Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Tonight at 7:30: Ron Bailey Debates Darwinism and Conservatism
The Robert A. Taft Club, a group of youngish paleocons and libertarians who recently held a blowout event with Ron Paul, are bringing Ron Bailey to the D.C. burbs for a fascinating debate.
Many conservatives have long been critical of Darwin's theory of evolution. Some base their reservation on religious grounds, while others criticize what has been called scientism -- a belief that faith in Darwinism or science in general has become an ideology or secular religion.
At the same time, recent studies in evolutionary and genetic theory have many conservative implications. Scientists in the fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have suggested that human nature is fixed, rather than a blank slate. Others argue that work in behavioral genetics shatters egalitarian notions. National Review editor John O'Sullivan has dubbed conservatives who apply these theories "evol-cons."
Is the study of evolution and genetics necessary to understanding human nature and the limits of politics, or does it lead to what C.S. Lewis called "the abolition of man"?
To discuss these controversial issues will be:
Charles Murray: Dr. Murray is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of several books including Losing Ground, Human Accomplishment, What it Means to be a Libertarian, and the best-seller The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.
Ron Bailey: Mr. Bailey is the science correspondent for Reason Magazine. He is the author of the new book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution and ECOSCAM: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse.
John Derbyshire: Mr. Derbyshire is a contributing editor at National Review. He writes frequently on the subject of evolution and genetics. He is the author of the books Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream, Prime Obsession, and Unknown Quantity.
Tom Bethell: Mr. Bethell is a senior editor at The American Spectator. He is the author of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, and The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages.
It kicks off at 7:30 at the The Boulevard Woodgrill at 2901 Wilson Boulevard in Arlington, VA.
UPDATE: There's no live video, but previous events have been taped and put online.
|12.4.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Any chance they'll post this on the web, cause I'd love to sit down with a big ol bowl of popcorn and watch.
|12.4.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Warren:
Ditto that. Especially given the way The Derb ripped on Bethell's
book. This sounds like it would be a blast to watch.
|12.4.07 @ 6:00PM|#
It kicks off at 7:30 at the The Boulevard Woodgrill at 2901
Wilson Boulevard in Arlington, VA.
Any chance they'll post this on the web, cause I'd love to sit down
with a big ol bowl of popcorn and watch
I think I'll just reserve a hotel room, run down to the airport,
charter a plane, fly into Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport, rent a car, drive to Arlington and listen in.
Webcast or transcript, David Weigel, or you're just a tease.
|12.4.07 @ 6:06PM|#
A debate between science and creationism? I can state without any fear of being wrong that many minds will be changed. Yessir.
|12.4.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Warty, It goes like this.
1) Read the post.
2) Think
3) Post thought/opinions/screeds
The discussion is about evolution and conservatism.
[/asshole]
|12.4.07 @ 6:21PM|#
Heh - amazon.com tags for "The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Science"
junk science (17)
fraudulent (12)
dishonest (11)
anti-science (7)
complete crap (7)
bird vomit (5)
insightful (4)
truth (3)
|12.4.07 @ 6:24PM|#
"Is the study of evolution and genetics necessary to
understanding human nature and the limits of politics, or does it
lead to what C.S. Lewis called 'the abolition of man'?"
Why are those two incompatible? Maybe evolution is "good" or "bad"
for X (when X is one's own ideal, whether religious/social
conservatism or libertarianism or egalitarianism or whatever) maybe
it is bad for X, but the obvious question is *Is it true?* If it is
true and leads (for example) to "the abolition of man" so much the
worse for (C.S. Lewis' conception of) "man"...
|12.4.07 @ 6:45PM|#
I have to take exception with the comment that "Scientists in the fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have suggested that human nature is fixed, rather than a blank slate." Human nature is viewed as adaptive within certain boundaries. Evolutionary Psych does not claim that we are robots. It is within these boundaries that "nurturing" will affect individuals throughout their lifetime.
|12.4.07 @ 6:52PM|#
"Many conservatives have long been critical of Darwin's theory
of evolution. Some base their reservation on religious grounds,
while others criticize what has been called scientism -- a belief
that faith in Darwinism or science in general has become an
ideology or secular religion."
