Is your lunch hour safely over? If not, wait a while before watching another interview with Ben Stein. I can’t believe what an idiot this man is; it’s not just that he’s ignorant, but that he has these bizarrely inappropriate notions about biology. He complains about “Darwinism” because it doesn’t explain why are there laws of gravity and thermodynamics, or where physics and gravity come from (Bonus lunacy! He claims Darwin said gravity was intelligently designed!). He keeps making these insane assertions in interview after interview, too; does he ever think, or notice that gravity is not a product of biological processes? Did someone tell him gravity was produced by sucking or something?
We all know, after all, that gravity is actually produced by the 4th dimension, which is not what you think it is. Just ask a smart rabbit, who even shares some other sentiments with Stein.
(Whatever you do, don’t send that comic to Ben Stein — he might think it’s a serious hypothesis.)
The sound of that man’s voice has started to induce reations of physical pain. In fact, my ears mught just be bleeding right now.
no
I think what Stein is trying to say when he brings up gravity and thermodynamics is that “Darwinism” doesn’t, as an exclusively biological concept doesn’t “explain” these things; But the existence of an intelligent designer on the other hand does “explain” them. ID is therefor the stronger theory. . .
Completely wrong of course, but I think I at least see the point he is trying and failing to make.
There are only two explanations.
1. Stein is just babbling like Coulter or Goebbels and could care less what he is saying or how true it is.
2. Stein is showing symptoms of dementia. Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, Creutzfeld-Jacob, Vascular, something. In other words his brain is beginning to resemble swiss cheese.
I’d say it is 60:40 dementia. Being deliberately stupid doesn’t seem like a good long term strategy.
How long before some astute interviewer (not ‘Gorgeous George’ here) hauls off and plows Stein in his smug, stupid fucking face?
Betcha Avi Lewis’d do it, at least verbally.
I’m going to respectfully disagree. Stein is constantly proving himself to not be that complex. I really think that he thinks the ToE is supposed to explain gravity and the evolution of the universe.
He’s so deep in an echo chamber that there is no amount of outside stimuli that will wake his sorry ass up to reality. There is no one that he listens to on his side that is telling him that he is wrong. Have you heard anyone on the anti-evolution side say anything about some of the outrageous things he’s said? You’d think there would be someone on the anti-evo side that has to recognize some of the damage he is doing.
Then again, the more he talks the more people are hearing him and it’s free publicity for the anti-evos, whether its good info he’s disseminating or not.
Stick a fork in him, he’s done.
Going by the rabbit’s explanation linked above, Mr. Stein apparently has little depth. This could explain why he seems to be soaring through the stratosphere (i.e. he’s high as a fricken kite).
If Stein is suffering some form of dementia, apologists better not use it to excuse his evil vapidity, like they did with Heston.
My grandfather died of Alzheimer’s, and at no point during his decline did it impell him to be a fucking douchebag.
This interview is by far the most ridiculous one I’ve heard so far and actually had me literally banging my head on my laptop at some points. If Stein actually believes that people are telling him that he isn’t allowed to believe in god, he really IS a raving lunatic, though I have a feeling he’s more of a dishonest philanderer…
That’s not gravity; it’s his career.
“Did someone tell him gravity was produced by sucking or something?”
I think we’re all aware by now that Stein has “possessing gravitas” and “sucking” completely reversed.
I suppose it’s no more surprising than that “gravity is caused by matter expanding” theory…
I don’t know whether I miss having sound on this computer right now, or not. I suspect it’s the latter.
Why so vicious with your comments about Stein? If he has dementia, his comments will be harmless and go unnoticed. But if you keep attacking him vehemently, you’ll just give him more publicity.
I liken Stein to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (aka Baghdad Bob and Comical Ali), who reported that American troops were committing suicide by the hundreds at the gates of Baghdad and that the city would never fall while American tanks were clearly visible in the streets behind him.
Stein has no grip on reality. He’s the best weapon that the forces of reason have against the creationists: as long as we use him as our straw man, we can make creationists look like the buffoons that they are.
Well, that would explain a lot.
Your right. To be fair, Stein could just be psychotic. Mentally ill in the medical sense.
Delusions can be treated. A few weeks of zyprexa or abilify and he may come to and realize what a fool he was.
I’ve seen the line attributed to several people, and I don’t know which is correct, but it seems appropriate: He is so far off he’s “not even wrong.”
Hi Stushie. You may be unaware of this, but there’s a country called the USA that’s just a bit south of my home in Canada that are full of whackos with ideas like Stein. They even made a shitty movie about their ideas, starring Stein. They seem like kooks worth ignoring, except for the fact that they wield enormous political power and have nothing better to do with their lives than dedicate them to ruining the last thousand years of social progress.
Ignoring them is exactly the wrong thing to do. That’s how they keep getting interviews in which the interviewers nod thoughtfully while Stein expells this kind of bullshit.
Seriously, a society in which the question “How come Darwinism can’t explain gravity?” isn’t met with a team of EMTs and immediate admittance to a suitable psychiatric ward is what happens when you ignore these kooks. And it’s a crying fucking shame that we happen to be living in one.
I’m a little surprised Ben Stein is still talking about that whole “gravity” thing. He must not be keeping up with the news in the evangelical scientist community – they refuted gravity with a theory of Intelligent Falling almost three years ago.
Damn it.
At least George is still good looking, even if he’s not much use for much else…
I’m terribly disappointed.
They had safety goggles in the precambrian? Wow!
Stein’s in so deep of a hole right now he’s doing the sucking.
Can we nominate Stein for some sort of an antimolly?
“Why so vicious with your comments about Stein? If he has dementia, his comments will be harmless and go unnoticed.”
Well, because unfortunately that’s not how it works. People often listen to people who have serious mental health issues. I’d bring up Hitler and his Syphilitic induced insanity at this point, but I don’t want to fall pray to Godwin’s Law. Oops. Damn!
Ben Stein talks about gravity because he has none.
There once was a man named Stein
If you forget, I’ll remind
From his mouth would squeak
Like a sphincter that leaks
Noises that should come from behind.
(Hey, I tried:)
I think what Stein is trying to say when he brings up gravity and thermodynamics is that “Darwinism” doesn’t, as an exclusively biological concept doesn’t “explain” these things; But the existence of an intelligent designer on the other hand does “explain” them. ID is therefor the stronger theory. . .
I get what you’re saying here, but it doesn’t make Stein look any less ignorant even when you put this kind of spin on it. There are good scientific theories for understanding those things, but Stein is completely ignorance of them. He’s using that ignorance as his basis for his belief in a supreme being. Not only is that bad science, but it’s bad religion.
ahem … Stein is completely ignorant of them …
when will I learn to use preview.
Did someone tell him gravity was produced by sucking or something?
Did somebody already make the “If gravity were produced by sucking then Stein would be a black hole” joke? If not, dibs.
Maybe he is saying things so batshit nuts nobody can parody him? Personally I think he trying to drag the discussion into physics because it’s not the biologist strong suite.
I think it is time for the men in white coats* to pay Mr. Stein a visit.
* Medical orderlies from a psych ward, not the Super Scientist Justice League.
Does this look like Borat to anyone else?
Sastra, a commentator I hold much admiration for, really said it best over on Ed Brayton’s blog. She accurately (in my opinion) identifies what leads a person like Stein to spout such horribly confused criticisms of the theory of evolution. I hope she doesn’t mind my quoting her for anyone who hasn’t read it:
http://tinyurl.com/6qbppb
Wow. He seemed so sane back in the days of “win ben stein’s money”
This is likely to be just as bad….comes on tomorrow a.m. on Book T.V.
You Devils:
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9256&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No
Stein conflates ‘Darwinism’ with scientific naturalism. When he refers to Darwinists, he simply means Scientists who subscribe to methodological naturalism. i.e. all real scientists.
He and many other neo-Creationists feel that Darwin was somehow responsible for making science naturalistic. Which is on par with the idea that Darwin caused the holocaust.
At the next ‘Dover’ they should put him on the stand as a witness. “THIS is what happens when we stop teaching science”.
@brownian:
“Seriously, a society in which the question “How come Darwinism can’t explain gravity?” isn’t met with a team of EMTs and immediate admittance to a suitable psychiatric ward is what happens when you ignore these kooks. And it’s a crying fucking shame that we happen to be living in one.”
I love you, man.
That’s it! I am declaring Poe’s Law on Ben Stein. Or, as I should call him, Ricardo Lopez, Arnold Cross, and Simon St. James, the three actors who have been hired by comedy central to play Ben Stein over the years. Nice try, Comedy Network, but you can’t put one over on me!
