4 ms·
It's decent enough advice, but I have a hard time taking any scientific advice from someone who doesn't even believe in evolution.
by icey 19y ago
It's decent enough advice, but I have a hard time taking any scientific advice from someone who doesn't even believe in evolution.
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]
- yan 19y agoI share your sentiment. I like what Ben Stein says and he is definitely a very intelligent guy, but it's getting harder and harder to take him seriously in recent times.
- donw 19y agoMany brilliant minds throughout history have been mistaken about things which today we take for granted; Einstein effectively waged war against probabilistic quantum theory for his entire academic career. Being passionately wrong about something doesn't make Einstein, or Ben Stein, any less brilliant.
- icey 19y agoI don't think that Ben Stein is not intelligent; he has shown to be a very smart guy. What I take issue with is that he appears to be intellectually dishonest (n.b. the whole debacle with his pro-creationist movie). I take issue with your comparison of Einstein to Ben Stein though; Einstein took issue with Quantum Mechanics because of lack of proof. Ben Stein's position appears to occur incongruous to the face of proof.
- donw 19y agoAll analogies have limits; I'm not saying that they were mistaken for the same reason, merely that smart people can (and often do) support dumb ideas. This doesn't make their good ideas any less good. Creationism is almost by definition dishonest, as it a thinly veiled attempt to replace science with dogma, and so any pursuit in support of creationism-as-science is guaranteed to be intellectually bankrupt. That said, in the modern world, being deeply religious often comes with a great deal of cognitive dissonance, and it is not uncommon for people, like Ben Stein, to genuinely believe that what they are doing is not only correct, but honest and good, no matter how much their efforts fly in the face of logic, common sense, or good taste. Doesn't mean that said people are fundamentally dishonest; just that their view of the world doesn't entirely coincide with reality.
- icey 19y agoHmm, I think we don't really disagree that much. I think that I just have a stronger reaction to his stances on basic things than you do.
- Prrometheus 19y agoWhile I do agree that Mr. Stein's consorting with creationist and cheerleading Bush administration policies have lessened my opinion of his powers of judgment, this is not "scientific advice".
- yters 19y agoIn terms of a minimal theoretic definition, ID is used by many professional disciplines today, since all it says is that intelligence can be detected. This comes up in any discipline that deals with human intent, such as forensics and law, signal processing, web search, spam filters, etc. ID as a scientific methodology merely says we shouldn't arbitrarily limit where we can look for intelligence. The only reason we currently have this limit is because of purposeful cultural transformations (see "Closing of the American Mind") and not because of any rigorous arguments or evidence. Also, it needs to be said that ID vs evolution is a false dichotomy.
- yters 19y agoDownmodder, could you point out where I am wrong, along with support? It'd be a help for me, since the above makes the most sense to me.