These two are usually found together, that is, most who object to
"scientism" are also quite religious.
This is a healthy thing, but I don't hold my breath waiting for the
American conservative movement to jettison its slavish devotion to
nusto religion. For people who like authority over individual
reason and autonomy (which after all is what conservatism is all
about), religion is the ultimate authority based institution (its
norms and sanctions are "eternal" and "supernaturally sanctioned"
and you can't get more authority than that!).
|12.4.07 @ 6:53PM|#
When I say "this is a healthy thing" I refer not to the coupling of the two hillbilly dogmas of anti-"scientism" and orthodox religion, but to the event noted in the post.
Luke Pski|12.4.07 @ 7:13PM|#
I think the real schism between conservatism and darwinian
world-views have less to do with a specific religious outlook than
with a general distrust for those that would strip that aspect from
society based on a radical empiricist/materialist theory- one that
leads, almost inevitably- to controlled societies, with Utopianists
of one stripe or another waiting in the wings, ready to help "guide
evolution" from their chair on whatever panel of experts they
happen to be on.
So, again, it isn't about saying the God of the Bible created us,
case-closed, it's saying do not try to plan society as though we
were not.
Scientism is a very real thing, regardless of your own religious
outlook, btw.
Joe Schmuck|12.4.07 @ 7:14PM|#
When people are finally bored with this nonsense maybe they will debate the real issues.
I am AlGores sweaty backfat|12.4.07 @ 7:21PM|#
MNG-
For people who like authority over individual reason and
autonomy (which after all is what conservatism is all
about)
I am always amazed when any "liberal"/"prog"/"leftist" whines about
"authority over individual reason and autonomy"...
After all, when it's Social(ist) (In)Security, or Medicare, or
S-Chip, or "Mandated health insurance", or public schools, or
smoking bans, etc. - they prefer "authority over
individual because they know better."-(which after
all is really what socialism
is all about).
|12.4.07 @ 7:29PM|#
I don't buy it Luke. The older conservative critiques of scientism were diatribes against materialism, its become an attack on Darwinism only insofar as it is seen as specially pernicious strand of materialism (after all it seems to make us seem less "special" to some). Yes Darwinian theory attempts to explain life changes in a naturalstic or materialistic setting, but this is true of "science" in general. Do conservatives hate the "scientism" of gravity, or quantum physics, or tectonic plate theory (all of which attempt to use strictly naturalistic and materialistic explanations to explain phenomena?). I guess if you have a broad definition of ideology you might say that believing that naturalistic or materialistic explanations of the universe are an "ideology" but most folks who hold that position hold it less on belief than on the evidence (after all, even "non-materialists" or "supernaturalists" (what the hell do they believe in, ecto-plasm?) believe most things have material causes and explanations) and on the amazing utility that this belief has brought science (its performed well under this assumption). I certainly would not call it a "religion" since it is kind of the anti-thesis of a religion to deny supernatural influence, unless by religion you mean "anything someone strongly considers to be true, even if that is based on empirical-logical evidence." In that case that is a mighty broad definition of religion!
|12.4.07 @ 7:33PM|#
"I am always amazed when any "liberal"/"prog"/"leftist" whines
about "authority over individual reason and autonomy"..."
My friend, read some conservative thought. Read Burke. Read Kirk.
Read Weaver. Read ISI material. Look at the domination of the GOP
by orthodox religious conservatives (wanna argue they are into
individual liberty and against authority? Love to see that!)
