tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post8073252500178559710..comments2023-06-24T11:57:48.459-04:00Comments on larrylivermore.com: Dawkins And Chomsky: A Reader RespondsLarry Livermorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11948659387575597910noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post-33071684851405311582007-05-28T14:08:00.000-04:002007-05-28T14:08:00.000-04:00The "higher power" is being scientifically proven ...The "higher power" is being scientifically proven all the time and the proofs are on two websites;<BR/>www.paddyanddolly.net<BR/>www.thulea.orgdonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10933699443510429591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post-18981930267847170532007-05-27T01:01:00.000-04:002007-05-27T01:01:00.000-04:00Dan made the same point I made about Larry long ag...Dan made the same point I made about Larry long ago: Larry's same methodology of attempting to discredit professors, strategists, and analysts with whom he disagrees can be employed with great ease against Larry, and would result in Larry himself being discredited even more than the subjects of his criticism.<BR/><BR/>To Larry, Chomsky (and others like him) can be utterly disregarded as "just some old dude talking politics at some college." What he doesn't mention is that, on those terms, Larry Livermore is just some old dude at, well, nowhere even remotely related to politics, with no bona fide credentials or experience pertinent to the subjects on which he speaks. <BR/><BR/>Not that I believe everything Chomsky (or anyone else) says should be accepted and adored by virtue of the impressiveness of his resume. But, conversely, it is folly to summarily dismiss virtually all statements and opinions by indisputably renouned intellectuals in the manner Larry routinely does. Remember: If Chomsky or Parenti can be dismissed with the flick of the wrist, than Livermore can be dismissed with far less effort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post-65611706817334313152007-05-25T13:45:00.000-04:002007-05-25T13:45:00.000-04:00(if that were the case, the vast majority of peopl...<I>(if that were the case, the vast majority of people would have to remain silent on the vast majority of issues)</I><BR/><BR/>That actually sounds pretty good.YouNotSneaky!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06378267534638281151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post-75957311791530449512007-05-25T08:28:00.000-04:002007-05-25T08:28:00.000-04:00I guess I'd imagine Chomsky would say that his pai...I guess I'd imagine Chomsky would say that his painting of America which features only the bad parts is supposed to report the 'untold' stories, since everyone apparently knows all the good parts. A lot of the mainstream media has, in the past, portrayed America in this backslapping, "world police" (ha) way, so I guess Chomsky assumes his readership is familiar with the good parts. I know what you mean though, people say the same about Michael Moore, but I'd still rather these people were doing what they do.<BR/><BR/>As for Dawkins, well: "Anyone who claims to "know" or to have "proved" that there is or isn't a God has in so doing shown himself to be a charlatan." - I need to re-read The God Delusion, but I'm pretty sure he makes it clear that proving or disproving God is ultimately impossible: he carefully titles a chapter "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" to avoid making a direct statement.<BR/><BR/>"The fact that there is a great deal still unexplained (and, some might argue, inexplicable) about how the universe and its contents came into being would seem to lend more credence to the existence of some higher power or intelligence than to the absence thereof"<BR/><BR/>Not necessarily. To me that just means that we haven't quite figured it out yet. Thousands of years ago we didn't know what space was (let alone neutrons, string theory, wormholes etc etc) so the Adam and Eve story was conceived to explain something we couldn't otherwise consider. Now we've learned more, we're able to fill in some of the gaps with accurate information. Where this doesn't work, I'm confident in a few hundred years, we will know more. Slotting religion into those gaps doesn't solve anything, it just raises the question "okay, but who made God?" upon which the religious zealot falls back on the traditional "oh, God was always there"-esque argument, which means nothing.Matt Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340821386050627618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post-9715108201483154072007-05-24T21:02:00.000-04:002007-05-24T21:02:00.000-04:00Hey, I probably have read less Chomsky/Dawkins tex...Hey, I probably have read less Chomsky/Dawkins texts than anyone (close to nil for both), but to your specific point re: Taiwan/North & South Korea -- both Taiwan and South Korea both went through well-documented phases of being strong-arm dictatorships. How is Chomsky discredited by the fact that they later evolved into more mature democracies? Is the correct attitude "well, things will inevitably get better, so let's not worry about the brutalities that are happening now"?<BR/><BR/>re: North Korean threat -- again I haven't read the book, so I'm going to make a guess here that it is addressing and refuting the perceived threat at the time that NK was a base station from which to launch a domino-style communist revolution in the Pacific Rim. This of course didn't pan out, and the biggest threat from NK the US has today isn't its existing hostile military regime, but its imminent collapse. If he actually meant that NK ought to be left alone and/or starved out, well, OK then that sort of isolationist, blockading, non-engagement posture is nuts. <BR/><BR/>re: Dawkins, I also haven't read his book so I can't speak to how smarmy he actually comes across, but your roping off of theological or philosophical areas as somehow off-limits to scientific rigor seems a bit arbitrary. Forget Dawkins' specific training as a biologist -- Why do the rules of rationality that we employ to minimize BS no longer apply here?<BR/><BR/>If Dawkins actually goes so far as to describe a non-existence proof of God, then I'd agree, what a boner. Does he ever do this? Or does he merely point out that the overwhelming body of evidence we have so far fails to support Church doctrine?<BR/><BR/>The idea that science itself is a kind of faith is bogus. If a better theory than the 'big bang' comes along, then you can bet that 'big bang' will be discarded. How easily does this happen in religion? You practically have to start a whole new branch, if you escape stoning first. The fact that some scientists will have a fondness for old theories, and might cling on to it against the available evidence doesn't imply that science itself is a faith, only that these people are not behaving like good scientists, and if the entire scientific community behaves that way, then alright, I guess they just aren't good at keeping discipline. But it's for this reason that untestable theories like string theory are relegated by science to the same speculative bin as biblical myth. Just because it sounds neat and compelling doesn't make it so, regardless of its source.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if I'd enjoy reading any of these guys' stuff. They sound like blowhards from the way even fans of theirs describe them. Even so, I don't think I could write them off as being wrong, if being obnoxious blowhards was the most substantial evidence you could offer as critique.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com