Has anyone tried leaving a comment on this video? So far there are zero comments. They appear to be getting sucked into moderation. (at least mine was).
As we know, we’re not Stein’s intended audience for these statements. To his target audience, his statement makes perfect sense. To them, “Darwinism” isn’t just a scientific theory about biology, it’s an entire atheist belief system and a competitor to Christianity. They think that we believe it explains everything about life, the universe, and everything. They also think it’s the source of our morality and values. With that mindset, the fact that “Darwinism” doesn’t explain gravity is a damning indictment of “Darwinism”.
Perhaps Stein can’t recognize the difference between news and parody?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
The theory of intelligent falling — god is sucking on all of us.
I think what Stein is saying is that science (“Darwinism”)does not explain why there is gravity or thermodynamics or life, etc. Science only tells us how (or more accurately, is only a model of how) but not the “why”. Why is there the universe instead of nothing. Why do we exist to ask such questions, etc. To him (and many others), the only way to explain why we exist is to invoke God. Some of us, though, are content to accept that it just is; there does not need to be a purpose.
Evolution doesn’t explain what causes diseases either and Germ Theory is just a theory.
qedpro #40
make that the theory of intelligence failing
From #5
That won’t happen, because Stein plays a totally different guy when he steps back into reality. He only says things like “doubt” and “it has failings”. He must know how insane the things he says are, and tones them down.
Are we sure The Onion is not behind Expelled and paying Ben Stein?
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
On a more serious note I have heard Xtians who claim that gravity is “just a theory” and deny it as a force of nature. They claim hell is literally in the center of the earth and our sin holds us to earth as it separates us from hell; i.e., prevents us from falling directly into hell.
This view does have some explanatory power. It can explain how Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection. (Before his resurrection he willed himself to the planet which is obvious because he walked on water.)
Give me some time to dig up the internet site where I saw this.
P.S. Will someone please provide a link to html codes usable in these posts.
When a creationist speaks of “Darwinism” they’re using a word that has no real meaning. It’s just a pointer to the pile of strawmen knocking around inside their hollow heads.
“Darwinism” = Whatever aspects of reality a given cretinist refuses to accept.
What Stein is saying has no meaning at all in the real world. But he doesn’t even notice this, because he isn’t living in the real world.
Here is the main “There is no gravity”, Copernicus, Newton & Darwin are Kabbalistic plotters site.
Perhaps Ben Stein’s next movie, if anyone is dumb enough to finance it:
http://www.fixedearth.com/
Ok, here is where I read about the denial of gravity:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=1060805#post1060805
They also deny evolution, atomic theory, plate tectonics, and global warming. here is one quote, “Physics in of itself is a very sketchy field of “science”, because its so uncertain of itself and always incapable of replicating their hypothesis or experimentation.”
I should have said:
Perhaps Ben Stein’s next movie, if anyone needs a big enough tax writeoff to finance it:
http://www.fixedearth.com/
A guy in a bar last nite said I looked like a young Ben Stein. I didn’t even pretend to be polite; I told him to get the hell away from me. He said he’s actually going to see Expelled. I tried to explain how wrong the movie was and he just didn’t get it. Sigh.
I thought gravity was produced by cats? ;)
(Stein … someone needs to use the hook to get him offstage. He’s way overstayed his allotted time in public.)
@#3
No. Stein is smarter than that.
Stein is purposefully making an error in logic. Perhaps someone can remind me what the name of the fallacy is.
He is implying a condition of Darwinism that we can test, a hypothesis. Namely, Darwinism explains Gravity. For his Fundamentalist/Creationist audience, they will have already been prepared for this hypothesis. He tests the hypothesis by asking scientists to demonstrate how Darwinism explains Gravity. When they fail to do so by either looking back at him with a stunned look of being presented with lunacy in the guise of reasonable question or by attempting to explain that the hypothesis is flawed, otherwise known as evading the question, he claims that the hypothesis is falsified. Hence, Darwinism is disproved.
Here’s an example of that sort of fallacy in action… We know that antibiotics are claimed to solve all sorts of ills. Then explain to me how you would use antibiotics to fix a warp core breach? What? You can’t? Therefore, we must conclude that antibiotics are merely an elaborate hoax.
But Stein is not an idiot. He knows that his hypothesis are bogus. He is simply a huckster and he must be gleeful for all the chatter he is generating.
Of course… I’ve been wondering why he uses the word “Darwinism” as opposed to “Evolution.” I haven’t given Darwinism much thought for ages. It’s a philosophical concept. It isn’t science. Evolution is what we observe. Natural selection, genetic drift, etc are theories explaining our observations of evolution. What Stein and his ilk seek to do is to religion-ify science by equating a philosophy related to the science as the science itself and then transpose that philosophy into the realm of religion.
In this context, his question begins to make some sense. Can Darwinism, the religion, explain Gravity? I am not sure if the Creationists really want more competition in the religious playing field. Using the same sort of rules for validation as any other religion, I think Darwinism has an answer for Ben Stein’s question:
http://rinzewind.org/archives/2008/05/11/fisica-para-biologos/
(originally found on Bad Astronomy http://www.badastronomy.com/)
So wait, if hell is in the center of the earth and our sin is what’s weighing us down, then…anorexics are the holiest people on earth next to midgets? This answers everything.
I suspect that (part of) the problem is that he sees SCIENCE as a monolithic, evil force; after all, he thinks atheists substitute Science for God. If god is monolithic (leaving aside that whole, untidy trinity business that Christians subscribe to) then surely SCIENCE is an evil subversion of that monolithism?
Dragging the analogy along a bit, is it possible that he sees the different scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology) as being the “unholy trinity” of Science? Does he think that science likewise tries to (in deliberate falsehood) claim the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-benevolent attributes of deity? Surely not….
PG, that sounds like the weirdest attempted pick-up ever. “Has anyone ever told you you look like a young Ben Stein? I’m going to see Expelled, y’wanna come? Could you say the words ‘voodoo economics’ for me? Hey, what say you and I go for a little walk–I got a new bottle of Clear Eyes™….”
I saw the interveiw last night and wanted to puke… Ive gotten to the point of which nothing Stein says shocks me anymore… But watching George in that interveiw was painful. When interveiwing an evangelical about a bill allowing state censorship of Canadian films(in Canada, its bill c-10) he tore a strip off the nutbag. Watching this I could tell George had little knowledge of science and none on the IDiot movement (which is comparable to one of the bowel)… Just another reminder of why I dont watch “the hour”…
Well, the religious are fond of fasting.
It’s kind of funny really. To Xtians “Darwinism,” isn’t just a stand-in word meaning scientific naturalism. It is the diametrically opposed evil opposite of a faith based ontology and therefore must be the opposite of what they believe in all ways. Since it is the opposite of their religion, it MUST have all the characteristics of their religion: somehow they infer both that it should be a complete theory and that it should be capable of being used as an underpinning for morality. No scientist would ever claim that our knowlege of the unverse will EVER be complete, and using basing a moral code upon “survival of the fittest” makes no more sense than basing it upon mitosis, or covalent bonding. Both are mirages created by their illusion that science is trying to be a religion and failing at it. There’s no surprise that science fails at a task it isn’t attempting.
Greg: (#38)
It’s the CBC… they don’t give a crap about their audience so I doubt they even bother posting comments.
George is usually a good interviewer but he just sucked as badly here as did BS.
Some of us, though, are content to accept that it just is; there does not need to be a purpose.
I’m content in not having a purpose to reality, but I still want to know why it came into being. Cause need not imply purpose.
@#53 cicely —
So, would you get on with that. The physicists have pretty much stalled on further understanding of gravithy. Oh yeah, they have a law and all, but you know its just a law after all and not complete, certainly not a fact…maybe the biologists should take a crack at it. The effects of gravity on the human physique seem to be the most important issues in society…
Because I must be a closet masochist, I am still trolling blogs talking about Expelled.
This might be the best one ever –
It excoriates Stein and Expelled for –
wait for it-
.
.
.
Advocating mixed race marriages
No, I’m not kidding
It says – “The message of the movie is not about creationism but to trap Christians into accepting, tolerating, promoting and engaging in interracial relationships and marriage.”
and “The purpose of this movie is not to defend creationism but to demonstrate how evil white racism is because it is the same as evolution.”
http://tarobb.blogspot.com/2008/04/trap-is-set.html
Boy, was I wrong. After I saw the last interview with Stein linked from this post I was finally convinced that it was about evolution causing gravity.