Conservatism would like to be defined by the easy soundbites on
Fox, but conservatism as an intellectual movement has been
dominated by a respect for authority. Perhaps you see an implicit
or in practice respect for authority among liberals, but
conservatives are quite open about their hard on for authority, and
especially religious authority. Even conservative thinkers that are
technically irreligious, like Scruton, usually pay a great deal of
respect to the weight of religious authority...
|12.4.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Warty's 6:06 PM snark sums up what the upshot will be.
If the debate were conducted with sabres and mounted, it would be
more interesting.
How well do you handle a blade in trot, Ron?
|12.4.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Hmmm.... "what is man" is a question that is even more fucked
now that we are at the cusp of having the ability for designer
evolution. If we can reach the singularity or pivot point, the
question, "what is man?" will become a matter of choice.
As the human race approaches its own godhood, it is going to be fun
to see what happens to the gods religion. I don't think they will
ever go away, just like there are people who still believe in
Bigfoot. I relish the future where it is choiced nearly out of
existence.
adam|12.4.07 @ 7:41PM|#
I'd love to join the debate as a Libertarian/Creationist!
Darwin's Evolution (frogs will turn into princes) and Moses'
Creation (frogs will remain frogs, princes will remain princes) are
both historical sciences, therefore equal in society. Both are
based on philosophical presuppositions not empirical sciences, but
both explain empirical data. (Borrowing from C.S. Lewis) Anyone who
says otherwise is either stupid or a liar.
Evolution:Humanism::Creation:Christianity
long live Reason
rotter|12.4.07 @ 7:48PM|#
Why would anyone pay attention to a scientific debate conducting entirely without scientists?
Edward|12.4.07 @ 7:51PM|#
roter
Good question! Hint: libertarians who are interested only in
"science" that confirms their most cherished beliefs. The popcorn's
a good idea though.
|12.4.07 @ 7:54PM|#
I've heard it said that a majority of faithful church attendants
in any denomination, when quizzed about their own denominations
stand on many issues, are fairly clueless on the subject. It
strikes me that this occurs with some frequency among liberals and
conservatives. I can't tell you how many conservative-libertarians
that pop up here who clearly have never read a word of Russell
Kirk, Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, or the like. I'm
not trying to insult conservatives when I say they are all about
authority, that is what they explicitly claim themselves. They
believe that too much reliance on individual liberty and autonomy
leads to liscence and the tearing of the "moral fabric" of the
community, which is paramount. Don't get me wrong, many talk about
"ordered liberty" which is liberty within the constraints of
sacred, historical and/or cultural traditions (which is the "bank"
of wisdom that Burke spoke of). They were especially suspicious of
each individuals ability to reason things out for themselves, they
thought most of the important questions had been worked out through
trial and error and the recieved opinions we have are the way to go
(Burke wrote quite a bit about how "prejudices" were reliable
guides to behavior).
The conservative movement in the US sees, rightly, that some of
this is fairly esoteric and will not play well among modern day
folks (imagine people today being turned on by Weaver's
appreciation of the elegant system of "place" in the pre-Civil War
South or the wonderful chivalry of the Scott novels), so they try
to conjure up as a conservative anyone who thinks liberal radicals
are a little loony. So if you think that granola munching, hemp
wearing, gay vegetariam with the No Nukes bumper sticker who
represents anyone the boogeyman of the conservative press then of
course you must be a conservative! Do you like hunting and hate
those whiny animal rights folks? Love Jim Beam and hate those whiny
public health nuts? Like working up a sweat in a flannel shirt and
hate those loafing welfare cheats? Then heck, you MUST be a
conservative, because EVERYONE knows liberals hate all that stuff
and conservatives are ALL ABOUT THAT!
Look, do us all a favor, and if you think you are a "conservative"
at least read a book about what you are supposed to believe in.
They used to have a Concise Conservative Encyclopedia that would be
an easy an reliable starting point...
|12.4.07 @ 8:02PM|#
does it lead to what C.S. Lewis called "the abolition of
man"?
