Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[The_Barbarian]

Eventually it comes out quite clearly. It’s important to file away these revelatory moments. I’ve got a big file of them myself. It helps when trying to judge the contradictions and dissimulations in what should be ordinary responses.

Ah, that rings a bell…

Archivist saves and squirrels away each and every discussion forum message. Do you remember having a bad day back in 1996 when in one of your messages you may have said a few things that were…well, perhaps a little…hasty? Don’t worry, Archivist still has it and will post it to the forum if you begin to get the upper hand in battle.
redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/archivist.htm

But it’s totally useless for your intended purpose. “I think I can quote-mine the Barbarian so people won’t notice that Stein lied about scientists” is a loser’s game from the start. And as the entry for your type suggests, doing it is a sure sign that you lost the argument.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I happen to know the men who did the anthropometry studies there, and they did not do it to classify races. Indeed, the data was used to show that the alleged “racial types” didn’t exist.

I have since read about it in the news and realized how much we were just sheep, easily told to do things and we went along because we were used to doing what authorities told us. I doubt they could do this these days on a college campus…but who knows. [/qjuote]

The data was extremely useful for me, because anthropometric data on body dimensions are critical for proper design of workplaces to make them safe and efficient. You’ve been completely misled as to the purpose of those studies.

---

How would you like it if your daughter was photographed in her bra and panties without being told what that she was being used for a scientific study. I think this was extremely unethical to do with young twenty year old women. we were merely told it was to check our posture for a gym class…so I think your resppnse to this study shows a side of science that perhaps you agree with, as long as methods give you a result, you don’t realy care if it de-humanizes anyone.

I think I prove my point sir. Scientists like you really see people on the same level as any laboratory animal.

Again I repeat, I am not saying ALL scientists are bad or evil just as I would not say ALL priests are bad after the sex scandal in the church but they certainly are not above criticism or complaint nor are they excused from morality and ethics in their professional conduct.

And don’t try to tell me the doctors in Germany who did such terrible experiments on human beings were innocent people.

I think you are putting science up on a pedastle or in a temple where God should be.

MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Buffalo takes exception to Barbarian’s description of the Nazi doctors as “quacks”)

(Barbarian cites various data showing that quack Nazi doctors did all sorts of horrible “experiments.”

You are too funny.

I guess it must depend on your sense of humor. Personally, I don’t see anything funny about it. Thousands of people were killed or maimed by these quacks.

There is no question scientists were involved in the Nazi atrocities.

I found one. There were more plumbers involved than that. A lot more. I’d be open to your evidence for more, of course. It would be odd if there was only one; scientists might be good people, but I doubt if there was only one bad one in Germany.

(Buffalo decides a straw man might save the day for him)

To try and maintain that all scientists are pure in heart is absurd and false.

Nice try. Why don’t you just admit that Stein lied, and get it over with?

 

[The_Barbarian]

How would you like it if your daughter was photographed in her bra and panties without being told what that she was being used for a scientific study.

So the story changed from “racial profiling” to “used for a scientific study?” BTW, when I was a freshman at Iowa State, they thought all students should know how to swim. So they took all the guys into the men’s gym, had us strip, and jump in the pool. Those who could do one lap on the perimeter of the pool were released. The others were placed in swimming class. I remember that as the largest skinny-dip I’d ever been involved with. Didn’t bother me, though. It was sort of…unique.

I think this was extremely unethical to do with young twenty year old women.

Bra and panties, maybe. If they took photos, and if men were doing the data collection. My guess is that it was a scoliosis screening, and someone realized the data was valuable. And massed data is not in any way an invasion of privacy, although a physical examination could be if there wasn’t a law mandating it. (There is for students in most states)

we were merely told it was to check our posture for a gym class…so I think your resppnse to this study shows a side of science that perhaps you agree with, as long as methods give you a result, you don’t realy care if it de-humanizes anyone.

Well, inconsistencies tend to arouse my suspicions that your memory may not be as reliable as it could be.

I think I prove my point sir. Scientists like you really see people on the same level as any laboratory animal.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Eventually, you will have to account for things like that.

And don’t try to tell me the doctors in Germany who did such terrible experiments on human beings were innocent people.

You do know that medicine is considered an art, not a science? And no, as you can read, I was pointing out to Buffalo that these guys were evil quacks. He doesn’t agree, for reasons I’m finding hard to understand.

I think you are putting science up on a pedastle or in a temple where God should be.

If you were paying attention, you would have noted that I said that science was too weak a method to even comment on the supernatural.

The truth matters. It should matter to you.

 

[buffalo]

(Buffalo takes exception to Barbarian’s description of the Nazi doctors as “quacks”)

(Barbarian cites various data showing that quack Nazi doctors did all sorts of horrible “experiments.”

I guess it must depend on your sense of humor. Personally, I don’t see anything funny about it. Thousands of people were killed or maimed by these quacks.

I found one. There were more plumbers involved than that. A lot more. I’d be open to your evidence for more, of course. It would be odd if there was only one; scientists might be good people, but I doubt if there was only one bad one in Germany.

