Peace....


In another thread I was asked a question as to whether there is scientific evidence which establishes that monkeys were produced by the grafting process as proposed by Elijah Muhammad

As i began to prepare my response I thought that it would be better if I said the following beforehand.


Science is developed by a very specific methodology which is called the “Scientific Method”. One of the key components of this method is the hypothesis.
A hypothesis is A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.-(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis)
The explanation offered within a hypothesis is tentative because it is generated by existing beliefs. Meaning, it is biased. The view determined by mere observation is subject to the person making the observation. Which is why vigorous testing must follow, along with sufficient repeatability, before a hypothesis will be considered as an established theory.

There is a concept called “social constructionism” where the idea of a social construct is derived. A social construct is a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is `constructed' through cultural or social practice – Webster’s Dictionary

Scientists tend to ask questions, and form hypotheses around the way we already view the world. There is a normative view point from which scientist draw questions. In academic circles there are subjects which are considered “taboo”, or academically prohibited. There are subjects which are completely off limits if you want to be taken seriously by your peers, such as the existence of Unicorns, mermaids, Shangri-La, Extraterrestrial visitations, Loch Ness Monsters, Ghosts, telepathy, telekinesis, pre-historic advanced civilizations along the Nile or Indus Valley, Astrology, etc…

These things are not considered worthy of serious scientific investigation, and therefore, you will not find many academically generated papers regarding the above. The mere mention of a study into the aforementioned will probably earn you the label “quack”…

Who funds the study of a postgraduate or Ph. D? How difficult would it be to get funding for a study on the existence of mermaids?

Do Mermaids exist? Who knows? Is there evidence to support their existence? Yes...There are several reports from credible witnesses who have observed creatures which could be described as mer-men. However, me mentioning that, just now, made a few people laugh..It made me chuckle..But of course I think I have made my point.

To prove that Monkeys were produced by a process of grafting would require that I examine the existing evidence which is applied toward another theory, and demonstrate how this same evidence supports something which lies outside of the social constructs of the West….

There are Countries like the Former Soviet Union, and Germany who have invested real attention into ideas and theories which would be laughed at here in the West..America..Is not the world..

Is there room for the Taboo subject??


Whirling Moat

"Your Comfort zone is your enemies hunting ground" -Unknown

 

Original Post
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


In another thread I was asked a question as to whether there is scientific evidence which establishes that monkeys were produced by the grafting process as proposed by Elijah Muhammad

As i began to prepare my response I thought that it would be better if I said the following beforehand.


Science is developed by a very specific methodology which is called the “Scientific Method”. One of the key components of this method is the hypothesis.
A hypothesis is A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.-(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis)
The explanation offered within a hypothesis is tentative because it is generated by existing beliefs. Meaning, it is biased. The view determined by mere observation is subject to the person making the observation. Which is why vigorous testing must follow, along with sufficient repeatability, before a hypothesis will be considered as an established theory.

There is a concept called “social constructionism” where the idea of a social construct is derived. A social construct is a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is `constructed' through cultural or social practice – Webster’s Dictionary

Scientists tend to ask questions, and form hypotheses around the way we already view the world. There is a normative view point from which scientist draw questions. In academic circles there are subjects which are considered “taboo”, or academically prohibited. There are subjects which are completely off limits if you want to be taken seriously by your peers, such as the existence of Unicorns, mermaids, Shangri-La, Extraterrestrial visitations, Loch Ness Monsters, Ghosts, telepathy, telekinesis, pre-historic advanced civilizations along the Nile or Indus Valley, Astrology, etc…

These things are not considered worthy of serious scientific investigation, and therefore, you will not find many academically generated papers regarding the above. The mere mention of a study into the aforementioned will probably earn you the label “quack”…

Who funds the study of a postgraduate or Ph. D? How difficult would it be to get funding for a study on the existence of mermaids?

Do Mermaids exist? Who knows? Is there evidence to support their existence? Yes...There are several reports from credible witnesses who have observed creatures which could be described as mer-men. However, me mentioning that, just now, made a few people laugh..It made me chuckle..But of course I think I have made my point.

To prove that Monkeys were produced by a process of grafting would require that I examine the existing evidence which is applied toward another theory, and demonstrate how this same evidence supports something which lies outside of the social constructs of the West….

There are Countries like the Former Soviet Union, and Germany who have invested real attention into ideas and theories which would be laughed at here in the West..America..Is not the world..