Given that Lewis believed in evolution (he even outlines an
evolutionist version of Man's Fall in one of his works) I would
have to say not. "The Abolition of Man," as Lewis had it, was the
reduction of man to a being with intellect and appetite, but no
reverence for an objective truth outside himself. He referred to
such people as "men without chests."
ed|12.4.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Oy. So many cons: "Neo", "paleo", "evol"...
Which ones will retire the national debt and keep us out of foreign
entanglements?
I thought so.
|12.4.07 @ 8:16PM|#
agggh, rotter stole my thought. how boring, a debate where not
one participant has any professional expertise. not a scientist in
the bunch, much less a trained biologist, paleontologist, or
geologist.
thanks, i'll skip the popcorn.
|12.4.07 @ 8:23PM|#
I think many are taking this in the wrong direction. A century ago evolution gave rise to Social Darwinism on the right and Eugenics on the left. What politics will new theories in evolution and genetics give rise to in this century would be a far more interesting debate than petty bickering over the age of the Earth.
|12.4.07 @ 8:37PM|#
I think many are taking this in the wrong direction. A
century ago evolution gave rise to Social Darwinism on the right
and Eugenics on the left.
I'm sure Grand Chalupa and the soulless monkey are having seizures
over the fact that they are really leftists.
|12.4.07 @ 8:50PM|#
"Tomorrow: Ron Bailey Debates Darwinism and
Conservatism"
And here I thought he was more or less in favor of both!
Guy Montag|12.4.07 @ 9:00PM|#
I think I'll just reserve a hotel room, run down to the
airport, charter a plane, fly into Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, rent a car, drive to Arlington and listen
in.
Actually, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is in
Arlington County, VA (a county with no cities or towns, btw), so
your task is less complex. For about $5.00 (fiat, not specie) you
can take the [shiver]public funded METRO[/shiver] to the Courthouse
stop and walk a couple of blocks.
Dress for bad weather, we are expecting wind, rain and snow that
evening.
|12.4.07 @ 9:14PM|#
Actually, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is in
Arlington County, VA (a county with no cities or towns,
btw)
I thought it was more a county that was just one big city.
Guy Montag|12.4.07 @ 9:21PM|#
I thought it was more a county that was just one big
city.
Well, it used to be the VA side-of-the-river part of DC, but it has
no city government, no mayor, etc.
|12.4.07 @ 9:30PM|#
it has no city government, no mayor, etc.
If thats what you mean then sure. I always thought its funny it a
County instead of an Independent City like Alexandria.
Guy Montag|12.4.07 @ 9:41PM|#
If thats what you mean then sure. I always thought its funny
it a County instead of an Independent City like
Alexandria.
Apparently, VA does those things differently. Like Alexandria, a
lot (if not all of) the cities in VA are independant of the
counties that they were part of. Like Herndon, where Fairfax County
police have little or no jurisdiction and they only pay city/State
taxes, no county taxes. (See Jimmie's Old Town Tavern, public
drunkeness arrests). Many people think that Reston is an
incorporated town, but it is just a homewoner's association.
Much different than back home in Tennessee, where city dwellers are
under county jurisdiction too and pay county as well as city taxes,
unless they do something like Nashville with a consolidated
metropolitian government.
SIV|12.4.07 @ 10:20PM|#
These two are usually found together, that is, most who
object to "scientism" are also quite religious.
Fuck Science
Get the pitchforks and the torches ready.
|12.4.07 @ 10:40PM|#
Fuck Science
Get the pitchforks and the torches ready.
But...but...SIV! IQ! Steve Sailer! SCIENCE! PC FANTASIES!
rho|12.4.07 @ 10:45PM|#
Standard response:
I believe the rest of you are upright monkeys, but I am the
motherfucking special creation of God.
Graduate of twelve years of pu|12.5.07 @ 12:41AM|#
Guy Montag is mostly right.
