- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
'Fighting fire with fire'---my favorite line!
Here's your ticket, pack your bags
Time for jumpin' overboard
Transportation is here
Close enough but not too far
Maybe you know where you are
Fightin' fire with fire
First, the very freedoms, to wit: freedom of the press, attract those who know how to work the system, and two, the actual fact that Americans are a caring people---this is undisputed, even Saul Alinsky was aware of that, and used it----propelled them to accept the 'truth' of the 'free press'.
Somehow, we need to limit freedom's ability to do this.
(There was also of course, an atheistic humanism that erupted in the Renaissance, built on the discoveries of classical Roman and Greek thought, but that was more like the two-year old's defiant attitude. Humans beginning to have their own minds. And demonstrating it.)
Laplace, when asked by Napoleon what he thought of God, replied: I have no need of that concept, Sir!
Thomas Jefferson felt our republic could only continue to exist if the electorate was educated and informed. I'm sure he meant 'with the truth'.
As for Christians, Saul Alinsky's Rule to 'use their morals against them', was the final nail in the coffin for them. The conversion to Christianity of the 'wise and unwise'---the Greeks and the non-Greeks---was a necessary advance for humankind. However, it entailed a philosophy of love, and for the most part Christians find the alternative to altruism: 'tough love', hard to practice. I don't.
God doesn't like that, you know.
Sometime late in the 19th century science became divorced from reality, specifically in regard to the physics of the submicroscopic universe. Man's ability to reason and argue causally was disowned by man himself.
Although Galileo knew Aristotle was in error in much of his physics, he admitted that had Aristotle know, 2,000 years ago, what was known in Galileo's time, Aristotle would have agreed with him.
The Renaissance man of science (the philosophers) were beginning to distinguish between what they called "natural magic" and "supernatural magic"---thus learning relationships between "natural" causes and their effects. Aristotle, although he understood that change was effected by some kind of "cause" imperfectly grasped temporal causal relationships in change. Even motion to the ancient Greeks was not fully understood. Galileo's contributions to the concepts of motion cannot be overestimated.
These early experimenters enhanced the notion of causality, which most in quantum physics, and may I say, climatology, appear to have lost.
I think it imperative to read the works of the original masters of science, reason, and experiment; such as Frances Bacon, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Galileo, at any rate.
Following are some gems of wisdom from Galileo used in refuting those who resorted to the use authority and fallacious reasoning in determining cause-and-effect relationships.
The topic was called "Reading Galileo". But since I am not a moral philosopher, nor interested in it, I was unaware of these other philosophical threads that Mr. Donway, you mention in the beginning of your book.
Thanks.