Is there room for the Taboo subject??


Whirling Moat


"Taboo", i.e. controversial, subjects are researched all the time. For instance race and sexuality are hot topics in psychology and biology. When you start talking about mythical creatures and untestable theories, you're no longer talking about science. If the subject concerns something that is unobservable and untestable, directly or indirectly, then it is outside the domain of science. That does not mean that the subject is unworthy of study and reflection. That simply means that it is not a subject of scientific investigation.
quote:
Originally posted by Malik:

"Taboo", i.e. controversial, subjects are researched all the time. For instance race and sexuality are hot topics in psychology and biology. When you start talking about mythical creatures and untestable theories, you're no longer talking about science. If the subject concerns something that is unobservable and untestable, directly or indirectly, then it is outside the domain of science. That does not mean that the subject is unworthy of study and reflection. That simply means that it is not a subject of scientific investigation.


yeah

In fact, Whirling Moat, some of the things you list -- especially telepathy and telekinesis -- are not off limits to science at all. I saw on 60 Minutes, maybe a month or two ago, where they're already taking the rudimentary steps in that direction... a technology that they believe would help people with ALS.

But otherwise, what Malik said is dead on: the only real inclusion criterion for a scientific study topic is testability. The study of "Taboo" topics, like the earth's place in the universe, to the idea of evolution itself -- is one of the primary reasons things are as advanced as they are.

And remember, your ideas about monkeys and "grafting" do not constitute either a hypothesis or a theory; it's a religious teaching. According to the NOI, God revealed this information to a prophet. That in itself wouldn't invalidate it, but I don't get why so many NOI I've known denigrate their own prophet by referring to Yacub as a "theory" when under their own belief system it's supposed to be the truth straight from God.

The NOI should send some of its members to school to become scientists. Surely if they have the kind of conviction that they should have, they should be advancing their beliefs through science.
Peace...


quote:
Taboo", i.e. controversial, subjects are researched all the time. For instance race and sexuality are hot topics in psychology and biology. When you start talking about mythical creatures and untestable theories, you're no longer talking about science. If the subject concerns something that is unobservable and untestable, directly or indirectly, then it is outside the domain of science. That does not mean that the subject is unworthy of study and reflection. That simply means that it is not a subject of scientific investigation.


I understand your point. I would tend to agree with what you are saying, however, some of the aforementioned subjects, i.e, Shangri-La, Ancient advanced civilizations, extraterrestrial visitation, could be tested for..Yes, there are researchers out there that conduct serivous investigations into these issues, however, no one takes what they present seriously, no matter how well it is presented. Once the academic community dubs and idea "quackery" it becomes off limits to future investigators, and it means that citing the material is way out of line.

Afrocentric scholars such as Diop, Dr. Yosef Ben Jochanan, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, have all been suppressed and thrown under the academic bus, despite having compiled very impressive research int Taboo subjects...

Western scholars have now managed to lump all of afrocentric scholarship and labeled it all "Quackery".

How hard would it be to prove that the Ancient Africans of Egypt were black like the rest of Africa? How difficult would it be to prove that The Ancient Vedic script was derived from the Rama empire and tha these scripts speak of flying ships operated by Dravidian black people? How difficult is it to admit that the technology and engineering skill should not have existed 5,700 years ago necessary to build the worlds most massive and structurally sound sky scrapers?

There are so many fields of study like this which are like virgins... They remain like this because the very idea surrounding the question disturbs the worldview of those who fund projects in the first place.

The Pyramids are right there in Giza..They defy everything we know about the past..But, science just walsk right around this elephant and pretends that it is not in the room.

There are assertions which are unfalsifiable..Which means they cannot be falsified or tested..Hell, the ability to falsify is not at issue..It is the academic prohibition which stands in the way..

Where do white people come from? No one knowa..there is no record..No indigenous site for them..No fossil record showing the transition from African to Caucasian..Nothing..

Our world view provides all the answers we need..We just know that they must come from natural evolutionary forces even while we have no science to confirm that...

Are there extradimensions which are connected to our own where particles teleport into and then reappear into this dimension? Who knows but this is a real scientific theory..That can be taken seriously in the realm of theoretical quantum physics, yet no one will accept thaqt maybe there was an advance world in the past.

Right now one of the above theories can be tested..The other one cannot be...Which one do you think is taken seriously??


Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...


quote:
Taboo", i.e. controversial, subjects are researched all the time. For instance race and sexuality are hot topics in psychology and biology. When you start talking about mythical creatures and untestable theories, you're no longer talking about science. If the subject concerns something that is unobservable and untestable, directly or indirectly, then it is outside the domain of science. That does not mean that the subject is unworthy of study and reflection. That simply means that it is not a subject of scientific investigation.


I understand your point. I would tend to agree with what you are saying, however, some of the aforementioned subjects, i.e, Shangri-La, Ancient advanced civilizations, extraterrestrial visitation, could be tested for..Yes, there are researchers out there that conduct serivous investigations into these issues, however, no one takes what they present seriously, no matter how well it is presented. Once the academic community dubs and idea "quackery" it becomes off limits to future investigators, and it means that citing the material is way out of line.

Afrocentric scholars such as Diop, Dr. Yosef Ben Jochanan, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, have all been suppressed and thrown under the academic bus, despite having compiled very impressive research int Taboo subjects...

Western scholars have now managed to lump all of afrocentric scholarship and labeled it all "Quackery".

How hard would it be to prove that the Ancient Africans of Egypt were black like the rest of Africa? How difficult would it be to prove that The Ancient Vedic script was derived from the Rama empire and tha these scripts speak of flying ships operated by Dravidian black people? How difficult is it to admit that the technology and engineering skill should not have existed 5,700 years ago necessary to build the worlds most massive and structurally sound sky scrapers?

There are so many fields of study like this which are like virgins... They remain like this because the very idea surrounding the question disturbs the worldview of those who fund projects in the first place.

The Pyramids are right there in Giza..They defy everything we know about the past..But, science just walsk right around this elephant and pretends that it is not in the room.

There are assertions which are unfalsifiable..Which means they cannot be falsified or tested..Hell, the ability to falsify is not at issue..It is the academic prohibition which stands in the way..

Where do white people come from? No one knowa..there is no record..No indigenous site for them..No fossil record showing the transition from African to Caucasian..Nothing..

Our world view provides all the answers we need..We just know that they must come from natural evolutionary forces even while we have no science to confirm that...

Are there extradimensions which are connected to our own where particles teleport into and then reappear into this dimension? Who knows but this is a real scientific theory..That can be taken seriously in the realm of theoretical quantum physics, yet no one will accept thaqt maybe there was an advance world in the past.

Right now one of the above theories can be tested..The other one cannot be...Which one do you think is taken seriously??


Whirling Moat


It's true, there is bias in the academy just as in every other aspect of society. However, I'm not aware of any widespread effort to censor the views of scholars simply because their theories are unorthodox. I'm of the impression that most professional scientists and scholars take the obligation to be skeptical of their own theories very seriously, and give serious consideration to compelling evidence that would force them to revise their views. Now, if a scientist fails to make a compelling case for their theory, it's entirely possible that they won't receive institutional support for their research, but that's far different from censorship and blacklisting.

As for afrocentrism, it's a fairly mainstream branch of scholarly inquiry these days. There are still political ideologues who caricature it, but it's relatively uncontroversial.

In any case, the burden of proof always rests on the one making the claim.
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...


quote:
Taboo", i.e. controversial, subjects are researched all the time. For instance race and sexuality are hot topics in psychology and biology. When you start talking about mythical creatures and untestable theories, you're no longer talking about science. If the subject concerns something that is unobservable and untestable, directly or indirectly, then it is outside the domain of science. That does not mean that the subject is unworthy of study and reflection. That simply means that it is not a subject of scientific investigation.


I understand your point. I would tend to agree with what you are saying, however, some of the aforementioned subjects, i.e, Shangri-La, Ancient advanced civilizations, extraterrestrial visitation, could be tested for..Yes, there are researchers out there that conduct serivous investigations into these issues, however, no one takes what they present seriously, no matter how well it is presented. Once the academic community dubs and idea "quackery" it becomes off limits to future investigators, and it means that citing the material is way out of line.

Afrocentric scholars such as Diop, Dr. Yosef Ben Jochanan, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, have all been suppressed and thrown under the academic bus, despite having compiled very impressive research int Taboo subjects...

Western scholars have now managed to lump all of afrocentric scholarship and labeled it all "Quackery".