Ben’s next topic:
How does gravity explain PYGMIES + DWARFS???
We’ve had a stirling explanation of gravity for almost a hundred years. It’s a little thing called general relativity.
Kind of disturbing that Stein gets so warm a reception on a seemingly liberal show like The Hour. Apparently, “normal people” really just don’t have a clue about anything.
Eww, eww! I followed your link, Benjamin Franklin, and eww! That has got to be the first time I’ve ever seen Darwin vilified by a Christian (and a truetrade; one, not like David Twaddle or Kenny) because he advocated against racism and slavery:
What perverse little cariacatures of men and women these people are.
“How does gravity explain PYGMIES + DWARFS???”
It doesn’t. But by contrast, we all know that the theory of gravity as proposed by Pastafarianism DOES explain dwarfs and pygmies very well.
Since gravity is caused by the FSM pushing down on us, dwarfs are shorter because the FSM is pushing down on them harder than others.
Hey! Pastafarianism explains MORE than the traditional theory of gravity, I guess it must be correct.
So evolution is bad because it’s not racist enough?
Oh I get it … now that he’s gone after the Darwinists for their Darwinism, Ben’s now setting his sights on the Newtonists and their Newtonism!
Go fig.
raven:
Funny, he induces symptoms of Tourette’s in me.
Well, Phil Plait asked us not to tell PZ about this, but … it’s just too perfect in connection with this post.
http://rinzewind.org/archives/2008/05/11/fisica-para-biologos/
PZ, if you would, please check out this comic for exactly what was asked for: a biological explanation for gravity!
~David D.G.
They had safety goggles in the precambrian?
Well, the fossil rabbits needed eye protection ….
Science, Materialism, Methodological Naturalism, Darwinism, Gravity, Evolution, Social Darwinism…
For Ben Stein, the strategy is to blur the distinctions between these terms, confluate them into one big pot, without ever pronouncing its name, atheism.
This is not someone who doesn’t undestand these terms, this is someone who wilfully amplifies a pre-existing confusion in the general public’s mind and is very good at exploiting the fact that people underestimate him.
This is the art of Neo-Conservative propaganda.
These people are not interested with analysis, historical exactitude, terminology, truth. They are only interested with maintaining their preferred ideology.
I don’t speak the language, but I can figure this out and found seeing this to be hilarious:
I think I learned that in Physics 100, Teach the Controversy version: “Gravity doesn’t pull–the Earth sucks!” That’s about all I remember of the 70s.
I think he is trying to pollute the definition of evolution for an already uneducated public. By lumping a large set of misinformation together, it will be harder to strip away the fallacies to explain the actual facts. It is giving the average joe debating tactics that will wear away the resolve of anyone attempting to explain evolution to someone misinformed.
In related news:
http://overcompensating.com/comics/20080515.gif
Aw come on people give Ben a break, gravity really *does* suck…
Thanks, Brownian! (re #8.) My dad got awfully forgetful in his 90s, and not only did he “lend” his life savings to younger women, he also agreed when they asked him, an atheist since the age of 12, if he believed in God. Of course, he was going deaf, too, as well and refused to admit it. Let’s not tar all senile seniors with the “Ben Stein” brush.
Aw come on people give Ben a break, gravity really *does* suck…
Hey, if the earth didn’t suck we’d all fall off..
Quit kissing Ben Stein’s ass. Call a spade a spade. He’s getting well paid to lie. It worked great for his earlier career as a speechwriter. And it served him well as he pretended to be a school teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
The man lies for money. He’s not stupid, so quit making excuses for him. Not stupid, vile.
Damn, I missed that. The spousal unit doesn’t care for Strombo’s reporting style so I only watch The Hour when he’s out. (Now, if he’d return the favour for Pardon the Interruption…) I suspect that George Stromboulopoulos is just giving Stein the freedom to show us all what an idiot he is. But a few pointed questions would be nice.
2. Stein is showing symptoms of dementia. Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, Creutzfeld-Jacob, Vascular, something. In other words his brain is beginning to resemble swiss cheese.
mmm…now I’m all hungry.
BRAINS….er….CHEEEESSE…
Oh, that’s easy. You merely suspend the antibiotics in a holomatrix approximating antiparticles, and then you send a reverse-polarity tachyon pulse through the holomatrix to bind the baryons to the structural integrity field. That’ll seal the breach right up, and as a side effect, increase the efficiency coefficient of the Jeffries Tubes by about 15 Cochranes.
/Treknobabble
When I was in middle school my parents sent me to one of those summer camps for gifted kids (a href=”http://cty.jhu.edu/”>CTY). They had various activities for us to choose from to keep us occupied when we weren’t in class. One of them was Stage a Fake Protest (or something along those lines)…we made silly signs and went around the campus chanting, “Down with gravity! Newton was a commie!”
We all thought it was quite plainly ridiculous, but looking back, I wonder if some people might have thought we were being serious. Poe’s Law and all…
Wow, I can’t believe no one has mentioned this cartoon, discussed previously by the Bad Astronomer, which demonstrates exactly how biology can explain gravitation. Seriously, forward this to Ben Stein, maybe it’ll shut him up.
Post #65
Um, the guy’s a white supremist and active promoter of Stormfront.
Hence it makes sense that someone who believes (Hitler = Good) would reject the argument (Darwin = Hitler; Hitler = Evil => Darwin = Hitler) for the argument (Darwin = Racial Equality and Integration; Racial Equality and Integration = Evil; Hitler = Racial Segregation and white supremecy; => Hiter = Good && Darwin = Evil && Hitler != Darwin) ) (*Ick*).
from BF’s linked site:
Thomas Robb: (heavy sarcasm on TR’s part): Do you want to preserve your racial heritage? If you do, then you are (perhaps unknowingly) supporting evolution. Do you want your son or daughter to marry within your racial family? If so you are a racist! Do you feel more comfortable around white people? If you do then you are a racist! And if you are not careful – you might become a Nazi.
Um, yes. If you do those things, you are a racist…
Um, I never really got why white seperatists don’t want to be called racist and claim they aren’t racists. If they are actually honest to their beliefs, wouldn’t they claim that yes, they are racists and yes, they believe racism to be a good thing?
BizarroStushie: “If he has dementia, his comments will be harmless and go unnoticed.”
I am agree completely. Us am living in beautiful world where us am only hearing wise and rational people.
I’ll let you in on a little secret: there is such a thing as bad publicity.
Doesn’t this apply to unfalsifiable claims instead?
What? Syphilis? Where is he supposed to have got syphilis?
Bingo.
Including the existence of PYGMIES + DWARFS, peace be upon them.
Having seen Strombolopolis fawn over Deepak Chopra (to the best of my recollection), that interview didn’t surprise me at all.
Around 5:30 in the video linked by PZ, Ben says “Darwinism is a religion too. There is no evidence that Darwin explained the origin of a single unique species.”
Later he claims that Charles Darwin was a huge racist that advocated a superior race (white Europeans) over the other inferior races (South Americans and Africans) who would eventually need to be wiped-out.
“Some of us, though, are content to accept that it just is; there does not need to be a purpose.
I’m content in not having a purpose to reality, but I still want to know why it came into being. Cause need not imply purpose.
Posted by: Sarcastro”
“WHY” questions DO inherently imply purpose. No properly framed scientific question is a “why” question.
“HOW” questions focus on cause without purpose. A properly framed scientific question is always a “how” question.
.
@83
You forgot about the deflector dish! cure for all humanity’s woes. Though even it might not be able to deal with the ignorance spouted forth in that interview *shudders*
David Marjanović, OM
What? Syphilis? Where is he supposed to have got syphilis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_medical_health
I don’t think Stein has incipient dementia. The more I see of him in interviews the more I suspect he is simply perverse. He gloms onto things that give him an excuse to rabble rouse.
He sees himself as a big wooden spoon, and his mission in life is to stir things up. His motto is, “Ain’t I a little stinker?”
I suspect that he doesn’t really see himself as hurting science in America, either, because after all, dude, if science can’t stand the scrutiny then it going to collapse anyways. He’s doing a public service!
But his exaggerating, his tendency for hyperbole, the sheer wrongness of so many of his comments, the factual errors he makes, it just make him a creepy, sad-sack of bullshit, and I hope someone knowledgeable takes him down someday.
