31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaI'd say that the answer is "no".
I'm not interested in contributions to science. I care about truth. Yes or no, do a man's/person's/society's/faculty's immoral actions have any bearing on the truth value of a testable idea/fact/proposition/claim?
First, there are different forms of truth -- empirical, logical, philosophic, perceptual, and so forth. So you have to qualify what sort of truth you are referring to.
Second, you use the term "truth value", which would imply that you consider a truth to "lack value" if uncovered by an "immoral" man. This implies a causal relationship between morality and truth that has to be investigated in great detail.
Socrates did equate certain truths with "good", and in many religions moral/ethical training -- such as the "ahimsa" (non-violence) ideal in Hinduism, or the "metta" (kindness/compassion) ideal of Buddhism -- is part of the curriculum for those training to represent the religion. But this applies to the spiritual realm. The reason your original post has encountered so much opposition is that you are dealing with the empirical realm as far as Einstein's work is concerned. Science within its work of pure discovery has always been disinterested in ethics/morals, by and large.
Empirical truth (drop ball, it falls to ground), logical truth (2+2=4), perceptual truth (an orange fruit is orange color) and spiritual truth (the subjective experience of the transcendent) are all different categories. Moralism gets applied frequently to the spiritual realm (often disastrously), but at least it can be arguably applied there. Moralism when applied to the discovery of empiric or logical truths (as opposed to their application) is usually just regarded as mischief or irrelevant interference, and rightly so. And Einstein was much more concerned with discovery, rather than application, in his work. He was a theorist above all.
So no matter Einstein's ideological interests, and no matter what you think of communism or any other ideology, E still equals MC squared.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompThis sounds like the kind of oppressive science that I'm fighting against (just because all "scientiests" agree that E=MC2 then it must be true).
the issue is your nonsense.
edit... either make a post based on the science or shutup and go away
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwathat's just more nonsense , Make a post that shows a criticism of the theory, that isn't such a fallacious argument.
This sounds like the kind of oppressive science that I'm fighting against (just because all "scientiests" agree that E=MC2 then it must be true).
31 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by kingdanwaHey perhaps you have not heard: all things scientific are double edged.
This sounds like the kind of oppressive science that I'm fighting against (just because all "scientiests" agree that E=MC2 then it must be true).
If your thinking is correct then we should not be allowed to have
iron, iron leads to steel, steel leads to swords, swords lead to killing
so lets get back in our time machines and kill the first person who
invented iron.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaInsightful discussion Kingdanwa, per the usual. I sense a bit of tension here in the minds of the more simple-minded that are hostile to religious faith.
That's my very question. Does a truth claim depend in any way upon the one making the claim? You and your church members can quit bringing up christianity. I'm talking about testable claims and questionable characters.
In the secular or, more pointedly, the scientific realm, they fervently believe that truth claims can be evaluated wholly independent of the moral fibre of the one making the claim. It is a very impersonal approach to evaluating the truth - the trust is put in the scientific method.
However, in their evaluations of the religious, they are quick to point out personal hypocrisy as a discreditor of the truth claim made by the religious individual. Many times this hypocrisy is enough in and of itself to fully discredit the religious one's truth claim.
This is not all that revealing, however. What is revealing about the approach of those hostile to faith, is their common refusal to allow the religious "truth-teller" to couch his argument in something outside of his own experience - like history, philosophy, or in science. What I'm getting at is in the mind of one hostile to faith - the evaluation of a religious truth claim is vested solely in the moral fibre of the one making the claim. But the Naturalist leaves no room in the Inn for the religious to take up scientific methods to prove his relious claim.
- A thousand pardons for the Hegelian rollercoaster of a response I've just submitted. Blessings on your preparations for the Autumnal Equinox.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by L8LutheranConvertAre you suggesting that people evaluate religious truth claims differently than they evaluate any other claim? Is this justified?
Insightful discussion Kingdanwa, per the usual. I sense a bit of tension here in the minds of the more simple-minded that are hostile to religious faith.
In the secular or, more pointedly, the scientific realm, they fervently believe that truth claims can be evaluated wholly independent of the moral fibre of the one making the claim. It is a ...[text shortened]... er of a response I've just submitted. Blessings on your preparations for the Autumnal Equinox.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by L8LutheranConvertgarbage!
Insightful discussion Kingdanwa, per the usual. I sense a bit of tension here in the minds of the more simple-minded that are hostile to religious faith.
In the secular or, more pointedly, the scientific realm, they fervently believe that truth claims can be evaluated wholly independent of the moral fibre of the one making the claim. It is a ...[text shortened]... er of a response I've just submitted. Blessings on your preparations for the Autumnal Equinox.