(Buffalo decides a straw man might save the day for him)

Nice try. Why don’t you just admit that Stein lied, and get it over with?

I do not see a case that proves it. I see bobbing and weaving.

I am not convinced that it is a lie.

 

[ricmat]

As an ensemble, human behavior may sometimes be plotted e.g. as on a bell curve - showing a range of behaviors. The behavior of individual humans cannot be predicted.

That’s not true, either. Many times, the behavior of an individual can be predicted. BTW, individual ducks vary in behavior, too. But if you watch for a while, you can still predict behavior.

So you go from “many times” you can predict the behavior of ducks, to rationalizing the “always” when talking about humans (if you watch long enough), as in The Barbarian’s quote “ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.”

That doesn’t make sense scientifically, or from the Catholic perspective. Knowing with certainty if a human is going to next choose good or evil means that you’re God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So you go from “many times” you can predict the behavior of ducks, to rationalizing the “always” when talking about humans,

I didn’t say you could always predict the behavior of humans. You seem to constantly make up foolish ideas and expect me to believe them.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that Stein lied when he claimed scientists ordered his family into gas chambers)

I do not see a case that proves it. I see bobbing and weaving.

Stein isn’t “bobbing and weaving”; he just lied about it. No excuses, no equivocation. Just a lie.

I am not convinced that it is a lie.

See for yourself. Since Stein has refused to support his accusation, maybe you can show us which scientists did it.

Don’t you think if he was telling the truth, he’d be willing to substantiate the accusation? Don’t you think that if he was lying, he’d refuse to do it?

What will you do?

 

[ricmat]

I didn’t say you could always predict the behavior of humans. You seem to constantly make up foolish ideas and expect me to believe them.

I didn’t make up the foolish idea. You did in your post below.

If you think human behavior can’t be successfully predicted, you’re a lot less intelligent than you seem to be.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

A Creator does not plan or figure out things, being omnipotent. This is why IDers claim that a designer need not be perfect or even competent. It’s true. That’s why it’s an insult to God to call Him a designer.

Not all ID people say the same thing about who or where the design of nature is rooted…but it opens up that question and makes it possible to look toward the concept of a Creator.

I assume your point of view is based on God not needing to plan or design since He knows all things at once== and yet His knowledge perfectly includes all possibilities as well. So God is a Designer in that He has chosen specific elements to be included in His Creation…as well as not choosing other possible elements that only God would be able to conceive. He does this perfectly and instantly and certainly in a way unlike our own human way of thinking and choosing. But simply because we cannot comprehend the operation of a Divine Being’s omniscent, omnipotetnt abilities, does not mean that the Divine Being is not
authoritively and purposfully designing reality.

It’s their official doctrine.

The Unitarian Universalist Church does not have a specific set of beliefs as far as can see. They are a church that values each person using ‘reason’ and coming up weith their own beliefs; So i don’t see how you can claim the they believe in God froma Creationists point of view.

From a website of their church"
uunashua.org/100q/c1.shtml#q3
*"Does the UUA have a creed?
No. Although the bylaws of the association do contain a section on purposes and principles, it is not a statement of a religious creed.

Do you subscribe to any doctrines?
We have no specific doctrines to which members are expected to subscribe. However, the bylaws of the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) and member churches and societies do contain a Statement of Purpose and Principles (see page 18). These are the basis of a solemn agreement that member churches will support the UUA and that the UUA will support the individual churches.*

I couldn’t do that. Faith isn’t part of science. I’m defending Christianity, and the notion of an omnipotent Creator.

Can you answer any of my questions about defending Life for unborn children? Why do you avoid the responsibility scientists, especially Christian/Catholic scientists have in that area of public debate.

God Bless,
MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

"]

A Creator does not plan or figure out things, being omnipotent. This is why IDers claim that a designer need not be perfect or even competent. It’s true. That’s why it’s an insult to God to call Him a designer

---

Not all ID people say the same thing about or where the design of nature is rooted, as you have noted yourself…but it opens up that question and makes it possible to look toward the concept of a Creator. That is a step forward from a forum in which God has not even been allowed to be mentioned.

I am assuming your point of view stated above is based on God as a Creator who does not need to plan or design as we do since He knows all things at once== and yet His knowledge perfectly includes all possibilities as well. So God is a Designer in that He has chosen specific elements to be included in His Creation…as well as not choosing other possible elements that only God would be able to conceive. He does this perfectly and instantly and certainly in a way unlike our own human way of thinking and choosing. But simply because we cannot comprehend the operation of a Divine Being’s omniscent, omnipotetnt abilities, does not mean that the Divine Being is not. authoritively and purposfully designing reality.
As stated in John 1 :1-3
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. "

---

Barbarian:
It’s their official doctrine.(referring to Unitarian Universalists and ID)

---

The Unitarian Universalist Church does not have a specific set of beliefs as far as I can see. They are a church of humanistic teachings and each person using ‘reason’ and comes up weith their own beliefs; So I don’t see how you can claim the they believe in God from a ‘Creationists’ point of view:

From a website of their church"
uunashua.org/100q/c1.shtml#q3
*"Does the UUA have a creed?
No. Although the bylaws of the association do contain a section on purposes and principles, it is not a statement of a religious creed.