@#92 Carnife —
The song The USS Make Shit Up sums this up perfectly:
Perhaps this is the first sign of a strategic shift in the creo camp. Having had their asses handed to them so often on the biology front, they are planning to refocus their efforts on unified field physics. Perhaps they think string theory will be a softer target.
“WHY” questions DO inherently imply purpose. No properly framed scientific question is a “why” question.
“HOW” questions focus on cause without purpose. A properly framed scientific question is always a “how” question.
this is not correct.
In science you would simply rephrase these as “ultimate” vs. “proximate”.
evolution itself is an answer to the ultimate question: Why does an elephant have a long trunk?
natural selection is an answer to the proximate question:
How did the elephant come by that trunk?
so, no, science both addresses how AND why questions.
I don’t think Stein has incipient dementia. The more I see of him in interviews the more I suspect he is simply perverse. He gloms onto things that give him an excuse to rabble rouse.
I still like the idea that someone a week or so back suggested:
Stein is simply hired to move the frame of reference, so that the position of people like Behe and Wells actually look “reasonable” in comparison (as measured in the public eye).
This explanation does seem to fit with a lot of things, and has no need to presume that someone who has exhibited some modicum of intellect in the past has really either become entirely brain dead, or insane.
Brownian:
I’m not sure the Avi Lewis of today would. Of late he seems to have become the language policeman type of leftist.
#38 and #58
Yeah, I forced myself to watch the clip on the CBC site, just so I could comment:
What? Syphilis? Where is he supposed to have got syphilis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_medical_health
Posted by: Bob L
I had long heard of articles on Wikipedia being completely made up & nonsense. Never really saw one until here.
Even articles that are controversial seldom are made up totally of speculation & innuendo as are the Syphilis, Parkinson’s disease & Mental health chapters in this article.
I do have a speculation why such garbage would clear Wiki’s editors.
If you can present Adolf Hitler as a syphilitic demented monster, you don’t have to see what is really to be found in the Hitler legacy.
Hitler was a person little different from the rest of us. Everyone has, at some point of their life, wished death & destruction on other people, dreamed of absolute power or blamed their troubles on others/conspiracies/non-Believers. Watch Fox News or TBN or read comments on political web-sites (both liberal & conservative) and you will see that we are surrounded by people who would, if they could, commit atrocities even grander than Hitler’s were.
If you want to prevent further Hitlers, it would be more profitable to focus on the political acumen & propaganda skills he exhibited (which have become such a large part of our own political process) rather than to fantasize ways to assure yourself he was not a rather typical human, like you & me.
Hitler wasn’t a monster, he was a far more dangerous thing, a human being.
.
If you want to prevent further Hitlers, it would be more profitable to focus on the political acumen & propaganda skills he exhibited (which have become such a large part of our own political process) rather than to fantasize ways to assure yourself he was not a rather typical human, like you & me.
Hitler wasn’t a monster, he was a far more dangerous thing, a human being.
putting aside whether or not Hitler had syphilis, or whether it was even relevant to the decisions he made (which I rather doubt in any case)…
that was very well said.
Oh, yeah. What Jaycubed said.
If you’ll excuse my tangent, Jaycubed’s comment exemplifies my personal understanding of secular humanism.
We, as humans, need to understand the processes that led to the existence of Hitler, so that we, humans, can prevent future Hitlers. Praying for deities to intervene sure hasn’t worked. It’s time we took responsibility for ourselves and found the solutions (whatever they may be) for ourselves.
Responsibility? You mean, we have to grow up?
“The job is here and the time is now.” ~mmo’h
All I know is that gravity is a lot more lethal than levity,
but not even close to the lethality of the stupidity of Ben Stein. I’m sure if there was an intelligent designer, Stein’s fevered stupidity would already have had induced some kind of elegant HSP cascade, resulting in modification of a protein that moderates the transcription of a subtle yet elegant toxin that causes long term, effective, yet fairly painful mandibular paralysis, much like the effects of licking the end of a swatch of Dieffenbachia. The fact that this has not yet occurred is proof enough I.D. is wrong.
Stein is such an idiot he is convinced “Darwinism” is a religion and as such should explain the mysteries of the universe in the same way that his religion does so perfectly – not. Fail.
All hail the mighty Darwin for he is Lord.
It would be interesting to know what is actually going on. Is this really the same man who wrote How to ruin American Enterprise for Forbes Magazine back in 2002? Really?
You mean, we have to grow up?
Yeah, I think we do. ;-)
Hitler wasn’t a monster, he was a far more dangerous thing, a human being.
then there’s always the fact that he hardly acted alone.
Reagan clearly had symptoms of alzheimer’s, even during his presidency.
Whatever decisions he made were obviously supported and put forward by his many, many supporters and handlers at the time.
yes, handlers.
I was going to mention that “Darwinism” is not intended to be just another word for “evolution,” but is instead short-hand code for “atheism” — but H.H. #31 beat me to the punch ;)Thanks.
As others pointed out, they want to make Charles Darwin the foil/parallel to Jesus Christ. You pick one of them, and then follow whom you picked. It’s all about trust. And atheism leads to killing people.
If you try to explain that student biologists probably don’t even bother to read Origin of the Species anymore, because it’s out of date, creationists look at you with incomprehension. No — we must trust in Darwin. They apparently have trouble telling the difference between the scientific method and divinely revealed Truth.
Yes, I don’t think Stein takes all the facts into play. He’s definitely got some biases (as we all do), but I think the thing that annoys me most is his voice.
Okay, I wanted to get in on the Intelligent Geography jokes too, so I did a google search on just that, “Intelligent Geography”. This is the first item on the list:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Geography
That’s right, the Uncyclopedia.
And it’s actually funny.
You have been warned.
It would be interesting to know what is actually going on. Is this really the same man who wrote How to ruin American Enterprise for Forbes Magazine back in 2002? Really?
exactly.
that is one of the pieces of supporting evidence that really got me thinking that “hired to shift the frame of reference” has some good explanatory power.
let’s think about it:
if this is the case, what would we predict Stein to do in the future?
(or has he already finished his task?)
I think Stein is primarily interested in self-promotion and doesn’t really care much about what he does for attention.
What irritates me most about Stein is that he poses as a public intellectual when his main accomplishment since writing some speeches for Nixon is to perform a narrowly-defined comic schtick over and over again. His father, Herbert Stein, was a highly regarded economist. Ben Stein is not, but seems to think he is, as if the position were passed by heredity.
The promotional photo for “Expelled” is enough to remind me why I cannot stand Ben Stein. The “irony” is supposed to be the “serious” intellectual with the droning voice dressed up as a renegade schoolboy. But there was nothing serious about Stein to begin with. Real intellectuals usually don’t have a soporific speaking style, and if they do, it’s a flaw rather than proof of their seriousness. But the best researchers can get excited, and speak enthusiastically about the ideas that get them going. Even a talk on a topic in pure mathematics can look very animated whether you have a clue what the speaker is talking about. Stein is pure style over substance, and his style is only amusing for about as long as it takes to say “Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?”
Actually, a jar of peanut butter I bought last year eventually evolved into gravity. So near – so NEAR, Mr. Stein – yet so far! I am afraid theoscience has lost out again. I have a transitional banana that developed partially into the strong nuclear force. After this year I am selling it on eBay.
Remember that Stein witnessed the gutting of the GOP in the last days of the Nixon administration. For the last 30-odd years, the right wing has been creating their “echo chamber”, with think tanks such as Cato and American Enterprise, and propaganda outlets such as Fox and the Washington Times. The net effect has been to lurch the country rightward (hell, Clinton was painted as a huge liberal, when he was really the best Republican president since Ike). The fundies are simply useful tools who help to prop up authoritarian administrations. For Stein, this is ideological, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about science or religion, he’s just carrying water for the GOP.
Jaycubed said: “Hitler wasn’t a monster, he was a far more dangerous thing, a human being.”
And I don’t like that at all. It is far too close to the concept of “original sin”, making Hitler seem almost like a buddy, just another human being.
It’s true, he was a human being; to be more specific, he was a monstrous human being who set in motion and was at the centre of events which led directly to the death of over 50 million human beings (and how much other indirect misery over the ensuing 50 years).
Very few human beings have the capacity for mass murder which Hitler proved capable of. What we need to do is to make sure that our political infrastructure does not reward people who have such capacity with political or economic power.
Very few human beings have the capacity for mass murder which Hitler proved capable of.
…except for all those that followed him.
did Hitler personally toss all those people into concentration camps and man the ovens himself?
not hardly.
it’s a fools errand to try and attach to one man that which all of us are guilty of.