The Commonwealth of Virginia gives 39 incorporated cities the same
exact status as counties (in terms of tax authority, school
districting, and sovereignty relationship between local and state
government) But Herndon is not one of these; however, Fairfax City,
the county seat of Fairfax county, *is* one of these. (So
interestingly, you get a reversed fractal image of its big brother
to the east, because the guys running the government have *no*
authority over the immediate environs)
Original DC was made up of Alexandria, Georgetown, the newly
incorporated city of Washington, and all the unincorporated land
that makes the familar diamond shape on -both- sides of the river.
When the retrocession happened in the 1840's, the Virginia side was
divided into the City of Alexandria and the County of Alexandria.
By the 1920's or so, even though a bunch of smart folks started to
move to the D.C. area (because of the Glorious Sixteenth Amendment
was bringing a permanent boom to the D.C. area economy), they were
getting all confused with the Alexandria City not being part of
Alexandria County and vice versa. So, they decided to rename the
County "Arlington." It was named after the Custis-Lee mansion.
(Custis related to Martha Custis Washington, Lee related to both
Henry Lightfoot and Robert E.) The estate on which the house sit is
currently Arlington National Cemetery (and parts of Ft Meyer)
[*jingle*]
The More You know
[*rainbow*] [*shooting star*]
Graduate of twelve years of pu|12.5.07 @ 12:46AM|#
This question reminds me of the 'series of tubes' formulation,
but just to be sure, this:
previous events have been taped and put online.
means video tape right? Not just audio tape?
|12.5.07 @ 12:53AM|#
Ooh we're talking about Herndon! I live in Herndon! Except that
I live outside the city limits, so actually I just live in Fairfax
County even though my mailing address is Herndon.
If any of you outside of Virginia are confused, I assure you, we
don't get it either.
Kind of like the part of Alexandria along Route 1 South that is
Alexandria, but actually Fairfax County, and is also a dump (except
Mt. Vernon).
Graduate of twelve years of pu|12.5.07 @ 2:08AM|#
just live in Fairfax County even though my mailing address
is Herndon.
Throughout the United States, what the Post Office uses for a
location does not necessarily follow the exact political
demarcation, and normally includes unincorporated environs. People
tend to use the postal name in the common usage for a location and
vice versa. Hence, the whole area around Herndon is also Herndon
(except when it's Reston, or Annandale, or Vienna), and likewise
the area south of Alexandria is also Alexandria, (except when it's
Fort Hunt, or Mount Vernon). It's kinda like the English Language;
the rules make perfect sense after sixteen or so years.
(Man, I feel like Shoeless Joe, except this time it's Pedantic
Heaven.)
The Wine Commonsewer|12.5.07 @ 2:31AM|#
So, I'm wondering if that cajun place is still there in
Alexandria. Got dam. I have CRS.
Something of NOLA. Met John Dewitt there once for dinner and
drinks(different one than posts here).
Copelands, dammit. Copelands of NOLA. I think it was in Old Town.
Also met Herb Roselle there once as well (maybe with JD, who the
hell knows). Lord.
And then one day you find
Ten years have got behind you....
Big Sigh
|12.5.07 @ 2:36AM|#
Many conservatives have long been critical of Darwin's
theory of evolution. Some base their reservation on religious
grounds, while others criticize what has been called scientism -- a
belief that faith in Darwinism or science in general has become an
ideology or secular religion.
Hmm...these words don't come together exactly how i would like
them.
How about; scientism - faith in institutions built around the claim
of science.
Anyway I hope the debate gets into the failures governments and
organizations have made while under a banner of science.
Science is great by the way, the collection of data through
observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses works great not only in growing our collective knowledge
of the world but in our ability to manipulate it, but when you get
far a field from that and start creating fetishes around scientists
or published science you fall into a trap of simply creating
another church and priesthood.
Cara Lutetia|12.5.07 @ 5:08AM|#
...or does it lead to what C.S. Lewis called "the abolition
of man"?
I'd say that it can lead to the abolition of man as a divinely
created creature with a special purpose provided by said creature.