How hard would it be to prove that the Ancient Africans of Egypt were black like the rest of Africa? How difficult would it be to prove that The Ancient Vedic script was derived from the Rama empire and tha these scripts speak of flying ships operated by Dravidian black people? How difficult is it to admit that the technology and engineering skill should not have existed 5,700 years ago necessary to build the worlds most massive and structurally sound sky scrapers?

There are so many fields of study like this which are like virgins... They remain like this because the very idea surrounding the question disturbs the worldview of those who fund projects in the first place.

The Pyramids are right there in Giza..They defy everything we know about the past..But, science just walsk right around this elephant and pretends that it is not in the room.

There are assertions which are unfalsifiable..Which means they cannot be falsified or tested..Hell, the ability to falsify is not at issue..It is the academic prohibition which stands in the way..

Where do white people come from? No one knowa..there is no record..No indigenous site for them..No fossil record showing the transition from African to Caucasian..Nothing..

Our world view provides all the answers we need..We just know that they must come from natural evolutionary forces even while we have no science to confirm that...

Are there extradimensions which are connected to our own where particles teleport into and then reappear into this dimension? Who knows but this is a real scientific theory..That can be taken seriously in the realm of theoretical quantum physics, yet no one will accept thaqt maybe there was an advance world in the past.

Right now one of the above theories can be tested..The other one cannot be...Which one do you think is taken seriously??


Whirling Moat

I think that you have exaggerated the nature of the academy. One of the things that I think people do not realize about academic discourse is that it is often and frequently contentious. One does not simply present their work and it is accepted. It is challenged, debated, critiqued, etc. The discursive process is "agonistic".

If there is a Western bias, it is this aspect about the academy. In many cultures, this kind of almost confrontational method is unknown and discomforting. Also, there are culturally different understandings with respect to the purpose of knowledge and scholarly inquiry. This is something that I confront with respect to my research all the time. Most of my work is critical, after the fashion of deconstruction. Much of what I do involves challenging certain fundamental assumptions about how we encounter the world. For the most part, in terms of my research, I do not really care about whether the idea is edifying, beneficial, or productive.

For the most part, however, such an approach is not one adopted by African American scholars. There is a tradition of critique, but it is one that has a particular moral or ethical imperative. While I am not saying that my work is devoid of such a sensibility, it is by no means a priority. So, some of my critical work has not been as well received as my descriptive work.

I would contend, however, that African American scholarship, broadly construed, would greatly benefit from a more aggressive posture that does not shun discursive challenges. To much AA scholarship is apologetic and or congratulatory. For example, at the American Academy of Religion, in many sessions, when people present papers, there are intense adversarial debates. However, at comparable AA conferences, the papers tend to be more celebratory and affirmative, primarily about black people in general and what the organization has done to promote AA academics. People's theories, methods, ideas, concepts, and assumptions, however, are seldom if ever challenged. In my opinion, this makes for weaker scholarship.

One last point, with respect to religious claims, I think one needs to be extremely careful in asserting that they are identical to scientific arguments with respect to facticity or historicity. One reason is that people seldom adopt a faith perspective due to its coherence with science. Further, adopting a position where religious claims are hypotheses subject to empirical methodology is untenable for most religious people. In science, one can not claim privileged perspective or insight. Further, if a better, more comprehensive theory is put forward, the older theory is jettisoned. In the case of Caucasians being the progenitors of monkeys and apes, I believe that such a claim is not scientifically credible. As a religious narrative or myth, however, I think that it is very interesting. I have raised the same point in the past with respect to Christian claims that result in people believing in a young earth and creationism.
Peace...

Vox and Malik...

I could literaly fill this entire section of the board with testimonials of scientists who have been persecuted for going outside of the academic box.

Here is an excerpt from a speech given by a controversial scientist named Edward Wilson who was a Pellegrino University Professor at Harvard University and Curator in Entomology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Agassiz Museum), Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