Jaycubed,
Well said… and time for the obligatory link to Bob Altemeyer’s book The Authoritarians. In the US today, authoritarian follower personality types tend to be fundies. Free PDF!
it’s a fools errand to try and attach to one man that which all of us are guilty of.
I remember hearing of an incident during the Nuremberg trials when one of the prosecutors, a Jew, broke down and suffered something of a nervous breakdown. He had realized that the people on the stands weren’t monsters at all: they were just regular people.
&“WHY” questions DO inherently imply purpose. No properly framed scientific question is a “why” question.
“HOW” questions focus on cause without purpose. A properly framed scientific question is always a “how” question.
“this is not correct.
In science you would simply rephrase these as “ultimate” vs. “proximate”.
evolution itself is an answer to the ultimate question: Why does an elephant have a long trunk?
natural selection is an answer to the proximate question:
How did the elephant come by that trunk?
so, no, science both addresses how AND why questions.
Posted by: Ichthyic”
I have to disagree. look at the definitions (from M-W dictionary)
WHY 1 (adverb): for what cause, reason, or purpose
WHY 2 (conjunction):1 : the cause, reason, or purpose for which – 2 : for which : on account of which
WHY 3 (noun): 1 : reason, cause
All relate to PURPOSE, all definitions refer to the meaning behind an action.
ULTIMATE 1 (adjective) a: most remote in space or time : farthest b: last in a progression or series : final c: eventual 2 d: the best or most extreme of its kind : utmost – 2: arrived at as the last result – 3 a: basic, fundamental b: original 1 c: incapable of further analysis, division, or separation.
ULTIMATE 2 (noun) 1: something ultimate; especially : fundamental – 2: acme.
ULTIMATE 3 (verb) 1: end.
PROXIMATE (adjective) 1: immediately preceding or following (as in a chain of events, causes, or effects)
2 a: very near : close b: soon forthcoming : imminent
Both relate to distance & sequence, how close to one end of a string of effects are you referring to. They are quantitative words, not qualitative words.(except Ultimate 1: 2d which refers to a value judgement)
Evolution is not the WHY of an elephant’s trunk, evolution by natural selection, sexual preference and chance is the process HOW the elephant’s trunk developed in the way it did.
Surely you’re not implying that the goal/purpose of elephant evolution is the trunk? Evolution has NO goals, NO purpose, NO why. Evolution is the HOW, whether you are talking about close or distant relationships is irrelevant.
WHY is not really an answerable question because evolution has no purpose. Our interpretations about WHY questions are pure speculation, such as:
WHY did the elephant’s trunk grow so large:
Because it is used to pick food from high in a tree.
Because it is used to pick food from low off the ground.
Because it is used to carry water.
Because it is used as a social bonding tool.
All are potential useful effects from the evolution of the elephant’s trunk. Some are contradictory to other “causes”. None answer WHY.
WHY is the realm of the human mind, not the external world. That is why religion is the prime source of WHY answers about the nature of reality. WHY answers are, at best, educated guesses. Usually they just provide information about the pre-existing beliefs of the person giving the answer.
For example, it is an appropriate question to ask a Believer, “Why did god do that?”. You may get a number of different, even conflicting answers, but it is a conceivable question It is an inappropriate question to ask of a Believer, “How did god do that?” The non-answer is always the same, “He’s god. He can do whatever he wants!”
If you answer the question, “Why does an apple fall from a tree & hit the Earth?” with the WHY answer “Because of gravity.” you have not answered the question. You have put out a word that without even a WHAT is meaningless.
If you answer the question, “Why does an apple fall from a tree & hit the Earth?” with the answer “We don’t know the WHY and do not completely even know the HOW. WHAT we know is that all objects exhibit a measurable quality called mass. Objects with mass attract other objects with mass. At most scales of measurement The amount of attraction between objects can be predicted simply by the amount of mass of both objects and their distance apart (obeying an inverse square relationship for distance). Due to the apple and the Earth’s combined mass, the apple not only falls from the tree to the ground, but does so at a predictable & repeatable velocity. At present the underlying mechanisms of both mass gravity are not certain, with two proposed causes, a gauge force like other known forces or a warping of space time.”
This is typical of science, where you have to answer the WHAT questions correctly before you can begin to speculate on the HOW.
In simplest terms. WHAT & HOW are scientific questions. WHY is a metaphysical question.
.
@#119 Hairhead —
No, it’s not like original sin at all. The doctrine of original sin teaches that we are sinful by nature; that human nature is innately bad, and requires an external savior.
Recognizing that Hitler was a human being simply acknowledges that these darker parts of our personalities, which motivated Hitler and millions of “ordinary Germans” to do the evil things they did, exist in all of us. They do not define us; compassion, humaneness, acceptance, etc are also part of the human condition, and these positive aspects are just as important to acknowledge as the negative ones. Most importantly, we have a choice, and we can choose to act based on the “better angels of our nature.” But to deny the existence of the less pleasant aspects of humanity just because we “don’t like it at all” would be dangerous folly.
Someone on another thread here on Pharyngula brought up the comment by Jacob Bronowski in the series The Ascent of Man and it’s relevant every time the topic of Darwinism and Mr. Hilter (Manuel, don’t bring up the war!) is conflated. Bronowski responded to the thought that science led to people becoming mere numbers and therefore subject to a horrible outcome such as the Holocaust. Not so, says Jacob,who lost many family members, rather it is people who think they have the knowledge of the gods; it is dogma that led to the Holocaust not science which is constantly seeking answers. What Ben misses in this quest is that a much smarter man than he has already responded to his issue.
#125
From The Ascent of Man.
Surely you’re not implying that the goal/purpose of elephant evolution is the trunk? Evolution has NO goals, NO purpose, NO why. Evolution is the HOW, whether you are talking about close or distant relationships is irrelevant
of course not.
I wasn’t even addressing the teleogy, which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of “why” in science. I rather thought this was one of the points you were trying to make?
What I AM saying is that in science, ultimate questions ARE why questions, and evolution is NOT a proximal mechanistic explanation, it’s an ultimate one. It indeed explains WHY you are what you are, if not HOW you got to be that way specifically.
natural selection as a mechanism OF evolution is a proximate one, just like neutral drift.
as such, these are logically defined in every branch of science I have ever been involved with as why and how type questions.
dictionary definitions aren’t always relevant to practice, as I’m sure you are aware.
science indeed both addresses how and why questions.
Implied teleology is not within the realm of science, however, but if that is what you mean then you should address it in more clear terms.
teleogy is not necessarily or logically attached to why type questions.
the introduction of “what” is entirely irrelevant to the issue of proximate vs. ultimate explanations for things.
I think jaycubes point is that “monsters” do not actually exist. All historical “monsters” were human beings.
To refer to a monstrous human being as a “monster” serves the (unintended) purpose of making him and his evil a supernatural aberation of nature the likes of which are inhuman and unnatural in origin and unlikely to occur again in the natural order of things. The exact opposite is true. His evil was *very* human and could occur agian in any form at any time from folks who seem “human” at the time.
teleology
No, very few human beings have the OPPORTUNITY to ordain mass murder the way Hitler did: we don’t know how many have the capacity, but it’s definitely more than just Hitler. How would you classify George W. Bush?
WHY is not really an answerable question because evolution has no purpose.
you are unnecessarily attaching teleology to what “why” means.
I think this is where you are confusing the issue.
an ultimate explanation for an observable phenomenon does not have to include purpose in the answer.
gravity is an ultimate explanation of why planets follow orbits.
How gravity works to do so would be a proximate explanation.
heh, which tangentially brings up the issue that we apparently know more about how evolution works, in a proximate sense, than gravity.
I’m wary of this idea that we have ethereal characteristics buried within us, just waiting to emerge at any moment.
If Hitler believed the premises he claimed to believe, then can’t we say he was doing what he thought was right? There was no emergence of evil spirits, no good voice and bad voice whispering in his ear, no darker parts, or battle between characteristics within, but simply a human being doing what he thought was right in light of what he thought was true.
What seems “dark” about Hitler and the millions that supported him, is that their only sin was being mistaken, and acting on that mistaken knowledge. We’ve all been mistaken before. We’ve all acted on false knowledge before. What’s “dark” is that we know we all have the potential to be Hitlers. Horror is only one mistake away – well, ok, maybe a whole bunch of mistakes.
Ichthyic:
My comments have no relation to “ultimate causes”, but to the different realms of science & metaphysics. I always try to use the simplest most consistent meaning of words.