I don't see why this is must be problematic.
tsehov|12.5.07 @ 6:08AM|#
Scientism is more common among laymen than actual scientist.
Einstein and Bohr to some extend and guys like Newton or Wolfgang
Pauli definately were religious mystics.
It's guys like Hitchens and science editors that love to make
metaphysical assumptions based on data which they barely
comprehend.
|12.5.07 @ 6:53AM|#
Somehow I do not like the argument that 'we (conservatives) have
long opposed evolution theory, but now it seems it might have
conservative implications, so maybe we should start support
it'.
Who might be convinced by that? People who ignore
truth/reality/whatever and are just looking for a club to bash
their ideological opponents with, right? Now, why would anybody
want to convince them? I wouldn't want them as allies...
PS, at tsehov: Einstein definitely wasn't religious mystic, Newton
isn't a very good example either (we are talking about modern
scientists here).
Guy Montag|12.5.07 @ 7:23AM|#
TWC,
I did not know Copeland's had a store in Old Town, but I remember
one on Rt. 7 not far from Skyline/Bailey's Crossroads and one out
in Chantilly. The one in Knoxville, on Kingston Pike, closed
several years ago.
Also, anybody coming in from out of town, remember to buy milk,
bread and toilet paper. It is a snow day tradition.
tsehov|12.5.07 @ 7:55AM|#
MR,
Modern or not, doesn't matter. I could name many giants of quantum
physics beside Pauli, too, but that isn't the point.
It all started way back in Newtons day. The way in which the
principles discovered by his genius seemed to explain every
possible natural phenomenom would - in the 'rational' laymens mind
- seem to cover everything relevant there could be known about the
material world. That was not the case, as Einstein and later on the
findings of quantum mechanics revealed. Newton had made no
methaphysical assumptions based on his findings, but the laymen
did: It was all so simple: Time was absolute and universe was like
a fine tuned clock work.
If by conservative implications you are refering to socio darwinism
it could be argued that it has no more to do with science than
feminism, marxism, eugenics etc have.
|12.5.07 @ 8:58AM|#
(no, conservative implications I mention are simply a direct citation from the article... it isn't important for me what they are, just why Bailey and/or Taft Club mention them)
|12.5.07 @ 8:58AM|#
among qm giants, the only mystics that come to mind are bohm and
wigner. but neither of them allowed any mysticism to enter their
scientific work.
unfortunately, the great quantum chemist fritz schaeffer went over
to the dark side (he has no particular qualifications in biology),
and his work does seem to have suffered.
|12.5.07 @ 9:46AM|#
What MR said.
This is exactly the sort of opportunistic, dishonest view of
science that has put the right so far behind the curve ball on
global warming science.
You should let your political beliefs flow from your understanding
of the truth, not vice-versa.
emme|12.5.07 @ 10:08AM|#
"I could name many giants of quantum physics beside Pauli, too,
but that isn't the point."
Like who? Last time I checked 93% of the National Academy of
Sciences described themselves as atheists. Granted all members of
the association are not physicists but many are. I know it's
besides the point but I'm just curious. Who are these giants you
speak of?
|12.5.07 @ 10:08AM|#
scientism -- a belief that faith in Darwinism or science in
general has become an ideology or secular religion.
That's not what "scientism" means.
The way in which the principles discovered by his genius seemed
to explain every possible natural phenomenom would -
But not to Newton himself, who wasn't satisfied with his own use of
fixed referrence systems, and wrote that he used them because he
couldn't think of anything better.
VM|12.5.07 @ 10:10AM|#
"Last time I checked 93% of the National Academy of Sciences
described themselves as atheists. "
???
|12.5.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Psst -- Weigel....
Wouldn't it be good to actually put a link to the event in your
article?
Here it is: http://roberttaft.org/
|12.5.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Scientists in the fields of sociobiology and evolutionary
psychology have suggested that human nature is fixed.