"After the Sociobiology Study Group exposed me as a counterrevolutionary adventurist, and as they intensified their attacks in articles and teach-ins, other radical activists in the Boston area, including the violence-prone International Committee against Racism, conducted a campaign of leaflets and teach-ins of their own to oppose human sociobiology. As this activity spread through the winter and spring of 1975-76, I grew fearful that it might reach a level embarrassing to my family and the university. I briefly considered offers of professorships from three universities--in case, their representatives said, I wished to leave the physical center of the controversy. But the pressure was tolerable, since I was a senior professor with tenure, with a reputation based on other discoveries, and in any case could not bear to leave Harvard's ant collection, the world's largest and best. For a few days a protester in Harvard Square used a bullhorn to call for my dismissal. Two students from the University of Michigan invaded my class on evolutionary biology one day to shout slogans and deliver antisociobiology monologues. I withdrew from department meetings for a year to avoid embarrassment arising from my notoriety, especially with key members of Science for the People present at these meetings. In 1979 I was doused with water by a group of protestors at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, possibly the only incident in recent history that a scientist was physically attacked, however mildly, for the expression of an idea. In 1982 I went to the Science Center at Harvard University under police escort to deliver a public lecture, because of the gathering of a crowd of protestors around the entrance, angered because of the title of my talk: "The coevolution of biology and culture."

Gerald Holton has warned of the rivulets of unreason that can come together at different times and different circumstances to form a threatening floodstream. The evidences remind us that, in Bertrand Russell's words, the mass of people would rather believe than know. Holton, Gross, Levitt, and others have shown that politicized anti- science is a flourishing trade within the academy. I will add with conviction that on occasion it can take root in the very entrails of science. And not just in a totalitarian state, exemplified by Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi eugenics, but in a democracy and promoted by people who feel they are doing the morally right thing.

The sociobiology controversy as an example is not unique in recent history, although I wish it were. On 16 May 1986, a group of academic luminaries, including Robert Hinde, John Paul Scott, and several other prominent behavioral scientists, issued the Seville Declaration (following a conference in Spain), declaring invalid any theories or claims that aggression and war have a genetic basis. Such thinking is according to them, "scientifically incorrect." "Wars," the Declaration said, "begin in the minds of men." Warfare is a product of culture; biology contributes only in providing language and the capacity to invent wars. Case closed. The authors of the Declaration suggested, in effect, that if you have any thoughts otherwise about these matters, keep your mouth shut. The Seville Declaration was adopted that same year as the official policy of the American Anthropological Association. Eighty percent of the members who returned ballots on the motion to adopt voted in favor. Virtually all the main premises and conclusions of the Seville group are contradicted by the evidence, but no matter- -the Declaration seemed to its signers and ratifiers the politically and morally correct thing to do. All the participants must have felt good about supporting it."

This is from a tenured professor at Harvard...

Sure, in the ideal world..science has no ambition..But really? Science controls the frame of thinking in this world. If something is validated by science it becomes favorable...

The scientists of this world order are not so free as to disrupt social order with their findings...

We all know that cewrtain information is classified, and considered too sensative for the public..The point being..tell them what they should hear..



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...

Vox and Malik...

I could literaly fill this entire section of the board with testimonials of scientists who have been persecuted for going outside of the academic box.

Here is an excerpt from a speech given by a controversial scientist named Edward Wilson who was a Pellegrino University Professor at Harvard University and Curator in Entomology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Agassiz Museum), Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

"After the Sociobiology Study Group exposed me as a counterrevolutionary adventurist, and as they intensified their attacks in articles and teach-ins, other radical activists in the Boston area, including the violence-prone International Committee against Racism, conducted a campaign of leaflets and teach-ins of their own to oppose human sociobiology. As this activity spread through the winter and spring of 1975-76, I grew fearful that it might reach a level embarrassing to my family and the university. I briefly considered offers of professorships from three universities--in case, their representatives said, I wished to leave the physical center of the controversy. But the pressure was tolerable, since I was a senior professor with tenure, with a reputation based on other discoveries, and in any case could not bear to leave Harvard's ant collection, the world's largest and best. For a few days a protester in Harvard Square used a bullhorn to call for my dismissal. Two students from the University of Michigan invaded my class on evolutionary biology one day to shout slogans and deliver antisociobiology monologues. I withdrew from department meetings for a year to avoid embarrassment arising from my notoriety, especially with key members of Science for the People present at these meetings. In 1979 I was doused with water by a group of protestors at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, possibly the only incident in recent history that a scientist was physically attacked, however mildly, for the expression of an idea. In 1982 I went to the Science Center at Harvard University under police escort to deliver a public lecture, because of the gathering of a crowd of protestors around the entrance, angered because of the title of my talk: "The coevolution of biology and culture."