Even a question from the appropriate realm of WHY such as,”Why did you perform X behavior”, is not something easily answered as there are usually a variety of motives, some conflicting, for the behavior of any individual at every moment.
I would contend that the only potentially realistic WHY questions can be asked only of oneself. “Why did I…?”
——-
To others re. Hitler-monster-human.
All monsters are humans.
Not all humans are monsters.
Monsters have more in common with other humans than in difference.
It’s easy to blame a monster, hard to acknowledge their humanity.
While sin is a silly concept (universal moral guidance from a Fairy), the concept of original sin is inherently negative & destructive. Any god who could create original sin I would certainly reject.
If Hitler believed the premises he claimed to believe, then can’t we say he was doing what he thought was right?
most assuredly, and that’s the scary part.
@#134 Ichthyic —
Even scarier, that he got millions of people to go along with what he thought was right.
different realms of science & metaphysics
At the risk of offending the philosophers:
bah.
metaphysics answer nothing, not how NOR why.
“Why did you perform X behavior”, is not something easily answered as there are usually a variety of motives, some conflicting, for the behavior of any individual at every moment.
actually, the only thing that is difficult at all is attaching the correct number of different ultimate and proximate explanations for behavior to satisfy. That we might not be able to do so for any specific behavior one might come across hardly means we have to resort to teleological explanations, or metaphysical ones, for that matter.
saying that there might be multiple “why” and “how” answers to explain a specific behavior hardly means we need attach a teleological notion of purpose to the explanation.
er, scatch that last para; it was superfluous and I neglected to delete it.
Even scarier, that he got millions of people to go along with what he thought was right.
…and the circumstances that lead to them being so easily convinced of the “rightness” of his ideology are hardly “unique”.
McCarthy (as merely the figurehead) in the 50’s took advantage of very similar dynamic.
in that sense, I can’t see that people have changed much in the last few thousand years.
no reason to suspect they have in the last 50 either.
It’s not like nobody has noticed before.
er, quoting Jefferson, (AGAIN?):
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
If history has managed to teach us anything, it’s just how easy it is to convince large groups of people into destructive and self-destructive behavior.
oh, what the hell, I’ll throw in a gratuitous Goering, too:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg
I am a bit shocked by the coursness of comments directed at Ben Stein. He is not responsible for killing 6 million jews or wanting to impose sharia law. Fine, he is wrong but my goodness have some level of proportion and civility.
nice bit of concern trolling, Dennis.
I suggest you take that show over to Stein’s blog.
(the “Expelled” blog would do well enough)
What seems “dark” about Hitler and the millions that supported him, is that their only sin was being mistaken, and acting on that mistaken knowledge.
I don’t agree. That was not their only “sin”. They were dogmatic and brutal–to say the least. They were not open to the possibility that they were mistaken. It wasn’t just their knowledge that was mistaken; their behavior was perverse.
I am a bit shocked by the coursness of comments directed at Ben Stein. He is not responsible for killing 6 million jews…
But he would have people believe that those who worked hard to investigate nature, and who discovered the principles of evolution, were responsible for killing 6 million jews
Take your concern elsewhere.
#82 is right on the money…
This is an industry, people, funded by interests both crackpot and malevolently sane. In other words, Ben Stein is a whore.
If Stein were simply an idiot or suffered from some disease, … well… he wouldn’t have been cast in this role that he’s playing.
The role he is cast into is one of earnest intellectual looking for answers to fundamental questions. His audience isn’t the scientific community. But he does enjoy playing up the rabble that comes out of that community to his audience. His audience is the converted, or nearly converted, to Christian Fundamentalism that includes the Young Earth Creationists. So, yes, he has been hired to shift the frame of reference.
He is a huckster. And the snake oil he has been commissioned to sell is intellectual poison.
I liked that video. I could watch that person talk all day.
I mean the Grace Park one, of course. I couldn’t take more than 30 seconds of Stein.
Stein and his Xian Dominionist buddies would make Hitler look like an amateur. They want to destroy the USA, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the dark ages. They say so often.
And that is just fine with Stein, as long as he gets paid and people pay attention to him. Stein is as much an incredibly evil monster wannabe as any that ever lived. His problem….no one takes him seriously. Yet.
But really, the Xian Doms. aren’t even the scariest ones. They just hate freedom and the USA. The Rapture Monkey Death Cultists fervently hope god will show up, destroy the earth and kill 6.7 billion people.
It is a good thing we haven’t found extraterrestrial life. I’m sure the Rapture Monkeys would add it to their List of Things to be Destroyed.
And all us evil scientists did was bring about a 21st century that looks a lot different than 11th or 18th century. Anyone who has a problem with modern science and technology is free to leave for one hellhole or another. They never do. Hypocrits.
“They were dogmatic and brutal […]” – RamblinDude
Some were. Some weren’t. The dogmatic didn’t think they were dogmatic – they thought they were right. The brutal thought their brutality was both necessary and just.
“It wasn’t just their knowledge that was mistaken; their behavior was perverse.” – RamblinDude
People act according to their beliefs. Nazis didn’t think they were perverse. It’s us who think their behaviour was perverse.
Though, there’s certainly something to be said for the mass change in belief after the war. Mercifully few Nazis remained true to the cause.
Is there really something to blame other than mistaken belief?
Is there really something to blame other than mistaken belief?
ultimately?
;)
perhaps not.
proximately:
several aspects of human group dynamics, combined with economic pressures as the result of the Treaty of Versailles, combined with a fomentation of already prevalent anti-semitic attitudes that allowed for easy manipulation.
probably some issues of revenge, too. Oh, and let’s not forget the standard issues of resources etc. that come along with any motivation for war.
IOW, while “mistaken belief” might ultimately be behind it, it would be ludicrous to ignore all the other contributing factors as well.
“[…] it would be ludicrous to ignore all the other contributing factors as well.” – Ichthyic
Well… yeah. It’s certainly a gross act of simplification to reduce everything to “mistaken belief”, and retire for the evening. However, it seems to me that while the wide array of macro and micro conditions/environments that determine the nature of mistaken beliefs can be blamed in a causal sense, they don’t say much about individual responsibility. Could Hitler, or any member of the Nazi party, considering the conditions that gave birth to them, been anything other than a member of the Nazi party?
Is there an inoculation against mistaken belief? Is an individual responsible for actions taken in the name of a mistaken belief, when it was reasonable at the time to think that that belief wasn’t mistaken? What can the individual be blamed for, if anything at all?
…I just mention these problems in response to the notion of “monsters”.
they don’t say much about individual responsibility
for that matter, does belief absolve one of individual responsibility?
Is there an inoculation against mistaken belief?
no, and it quickly becomes a slippery slope to suggest we could (controlling completely the information and beliefs shared between parents and children, or between peers, for example).
education can cause someone to conclude their beliefs were mistaken, but that’s about it as far as I can tell. Education of history, combined with the kind of “eternal vigilance” espoused by Jefferson (see trite quote above).
In lieu of a better source, I find myself frequently referring back to a comedy movie about religion of all things…
from Dogma:
Bethany: Having beliefs isn’t good?
Rufus: I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can’t generate. Life becomes stagnant.
It’s one of the things that makes science so attractive: it works off of ideas, not beliefs (contrary, of course, to how egregious slime like Stein and the Disinformation Institute want to paint it).
The dogmatic didn’t think they were dogmatic – they thought they were right. The brutal thought their brutality was both necessary and just.
Again, I don’t agree. We all know what’s going on. The dogmatic knew they were being dogmatic. The fundies in this country know they are being dogmatic. They embrace dogmatism as a way of life. The brutal knew they were being brutal. I don’t think you can let them off the hook by giving them mistaken beliefs that prescribed no other course of action.
Is there really something to blame other than mistaken belief?
Yes. It wasn’t just the knowledge they had; it was how they acted on that knowledge.
I realize we can go round and round with this argument, but I’m not convinced that the beliefs we hold are the ultimate deciders of our destiny. There is more going on than that.
In spite of the extent of one’s knowledge, you can come to a stop and say, “Something is wrong,” even if you don’t know what it is, and then set about to find out what’s wrong. It is this mechanism in us that gets turned off, again, for reasons other than just mistaken beliefs, IMO. We know when we are yielding the authority over our lives to another, and I don’t think it’s possible to see horrific acts being done of such brutality as the holocaust and not be aware that something just isn’t right. Something gets turned off somewhere in people’s minds. I think it is a conscious choice, ultimately, to allow it to get shut off.
