to weasel there way out of a bad exchange.

Incidentally, it was quite clever of Richard's aides to print those responses in the video, rather than show them. His pauses and facial reactions to Ben's questions are interesting and perhaps are best left out. Also Richard left out his flim flam mail comment, another disaster.

If you don't know that you need to change what you say based on who your audience is, then you would be a horrible public speaker.

Sorry Rick, that is dishonest. The truth is the truth. Of course he would have done better with an audience filled with his lackeys. Most of the time that is who he is speaking to. He cannot even stand up to one Ben Stein, let alone a hostile audience. He is supposed to be a scientist not a politician. You don't tailor the truth, you don't have to.

How the heck is that his fault?

Richard Dawkins is the author of books. He has been touting atheism for a long time. Surely he has the answers to such questions memorized by now. After 40 - 50 years of lecturing hundreds of times he was upset by an impromptu question? It was unfair to ask it? He was asked two questions he has been proclaimed an expert on. Perfectly fair. It was like a mathematician being asked to differentiate x^2 and messing up. And crying about it later, oh I wasn't ready. Maybe, he isn't very much without his staff?

Hilter, by narrowing the gene pool, was doing the complete opposite of natural selection.

The concepts of the master race or Aryans, should be well known. He was not limiting his gene pool. 50-60 million people is a large enough number.

The last 2 quotes are the damage control I spoke off. They are the same quotes and they are untrue. Ben Stein never said in Expelled that science fosters Nazism. I have quoted what the other scientist said about Darwinism and Nazism. He felt that Nazism needed Darwinism.

You're either making this up as you go along, or someone/something is misinforming you.

At the end of the trial when he lost, his refusal to pay the fine could have resulted in incarceration for possible contempt. Anyway over my lifetime that is third different rendition I have read of that story.  I am not sure that the present version is anymore accurate than the last two. Maybe the fourth or fifth story will be the truth.

Maybe they should hire me to answer Richard's questions for him? After all if I can make things up on the spot, surely I can deal with his opponents better than he can.

The Butler act was created by legislators who were pro creationism. The new law preventing intelligent design has been created by legislators who are pro Dawkins. Same deal, still persecution. Matter of fact this is the ultimate in persecution. When laws are passed to back up silly assertions, now they have clout. Now they have a secular arm to punish transgressors.

Ricky wrote:

someone/something is misinforming you.

That is interesting, When I think of the comments I have heard from people concerning some of the people we are and have discussed, the comment "someone/something is misinforming them," makes sense.

Sure I might be misinformed. But my opinion is from first hand knowledge of the documentary. Your view is coming from Dawkins, Schermer and their pals. You are not getting to see the other side.

The Dawkin's camp is doing a lot of quote mining themselves. As for the quote concerning Darwin's comments about weak and sick people whom he calls imbeciles. The 2 paragraphs are not what they seem. I call that technique plus minus writing. Had Richard answered the last couple of Ben's questions truthfully, then much could be revealed about Darwin. As it is, nothing can be said about that quote. At least I won't.

You never answered my question: Is calling a charlatan a charlatan wrong?

No, it is just rude. Calling a man who is not a phony a phony is persecution.

Rude?  How so?  Also you go from being rude to being a persecutor by just making an error?  By just being wrong?

How in the world could Cantor be a charlatan?

Kronecker saw Cantor as making mathematics become about the unconstructible.  He believed that this would make mathematics entirely useless.

I can't fathom how you can relate James Arnold with Georg Cantor!

I can't fathom how you thought I was relating James Anderson to George Cantor.

So Prof dawkins, is not against Intelligent design, just certain types of designers, such as God - Ben

No answer from Dawkins! Watch your video again. . Stein, knew what his response would be. Richard was not ready to answer that question. How could he not be ready to deal with that question?  After having said he believed you might find the signature of an intelligent creator ( Aliens, what? ) inside of our biochemistry. That is directed panspermia! That is intelligent design. He believes in some form of Intelligent design, just not God.

Yes, Dawkins believes that it is possible that other intelligent life planted life on Earth.  How could this not be a possibility?  Dawkins however does not support this view, as he clearly states.  The evidence thus far for it is nil, which is why Dawkins does not support the view.  However, it is an idea which could one day, theoretically, become evidenced.

This has absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design.  Perhaps if you pretended you were in a vacuum, it might.  But we aren't in a vacuum.  Intelligent designers have given lectures saying "we don't know who the designer is" and then went back to their church where they said the designer is god.  Intelligent designers have made it their position that evolution is false and can't happen.  Because so many intelligent designers believe in such ideas, they have become associated with intelligent design.

He believes in some form of Intelligent design, just not God.

I don't know how you can say this.  Dawkins merely said it was possible, and then later said he does not support the view of panspermia.  Where is you evidence for the above statement?  So far, you've presented none.

Sorry Rick, that is dishonest. The truth is the truth. Of course he would have done better with an audience filled with his lackeys. Most of the time that is who he is speaking to. He cannot even stand up to one Ben Stein, let alone a hostile audience. He is supposed to be a scientist not a politician. You don't tailor the truth, you don't have to.

You're telling me that Dawkins should speak the say way to a room full of creationists that he does to a conference of biologists?  No, clearly not.  When speaking to one who is critical of your ideas, or simply doesn't understand them, you must be careful with your language.  You must try to use the most rigor you can, and put your ideas on solid logical ground.  When speaking to someone who you know understands you and is on board, one can be way more relaxed and sloppy.

Presentation of an idea can be very important.  Knowing your audience is step one in public speaking.  If you don't, you will most certainly fail.

He was not limiting his gene pool. 50-60 million people is a large enough number.