Gerald Holton has warned of the rivulets of unreason that can come together at different times and different circumstances to form a threatening floodstream. The evidences remind us that, in Bertrand Russell's words, the mass of people would rather believe than know. Holton, Gross, Levitt, and others have shown that politicized anti- science is a flourishing trade within the academy. I will add with conviction that on occasion it can take root in the very entrails of science. And not just in a totalitarian state, exemplified by Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi eugenics, but in a democracy and promoted by people who feel they are doing the morally right thing.

The sociobiology controversy as an example is not unique in recent history, although I wish it were. On 16 May 1986, a group of academic luminaries, including Robert Hinde, John Paul Scott, and several other prominent behavioral scientists, issued the Seville Declaration (following a conference in Spain), declaring invalid any theories or claims that aggression and war have a genetic basis. Such thinking is according to them, "scientifically incorrect." "Wars," the Declaration said, "begin in the minds of men." Warfare is a product of culture; biology contributes only in providing language and the capacity to invent wars. Case closed. The authors of the Declaration suggested, in effect, that if you have any thoughts otherwise about these matters, keep your mouth shut. The Seville Declaration was adopted that same year as the official policy of the American Anthropological Association. Eighty percent of the members who returned ballots on the motion to adopt voted in favor. Virtually all the main premises and conclusions of the Seville group are contradicted by the evidence, but no matter- -the Declaration seemed to its signers and ratifiers the politically and morally correct thing to do. All the participants must have felt good about supporting it."

This is from a tenured professor at Harvard...

Sure, in the ideal world..science has no ambition..But really? Science controls the frame of thinking in this world. If something is validated by science it becomes favorable...

The scientists of this world order are not so free as to disrupt social order with their findings...

We all know that cewrtain information is classified, and considered too sensative for the public..The point being..tell them what they should hear..



Whirling Moat


Sorry, thirty year old stories of scientists being harassed by a leftist student organization (nothing new) doesn't illustrate your point. They weren't censored by their colleagues or the administration. And you could use better examples than some washed up Pioneer Fund wack jobs who are always crying persecution when their ideas are shown to have no merit and they are rightly criticized for trying to use the academy to promote white supremacist ideology.
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Sure, in the ideal world..science has no ambition..But really? Science controls the frame of thinking in this world. If something is validated by science it becomes favorable...

The scientists of this world order are not so free as to disrupt social order with their findings...
It seems to me that pressure comes from politics, or other forces outside of science. For the most part, anyway.

For example, that first example you gave. I had to google it, but the Sociobiology Study Group and the International Committee Against Racism are political groups. The second one is not even a group of scientists. I wonder where you thought you were going with that... nono

Furthermore, WITHIN the realm of science, most ideas that have been rejected by mainstream science are rejected because either the scholarship was poor OR the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence more than militates against the truth of it. Dr. Wilson's work was probably the victim of one or the other. And of COURSE he's going to disagree with everyone else if they declare his work invalid. It's HIS WORK. And NO scientist is ever more biased toward their own work than the scientist whose work it is.

For another example you give, Diop's work on the African origins of Egypt was riddled with illogic and inaccuracy. He cited the Kemetic words for "north" and "south" -- which are the opposite of ours (what they called north, we call south) --- as evidence of a "southern orientation," and claimed that people who lived north of the equator don't do that unless it's their point of origin. But Lower Egypt (which is northern Egypt to us) is downhill from Upper Egypt, and he never explained what on earth the equator has to do with anything. That kind of bullshit is why black Egypt has failed to gain a lot of traction in mainstream Egyptology. That AND the fact of what Kresge stated about the failure of Afrocentric scholarship to be more critical of itself, the way other forms are. If Afrocentrists had criticized Diop instead of embracing him so wholeheartedly, the scholarship would have been beefed up, and it would be much harder to dismiss or ignore by now.

And again, bringing it back to your monkey/grafting notion, again, this idea originated from nowhere but the mouth of a guy who claimed to be a prophet from God. On the other hand, accepted science on the subject began with observations of physical reality and the eventual development of hypotheses. In the case of the former, any analysis you try to do on the subject is done in the interest of proving Elijah Muhammad right, while any study on the other hand is in the interest of discovery and figuring things out. It's that whole testability thing again.

I'll probably withdraw from commenting any further, in light of Kresge's post. His post is the definitive statement on the topic as far as I'm concerned, and I don't want you to keep replying to me and Malik while avoiding Kresge's comments.
Peace...


quote:
I think that you have exaggerated the nature of the academy. One of the things that I think people do not realize about academic discourse is that it is often and frequently contentious. One does not simply present their work and it is accepted. It is challenged, debated, critiqued, etc. The discursive process is "agonistic".