The older I get the less sure I am about anything.
Could Hitler, or any member of the Nazi party, considering the conditions that gave birth to them, been anything other than a member of the Nazi party?
Interesting question. Hitler (as well as Stalin and Saddam) was abused as a child
Perhaps I just rebel against seeing myself as a robot. Do I have any choice about typing these words?
(Wow, have you ever looked at your hand, man. I mean really looked at it?) LOL
I keep also thinking about what happened in the trials at Nuremberg.
the defense of “we were just doing what we thought was right” didn’t exactly fly there.
In fact, if there is anybody left that hasn’t read one, the various compilations of the transcripts and proceedings of the trial are useful bits of information.
I can’t recommend one specifically (maybe there’s someone who might have a title they preferred?), but some are listed in the references on the various sites that review the trial:
http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm#res
OTOH,
A documentary about men and women remembering their lives as children in Germany during the Nazi years was on TV a while ago. One man said he remembered American soldiers coming in after Germany’s defeat and telling them, the kids, about the concentration camps and the atrocities the Nazi regime had committed. The man, remembering, said that the children just laughed at the soldier: they knew he was lying. Their leader was a great man who would never do such things. Their beliefs were mistaken.
Their beliefs were mistaken.
…and yet they still bear responsibility.
who’s to say there was any less rationalization on the part of this family than there was among any random memeber of the SS?
OMG, Brownian, you mean evolution is giving racism a bad name? That’s just crackers!
i can show him a 20 story building, where a simple leap off the top explains “squash” nicely
There are certain common ideas that can be used as a bulwark against insanity: all men are created equal; do unto others as you would have them do unto you; love thy neighbor as thyself; and so on. It’s perhaps not enough, when confronted with someone who wants to nuke Saudi Arabia, to ask “Would Jesus (or Jefferson) do this?” but it’s not the world’s worst reality check.
It’s not hard to compile a checklist of illiberal beliefs and practices or to apply them to any given regime. The U.S. isn’t doing so well in this respect at the moment.
I’d agree that the notion of “evil” needs to be retired; it really does seem to imply a supernatural component to human behavior.
all humans are not created equal. but they do deserve equal respect if we want civil societies.
This is related to the evolution caused Hitler idea.
Some people assume that because their holy book of choice explains everything then the same should apply for evolutionary biology.
Soooo….is gravity responsible for Hitler?
Damn, guys, come on….attacking Stein is playing into his hands, giving him publicity, and … He Wins!
It’s so obvious.
But, yeah, I think Stein realizes what a failure he was involved in, that his career will be opening Christian book stores with Kurt Cameron, and he’s flipped his (never-to-tight) lid. If he wasn’t such an idiot, it would be sad. Maybe his family can do a Leviticus-style thing and sequester him until the uncleanliness passes, like in 40 years.
“Perhaps I just rebel against seeing myself as a robot. Do I have any choice about typing these words?” – RamblinDude
Depends how you define choice. And what’s wrong with being a robot? a robot? a robot?
“…and yet they still bear responsibility.” – Ichthyic
It has been determined that they should bear responsibility.
It’s a long story, but I once found myself in a fight with three drunk guys in a Roti shop. They had me pinned against a counter, and were, in various ways, smacking me around. I was starting to get the distinct idea that things might go very badly for me.
I reached behind me and grabbed one of those glass sugar jars found in restaurants and cafeterias everywhere. It was filled to the top with sugar, and had a good heft to it. I cocked it into the air, and took aim at the head of the closest drunk who was in the process sloppily punching me in the face. Then I froze. I was suddenly overcome by the idea that I would kill this guy if I clubbed him over the head with this sugar jar.
I carefully placed the jar back on the counter where I found it, all the while being punched in the head – I still don’t understand why I didn’t just drop it. I wonder too why I was suddenly concerned about killing this stranger I had absolutely zero love for. It wasn’t the fear of punishment – the idea never even entered my head. It was just some general sense that I couldn’t bring myself to kill this guy.
I looked into the snarling face of hate and couldn’t kill it.
RambDude:
1. “…for reasons other than just mistaken beliefs…”
Yes, of course.
2. “I think it is a conscious choice, ultimately, to allow it to get shut off.”
Not necessarily. It takes energy to keep it shut off, though. Whether or not that energy is consciously expended will vary depending on the persons and circumstances.
Let’s call this shutting-off process “Denial“.
This mechanism raises walls that can be pretty tough to crack. Just how tough depends on how much is at stake, and the nature and strength of the forces assaulting them. The human mind has a built-in capacity for ignoring or disbelieving unpleasant or undesirable realities. Whether this capacity works for or against our best interests is highly dependent on the conditions surrounding those realities.
Oh dear. I hope that’s lucid. It must be bedtime.
It’s been a long week… O_O
I still don’t understand why I didn’t just drop it. I wonder too why I was suddenly concerned about killing this stranger I had absolutely zero love for.
One thing I like about this story is that you are willing to let yourself be ignorant about the source of your motives. It is exactly that detachment from forced conclusions that keeps us on our toes. It keeps us from becoming victims and perpetrators of dogma and its consequences. It keeps our minds open and helps to prevent us from conditioning our reflexes in unnatural ways.
It takes energy to keep it shut off, though. Whether or not that energy is consciously expended will vary depending on the persons and circumstances.
Yes! It comes down to how we are using our energy.
We use our energy for many different things: to perceive reality, to think thoughts, to purposely think untrue thoughts, to adhere to dogma and beliefs of an endless variety, to deny reality, etc.
What does it mean to use our energy in the most productive way possible? This is a very deep and valid question, and we are not taught to ask this question; we are taught to answer it, automatically, unthinkingly, dogmatically. To me this is one of the biggest problems facing the world today.
Conclusions about how we should use our energy are injected into us from childhood. This can damage our intelligence. It certainly causes conflict between groups of all kinds. Some people devote themselves to undoing the damage, some don’t. What is the difference between these people? Honestly, I don’t know. Some people are determined to be accurate in their perceptions; others are more interested in attaching themselves to beliefs.
Shame too. We know it well but if we are honest we still have great materialist questions about gravity. What is the speed of gravity, how does it propagate across the universe, are the equations we have truly right for longer distances? Gravity was the original “spooky action at a distance” and it still holds deep mystery.
Trying to reconcile the universe of light with the universe of gravity has lead to some amazing astronomical discoveries in the last twenty years. Incredible discoveries like dark matter and dark energy. Things that appear so true but that we are still digesting. Many many more are on the way in our lifetimes.
When the answer to gravity is “God” I’m not sure it drives the new discoveries that fast nor is that exactly a quantifiable answer. In some ways the God answer is a total disappointment, a cop out and a non-answer. “God did it” doesn’t inform or enlighten.
In some waysthe God answer is a total disappointment, a cop out and a non-answer.fixed.
carry on.
Holding dogma and ideology to be more important than people’s lives and reality makes people monsters. And you only need a few at the top to actually drive it.
“…there are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal, kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.” Terry Pratchett, Small Gods.
It’s just another smokescreen – like when Stein and his miserable ilk bring up how evolution can’t be true because it doesn’t explain how life began. The pro-science side are then forced to explain the the beginning of life is abiogenesis, not evolution and that they are two distinct areas of inquiry and so forth; the average listener tunes out. If you can’t explain your position with a sound byte or a slogan than your battle is halfway to lost.
All they need do is foster enough doubt, in as many different aspects as possible, and the probability that the listeners are going to go away wondering about what else ‘science’ can’t explain increases.
Half the problem that ‘science’ has is that it’s open to being self-correcting – as it should be; I’m not suggesting that it should be otherwise – rather than dispensing absolutes. Unfortunately, laypeople like confidence. Hence the old ‘only a theory’ chestnut.
Religion (falsely) makes those claims of surety – even though it has no right to – and that’s an important distinction.
In a way I wish that someone had come up with another word instead of ‘theory’ – one that doesn’t have a synonym that allows ‘evidence-based system’ to be interpreted as ‘speculative idea’. We’d still have to deal with it, but it’s be one less battle to fight. Many people find the science surrounding evolution hard enough to understand as it is, myself included – I’m only barely scientifically literate; fortunately, I enjoy learning – without having to deal with semantics as well.
#35
That would make him an exhibit rather than a witness.
#45
If that two-faced nature of Stein is true then he can’t merely be an idiot. He must be somewhat aware that he’s not telling the truth and is being deliberately dishonest. Which means that …
#47
… this can’t be true. He evidently (if the previous account of his behaviour switching is accurate) does notice and is therefore deliberately lying for his own personal gain (whether real world or imaginary).