Ah, the good ol' "It's a big number" argument.  Bobby, more is always better.  It doesn't matter how big your number is.  No matter how big something is, if you make it smaller, you are by definition limiting it.

At the end of the trial when he lost, his refusal to pay the fine could have resulted in incarceration for possible contempt.

Yes, if the court tells you do something and you don't do it, there can be consequences.  This is persecution?

The Butler act was created by legislators who were pro creationism. The new law preventing intelligent design has been created by legislators who are pro Dawkins. Same deal, still persecution.

Having laws about what can and can't be taught in public schools is persecution?  Please, show me how.

The Dawkin's camp is doing a lot of quote mining themselves.

Such as?  Why do you continue to put forward assertions you know I will question without any evidence?

As for the quote concerning Darwin's comments about weak and sick people whom he calls imbeciles. The 2 paragraphs are not what they seem. I call that technique plus minus writing.

This isn't important at all, but your first sentence shows that you are misreading Dawin's quote.

We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick.

He is separating out three people different types of people, the first being those who have a mental handicap (for which, "imbecile" is the proper word).  He is not calling the later two the first term.  But again, this isn't really important.  And I'm not sure what you mean by "The two paragraphs are not what they seem", since you don't seem like you want to explain that.  But I'm also not sure how that is relevant to the point being discussed: Ben Stein's honesty.  I'll try to state it plainly:

Ben Stein ended the quote prematurely, making it sound like Darwin thought humans shouldn't help one another.  A full reading of the quote shows that Darwin really thought the exact opposite: that our sacrifice for one another is noble.

Again, that's dishonest.

Check out number 4 in this link.  Yet another example of the dishonesty.

Yes, but Kronecker was wrong, very wrong. You are not answering my question. Why should Kronecker state that Cantor is a corruptor of children? If you believe that is acceptable criticism of someone's work than it is not likely that I will change your mind. They had no mathematical criticism just personal attacks.

I don't know why Kronecker stated that.  I provided justification that I thought was reasonable (Cantor, by studying the nonconstructible, was corrupting mathematics), but you seem to have rejected it.  What else can I say?

I can't fathom how you thought I was relating James Anderson to George Cantor.

Then why mention it? Are you stating that Kronecker was unable to determine the difference between a James Anderson and a Georg Cantor?

You said: "Remember, we are not talking about math here. Compared to the life sciences, math is pristine."  At the time, it sounded like you were talking about the (non)existence of charlatans in math, for which I wanted to show you an example.  On a second reading, it appears to me you may have been talking about persecution.

Dawkins however does not support this view, as he clearly states.

That's not accurate. In the video you supplied he has no comment after Stein's statement. Same thing in the documentary.

In the clip from before: "I don't believe in [panspermia], I didn't believe in [panspermia], I never said I did believe in [panspermia], but I was trying to bend over backwards to give intelligent design its best shot."

I don't know how much more clear that point can be made.

If [panspermia] happened then Darwinism goes right out the window.

Please, check that I replaced "that" from your post with the proper word.  Assuming I did, the statement above is false.  Darwinism (by which I assume you mean "evolution") depends not on any particular genesis, only that a self-replicating organism exists, competes, passes traits to its "offspring" (nonformal usage), and there can be modifications (e.g. errors) in the replication.

No, I don't agree. Sloppiness is what he has become used to. That is the reason for the Stein debacle. Too long he has played to captive audiences. Because the audiences were already convinced and non critical the errors in his presentation went unnoticed.

You left it out, but I take it you still don't agree that what you say depends on who your audience is.  As for sloppiness, it is often easy to convey the correct idea through informal language.  With some things, it's the language you must use which can bog ideas down.  We do it all the time in mathematics, for example when I say that the eigenvectors of a matrix A are (1 2) and (1 0).  This is incorrect (there are infinitely many eigenvectors), but anyone who knows and understands eigenvectors gets exactly what I mean: that these two are a basis for the eigenspace of the matrix A.

More is not always better. There might be good moral and spiritual reasons for having more people. Sort of like the bigger the party the more fun. But genetically speaking at one time the whole earths population was about 50 - 60 million and we did fine. That is enough for a gene pool. As a matter of fact much less is required.

Is that really your argument?  That at one time we had a population that small and therefore genetic diversity above 50-60 million is not an advantage?  That is a non sequitur.

This again is not accurate. The documentary is the evidence. The Dawkinns rebuttal as I said,  is damage control. In the rebuttal they leave out much of Stein's and Dawkins exchange. They don't show the actual footage. They leave out the fan mail comment. This is a much better example of quote mining.

Not having the rights to video footage, therefore not violating national (at least, if not international) copyright law?  This is your idea of quote mining?!?  If you are going to claim that Dawkins quote mined, but then never show the example and ask me to fish through 2 hours of dreck to find it, then you are not supporting your arguments.  You made the claim, now I ask you again to show me a quote that Dawkins took from someone else, out of context, and misrepresented what they said.

Every time we quote, we end a statement prematurely. All qoutes are quote mining.

What a crazy idea.  Darwin's thesis is clear.  It is equally as clear that Stein took the quote and chopped it so that his words appeared to have the exact opposite of his thesis.  This is quote mining.  It is not quote mining if the thesis (the idea behind the quote) is preserved.

Those 2 paragraphs some people believe are just that. Paragraph 1, his true belief... Paragraph 2 a disclaimer, so they cannot quote paragraph 1 back at him. I do not hold to this but I am aware of how others reason. Important to know both sides and not just one sides viewpoint.

Without any supporting evidence whatsoever, such a claim may be dismissed.  If you do have any supporting evidence, then I will be very interested to hear it.