Any scientist who understands Darwinian evolution would never say
human nature is "fixed". Evolution suggests on the contrary that
organisms constantly adapt and change. I think evolutionary
psychologists are actually suggesting that today's human nature
still reflects adaptions to vanished environments, and those
adaptations can't be wished away because they are politically
inconvenient - e.g. men truly are generally physically stronger
than women, people as a rule do not like to share their posessions
with strangers and will not do so, women generally do have a
stronger parental instinct than men, there is a genetic reason why
Kenyan men are more likely to be better runners than Jewish men
from New York, etc. And these elements are unlikely to change in
the next few generations no matter what laws are passed. To that
extent Darwinism can be used as a tool to fight progressives.
However, modern biology is also anti-conservative, because it
suggests that none of these things have to be true over the long
run. Given time and resources one probably actually could breed
"Homo Sovieticus" or a type of human that might thrive under a
Communist system. One could create a human descended species where
woman are physically the equals of men, or no men are needed at
all, etc. The true implications of Darwinist evolution are rather
unsettling to most people if you think it through - what we think
of as "human" today is just a temporary condition that will change
over time no matter what we do. Whatever descendents we may have
500,000 years from now are likely to be a very different sort of
animal than we are.
Guy Montag|12.5.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Any chance that the event may be postponed due to
snow global warming climate change?
|12.5.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Actually, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is in
Arlington County, VA
I learn something new everyday.
|12.5.07 @ 6:26PM|#
This is exactly the sort of opportunistic, dishonest view of
science that has put the right so far behind the curve ball on
global warming science.
Not putting your faith in claims of consensus does not strike me as
being behind the curve ball...asking for reasoned explanation of
phenomena then getting attacked as anti-science for questioning
it...well that is pure scientism and has nothing to do with
science.
|12.5.07 @ 6:31PM|#
Given time and resources one probably actually could breed
"Homo Sovieticus" or a type of human that might thrive under a
Communist system.
True enough but in the real world could a society made of such
monsters out compete "Homo Libertaricus" for scarce
resources?
I have my doubts.
Neu Mejican|12.5.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Dilettante's First Law of Empirical Narcissism. In a moment
of controversy, the temptation to proclaim yourself an avatar of
truth, and your opponent a faith-based inquisitor, is natural
enough. But Darwin is Darwin thanks to generations of independent
corroboration. By definition, generations of independent
corroboration do not stand behind a thesis that is still being
hotly contested. In claiming Darwin (or Copernicus or Galileo) for
his cause, a person is often by implication saying: There would be
consensus here, but for you damned critics! This is an odd
definition of consensus. Conversely, when one's angry reaction to
an idea is being *adduced as evidence in its favor, one should ask:
What does my anger have to do with the truth-content of your
idea?
From
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2179073
*Word for the day:Adduced = cited as pertinent or conclusive
Sam Grove|12.6.07 @ 12:17AM|#
Given time and resources one probably actually could breed
"Homo Sovieticus" or a type of human that might thrive under a
Communist system
Or convert them with nanotechnology as were The Borg.
Guy Montag|12.6.07 @ 12:21AM|#
Ron,
Thanks for a great talk! All of you guys on the panel were great,
even the little guy in the green sweater who I never heard of and
still can not remember his name.
Thank you, the other panelists and David Weigel for the autographs
for my son too.
BTW all, Ron is now in the pocket of big organic hydrocarbon! How
was the shot of Jack?
|12.6.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Hi Guy: Good to see you last night. I'm glad you enjoyed the
discussion. BTW, the guy in the green sweater was I.D. booster Tom
Bethell.
The Jack was fine. Thanks.
Guy Montag|12.6.07 @ 11:21AM|#
RB,
Cool. Please foreard that e-mail I sent from my Army address to Mr.
Derbyshire and Mr. Murray? Forgot to add that it was nice to meet
Mes. Murray too.
Tried to write "The Derb" through NRO, but no idea if that will get
through.
GM
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245