But, gravity is a force, right? And the force is created by life, master Yoda said so in the Empire Strikes Back!
-jcr
Thanks SEF, I was struggling to find the right word there, english not being my first language and all.
Has the possibility of a stroke causing stein’s complete mental collapse been discussed yet? :)
My grandfather died of Alzheimer’s, and at no point during his decline did it impell him to be a fucking douchebag.
I have to agree. My mother went the same way and while she slowly lost touch with everything she’d known, her fundamental personality did not change. Of course, both examples are anecdotal.
However, I do see signs of some sort of mental drift in Stein and while it might not explain his fundamental objection to science, it might explain his absolute inability to make even a vaguely coherent argument as to why he dislikes it. He babbles, a lot. That hardly seems normal for someone with a background in law, “Boston Legal” notwithstanding.
What a dreadful interview with Ben Stein. It’s unfortunate that there are people out there who will believe anything they’re told for those are the people he influences
Jams,
Well, critical thinking can be taught, along with evaluation of sources, logic and logical fallacies, and cognitive biases. The techniques of propaganda are easy to understand and are largely unchanged for the last century, but I’ve never heard of them being taught in schools. Corporate PR uses the same techniques.
Aim for the collarbone.
At least there was a time when artists tried their best to come up with convincing arguments and concrete descriptions of theological beliefs :
Can you think of a more precise description of Heaven and Hell than Hieronymus Bosch’s ?
http://www.museodelprado.es/pagina-principal/coleccion/galeria-on-line/galeria-on-line/zoom/1/obra/el-jardin-de-las-delicias-o-la-pintura-del-madrono/oimg/0/
(At the Prado in Madrid. One of my favourite paintings !)
Isn’t that better than f**king Godtube.com ?
Sorry previous post was meant in response to another thread. Ignore it here. Thx.
I couldn’t get past the Stein career re-cap.
Ben Stein has long since proven that he is far better at truthiness than he is at truth …
“Aim for the collarbone.” – amk
Haha! Yeah. I think the realization stunned me a little bit. I went from 90 to zero in 7 seconds. A friend of mine laughed at me and said, “you underestimate the durability of the human head.”
I’m left wondering what the hell kind of “civil rights work” he did before becoming a speechwriter for Nixon and Ford. I know it was before Reagan demonised the idea of civil rights, but still, Nixon in particular went to great lengths to destroy activists of all kinds across the country. Stein can’t have been up to any good if he was accepted by Nixon.
Not so fast, young padawan.
First of all, “everything is the way it is because it got that way”.
Keeping this in mind, it becomes obvious that every “why” question can be rephrased as a “how” question: “why is it the way it is” can be stated as “what caused it to become the way it is”.
…or, of course, “how did it become the way it is”.
It’s half past 2 at night, I have lost the capacity to keep long sentences in my RAM. Good to see I haven’t lost the ability to think logically, though. I accidentally made yet another point: “what” and “how” questions are actually the same.
Note that the link provided went directly to the “interview” with BS. What is missing is the “Win George’s Money” and “Cold Opening” segments. These are at: http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/index.html The good news is Stein could not answer one question except ‘Mansbridge’ who was the guest just before. Only a no nothing fool would subject himself to this, so in some ways George did in an abject sort of way, demonstrate who BS really is.
Second, “The Hour” is an entertainment show, nothing more. No one should be expecting any debate. Unfortunately the video, http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/blog/2007/05/monday_richard_dawkins_1.html from the Richard Dawkins interview is no longer available as it was also neutral. The comments are there though.
I’m tired of analyzing what Stein’s doing or what he thinks he means by “Darwinism.” That man needs rules. Rules rule rules. I want an interviewer who knows the rules and who won’t let Stein slip around them. Rules like:
1. You can’t make up your own definitions for words.
2. Claims aren’t granted scientific merit without physical evidence.
3. The onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence.
4. Don’t waste our time with “free speech” or whatever unless you’ve got some evidence.
5. Evidence or STFU.
Interviewer: Hold on, what do you mean by “Darwinism?
Stein: probably says something about natural selection and all life evolving blah blah; later moves into “can’t explain” stuff
Interviewer: Hold on, the theory of evolution explains life’s diversity; it’s not meant to explain life’s origins, or gravity, or anything else.
Stein: off on the God thing; without God Hitler blah blah
Interviewer: Hold on, you’ve just moved the goal posts. You were advocating for Intelligent Design to be granted some status among scientists. That requires evidence. Are you admitting that ID has no evidence? If so, then you can’t advocate for it to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.
And so on.
what makes you think Stein would allow himself to be interviewed by someone that would follow the rules you suggest?
Since when was the media “fair”?
In fact, deliberately choosing to be interviewed by people who will at most lob softballs at you rather does suggest he isn’t exactly nuts.
Again, the pattern of interviews suggests he was hired simply to shift the frame of reference.
Most neocons view “evolution” as just a political hotbutton issue (like homosexuality), and consider it money well spent to have some buffoon go on TV to make their actually horribly irrational positions on most things seem reasonable in comparison.
this has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with politics.
I’m pretty convinced of it at this point. All one has to do is look at the history of how the far political right has used the xian fundamentalists as a tool for the last 40 years, and the patterns start to repeat as if cloned.
Not everyone has to be “in” on the Machiavellian nature of the scheme, either. people like Mathis just might be religious rubes perfectly willing to believe they are “doing right for the cause!”.
Stein, however, has a history of being involved with the very people who have put similar hotbutton-strategies together before.
The Ben Stein experience is like looking at that optical illusion of a young woman or an old crone. One minute he’s a guy who really doesn’t care about the issues deeply and is simply representing his client. The next he’s a neocon cleverly manipulating the media for his Republican cronies.
There’s something clever about the “Darwinist” meme, unintentional or not. Imagine if Stein used the word “atheists” instead of “Darwinists” in his argumentum ad Hitlerium. An interviewer might say, “You seem to be saying that atheists are evil in the same way as Hitler. That’s a crazy, bigoted thing to say, Mr. Stein.”
“Darwinists” doesn’t provoke the public’s natural aversion to bigotry because no one knows what the fuck a Darwinist is exactly.
Comment 189 is on to something.
Ben Stein is reading (and perhaps improvising) from an extended script. That is his sole area of expertise: the manipulation of rhetorical stylistics to accomplish a particular goal. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s what he did for Nixon; it’s what he did as an actor. Now he does it for EXPELLED‘s producers.
And like those performers who can spout “sciency” dialogue to the delight of fandom, he has not even a single shred of scientific expertise to back it up. In showbiz, they call him “talent” (and I realize how ironic that is).
To excoriate Stein’s lapses in scientific acumen as some kind of evidence of dementia is to miss the target; Stein, like any other actor, is nothing more than a ventriloquist’s dummy.
We need to pay more attention to the men “behind the curtain.” Stein is just their puppet.
Become more publicly pious. Perhaps even become Christian (it’s pretty obvious, given the ADL condemnation, that being “Jewish” doesn’t buy him anything).
Perhaps even convert, in a widely publicized event, to some branch of Christianity which, by a wild coincidence, is the exact same branch of a large majority of conservative US citizens.
[/cynicism]
I had a feeling this interview would end up on here. I saw this the other night, as I usually watch the Hour. I was very disappointed with George! What the hell – he didn’t call BS out on anything!
I watched this with my fiance, who just graduated from medical school this week, and as I’m yelling at the television screen he’s saying ‘I don’t believe what he’s saying, but he’s not really saying anything wrong. The Nazi’s did say evolution was behind their actions’ – yeah, he seriously said this, and does all the time. Our wedding is this Saturday, and that sure gave me second thoughts!
I think this case shows that the real problem now is that BS is conducting these interviews with a bit more of a complacent attitude – ‘I don’t have anything against the Darwinists, if they showed me proof tomorrow I’d believe it no problem (haha, that was a nice one, BS), but I just want everyone to have free speech’. Oh, what a thoughtful little humanitarian. This general complacent attitude and the ‘I just want to help people’ vibe gets his ridiculous statements about ‘Darwinism’ and Nazism, etc., past even our newest medical doctors. It’s incredibly disturbing.
Now, if Georgie had showed some more balls and actually called him out on his crap instead of rushing through to be able to talk about Ferris Bueller, I’d still have that little crush on him…. but I am very disappointed, so no crush for you George!