Thanks for this. I do not care what you call it but I also urge you to distinguish between the 'fundamentalist" forms and the original meanings, not just in woke, but also in feminism. As for the politicians, I do not care :)
As a feminist and woke in their original meanings, I felt very uncomfortable with some of your writings. I could leave this forum, but I am not here for the social commentary, but for the science as exemplified by your books and other writings. So I persisted.
Whether it is better to take up arms against a sea of neologistic catechism, and become profoundly confused by jargon that dosen't refer to anything real, or demand coherent communication. F.W. needs an image like a purple unicorn with a burning horn, that way it's obvious that something isn't right.
Another thing that worries me about this festering fundamentalism throughout much of academia
is that many seem to blame it on the Democrats. I imagine if I were a fundamentalist Republican I would be happy to see the chaos being created out of this. More votes for ME. I have a feeling that statistics would show that a large percentage of Democrats do not buy into the insanity but those who do are stabbing themselves in the foot in the bigger picture. Just a thought. Thank you Lawrence for trying to shed light.
Great article Lawrence. In my opinion, one of the most important words you mentioned is the word ‘rational’, which only can be used within context and that’s what it’s all about.
Well you know, I always wondered why you bothered arguing with people of faith... whatever was the point ? It was like watching you take candy from small children....
I think you are splitting hairs here, but lets see where this goes for you
You will continue to wonder why Krauss argues with people of faith until you realize that he too is a person of faith, and people of faith are by their nature quite often arguing against competing faiths.
EVIDENCE: Where is the proof that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge and power delivered at any rate?
The assumption that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge delivered at any rate is fundamental to the science community's world view. That's why they're dedicated to pushing science forward as fast as possible.
That fundamental assumption of the science community can not be justified by reason. Like religious belief, it can only be justified by faith.
What we're seeing in the atheist scientist debate with religion is not reason vs. religion. It is instead one faith based ideology vs. another faith based ideology.
Thanks for this. I do not care what you call it but I also urge you to distinguish between the 'fundamentalist" forms and the original meanings, not just in woke, but also in feminism. As for the politicians, I do not care :)
As a feminist and woke in their original meanings, I felt very uncomfortable with some of your writings. I could leave this forum, but I am not here for the social commentary, but for the science as exemplified by your books and other writings. So I persisted.
Whether it is better to take up arms against a sea of neologistic catechism, and become profoundly confused by jargon that dosen't refer to anything real, or demand coherent communication. F.W. needs an image like a purple unicorn with a burning horn, that way it's obvious that something isn't right.
Another thing that worries me about this festering fundamentalism throughout much of academia
is that many seem to blame it on the Democrats. I imagine if I were a fundamentalist Republican I would be happy to see the chaos being created out of this. More votes for ME. I have a feeling that statistics would show that a large percentage of Democrats do not buy into the insanity but those who do are stabbing themselves in the foot in the bigger picture. Just a thought. Thank you Lawrence for trying to shed light.
Great article Lawrence. In my opinion, one of the most important words you mentioned is the word ‘rational’, which only can be used within context and that’s what it’s all about.
Thanks!
Well you know, I always wondered why you bothered arguing with people of faith... whatever was the point ? It was like watching you take candy from small children....
I think you are splitting hairs here, but lets see where this goes for you
that's always the point.. putting it out there and seeing..
You will continue to wonder why Krauss argues with people of faith until you realize that he too is a person of faith, and people of faith are by their nature quite often arguing against competing faiths.
EVIDENCE: Where is the proof that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge and power delivered at any rate?
The assumption that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge delivered at any rate is fundamental to the science community's world view. That's why they're dedicated to pushing science forward as fast as possible.
That fundamental assumption of the science community can not be justified by reason. Like religious belief, it can only be justified by faith.
What we're seeing in the atheist scientist debate with religion is not reason vs. religion. It is instead one faith based ideology vs. another faith based ideology.