Do you subscribe to any doctrines?
We have no specific doctrines* to which members are expected to subscribe. However, the bylaws of the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) and member churches and societies do contain a Statement of Purpose and Principles (see page 18). These are the basis of a solemn agreement that member churches will support the UUA and that the UUA will support the individual churches.

---

Barbarian:
I couldn’t do that. Faith isn’t part of science. I’m defending Christianity, and the notion of an omnipotent Creator.

---

COLOR=“Blue”]On one hand you claim to want to be a strong defender of the faith but where it matters most, your chosen profession, you bury your faith. COLOR]

---

Can you answer any of my questions about defending Life for unborn children? Why do you avoid talking about the responsibility scientists, especially Christian/Catholic scientists have in that area of public debate? Am I correct in assumming you and other scientists have no such responsibility?
Do you understand the concept of sinning by ommisssion and not doing/acting/speaking what is right and moral?

I am sorry my fomer post was confusing as to who was saying what so i tried to do it over again.

God Bless,
MaryJohnZ

 

[tonyl]

Can you answer any of my questions about defending Life for unborn children? Why do you avoid the responsibility scientists, especially Christian/Catholic scientists have in that area of public debate.

Huh? Scientists have the same responsibility as every person in that area of public debate. And like most people, most scientists don’t have a platform through which to engage in public debate. It’s not like being a scientist gives someone special expertise in what is a non-scientific issue; nor does being a scientist grant one public recognition.

But what about the responsibility of people to do their best to make sure that they are conducting an honest discourse in public debates?

 

[buffalo]

(Barbarian points out that Stein lied when he claimed scientists ordered his family into gas chambers)

Stein isn’t “bobbing and weaving”; he just lied about it. No excuses, no equivocation. Just a lie.

See for yourself. Since Stein has refused to support his accusation, maybe you can show us which scientists did it.

Don’t you think if he was telling the truth, he’d be willing to substantiate the accusation? Don’t you think that if he was lying, he’d refuse to do it?

What will you do?

I meant you were bobbing and weaving. In any case I have to withdraw. I do not have enough information either way. I cannot definitively say no scientists were involved.

Perhaps some witnesses or their memoirs will come forward.

 

[Mighty_Q]

Nope. He made that up on his own. He lied. There were no scientists directly his people to the gas chambers. Remember, he was a speechwriter for Nixon. It was his job to lie and make false accusations. It seems he can’t break the habit.
.

You keep trotting this out. Please cite the speeches Mr. Stein wrote for Nixon, and show where those speeches contained lies.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Even better, let’s take a look at how Stein, in retrospect, sees all that dishonesty:

**Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible?..Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. **
Ben Stein
spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8242

Just some lies. A little obstruction of justice. No big deal. Only suckers tell the truth, um, Ben?

Given that set of values, is anyone really surprised that he lies?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I meant you were bobbing and weaving.

I’m always astonished when creationist/IDers think presenting evidence is “bobbing and weaving.” But from your point of view, perhaps it is.

In any case I have to withdraw. I do not have enough information either way. I cannot definitively say no scientists were involved.

And that makes it all right, um? “Guilty until proven innocent.” Wasn’t that the legal code in um…the Third Reich?

Perhaps some witnesses or their memoirs will come forward.

They have. From where did you think all that evidence came?

Face it. He lied. He did it for a living. He even wrote that it wasn’t a big deal when Nixon lied to cover up criminal activity. Is that really the set of values you want to endorse?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I didn’t say you could always predict the behavior of humans. You seem to constantly make up foolish ideas and expect me to believe them.

I didn’t make up the foolish idea.

You certainly did. It’s pretty much your M.O. here.

You did in your post below.

Barbarian observes:
If you think human behavior can’t be successfully predicted, you’re a lot less intelligent than you seem to be.

But it doesn’t say what you claimed it says. You just made up a stupid idea, and tried to attribute it to me. You can do better.

 

[Mighty_Q]

Even better, let’s take a look at how Stein, in retrospect, sees all that dishonesty:

**Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible?..Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. **
Ben Stein
spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8242

Just some lies. A little obstruction of justice. No big deal. Only suckers tell the truth, um, Ben?

Given that set of values, is anyone really surprised that he lies?

Nice dodge.

You are as bad as what you accuse Mr. Stein of.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I can see you’re upset to see what Stein is, and what his values are.

But it’s not my fault. Your anger is misplaced. The man has little use for the truth. He was a speechwriter for Nixon. He couldn’t have kept his job if he told the truth.

As he says, politicians lie. So what?

So it’s wrong. But he doesn’t think so. And you defend him, because?

 

[Mighty_Q]

I can see you’re upset to see what Stein is, and what his values are.

But it’s not my fault. Your anger is misplaced. The man has little use for the truth. He was a speechwriter for Nixon. He couldn’t have kept his job if he told the truth.

As he says, politicians lie. So what?

So it’s wrong. But he doesn’t think so. And you defend him, because?

I’m not upset. I knew he was a speech writer for Nixon.

You said that he lied in those speeches. **Prove it.
**