I am aware of the nature of the above process and how a candidate must defend his research.
I have never suggested otherwise. I think the process of defending a thesis or dissertation is good, as long as it is the candidate under examination not the object of study which is placed under investigation and scrutiny.

Those reviewing an application for research funding, dissertation advisors, or the examining panel should remain objective..That is..In the perfect world..

My point is that social bias, will not allow this.

quote:
If there is a Western bias, it is this aspect about the academy. In many cultures, this kind of almost confrontational method is unknown and discomforting. Also, there are culturally different understandings with respect to the purpose of knowledge and scholarly inquiry. This is something that I confront with respect to my research all the time. Most of my work is critical, after the fashion of deconstruction. Much of what I do involves challenging certain fundamental assumptions about how we encounter the world. For the most part, in terms of my research, I do not really care about whether the idea is edifying, beneficial, or productive.


I applaud you for this..And once again, i am by no stretch suggesting that those who research unorthodox subjects should receive special treatment..Of course they should be reviewed in a manner consistent with the review standard.

I want to be very clear, I am in no way suggesting that inferior information should receive praise simply because it is in someway uplifting to those in need..No..

The findings of the research must be meritorious, and sound. However, that being said, those in a position to review the information must not bring their own biases to the examination. A Candidate should not have to pierce the veil of social pressure in order to demonstrate the validity of their claims. this is not an equitable requirement, nor is it intrinsic, it is actually nothing more than another species of prejudice, in this case against an idea...

Allow me to put it this way...

Would you say that a doctoral candidate in the physical sciences stands a better chance challenging established ideas, or by somehow preparing a doctoral thesis which flirts with something innovative yet stays within the boundary of being safe?


Most black phd candidates that I have known become so exhausted trying to acheive the Phd, that they lose all resistance to those wishing to subdue them and bring them into conformity..In the end They just want the Degree..I have watched the most revolutionary black afrocentric, hair pick in the back pocket, long dashiki, kente cloth, Blackman of the Nile by Dr. Ben totting, bald head like Dr. Khalid, brother be reduced to Steve Erkle during the Doctorate program.

The other Phds seem to beat that out of the brothers..

Truth becomes what will be acceptable..

Will a person go before the examiners to defend research which purports to establish the linkage between the Atlantic spotted Dolphin, and Mermaids of the Pleiades? No..The idea will never enter the mind of the Postgraduate..And if it does..he or she will have hell to pay...

quote:
For the most part, however, such an approach is not one adopted by African American scholars. There is a tradition of critique, but it is one that has a particular moral or ethical imperative. While I am not saying that my work is devoid of such a sensibility, it is by no means a priority. So, some of my critical work has not been as well received as my descriptive work.



The truth is the truth..

Of course, I think black scholars have every right, and even the moral obligation to represent truth which is relevant to others who have endured what they have endured. There is truth to be discovered in the Shires of England, and Hills of Ireland, just as there is truth to be discovered or recovered from the Old Mountains of the Moon, and along the Nile Valley in Africa..

Just as a black person should not be lambasted for choosing not to research specifically along an Afrocentric line, black academics who choose to remain unfettered should not be so quick to judge black scholars who chose to research for information about the glory of our past. You do not have to bend facts, or skew information..It is there..No one has chosen to bring it to the light..Instead they (the academy)intentionally buried our past, and forged their own names upon our Legacy. George G.M James may not have presented the most scholarly book, however, he was correct in asserting that our Legacy was stolen by Greeks..

Having an intent in no way diminishes the validity of research..If it is tested, and pases the standard of repeatability..It is science..Afrocentric, Anti Semitic, White Supremist, etc..It does not bear on whether a thing is true or not..Those are issue of palatibilty, not substance.

quote:
I would contend, however, that African American scholarship, broadly construed, would greatly benefit from a more aggressive posture that does not shun discursive challenges. To much AA scholarship is apologetic and or congratulatory. For example, at the American Academy of Religion, in many sessions, when people present papers, there are intense adversarial debates. However, at comparable AA conferences, the papers tend to be more celebratory and affirmative, primarily about black people in general and what the organization has done to promote AA academics. People's theories, methods, ideas, concepts, and assumptions, however, are seldom if ever challenged. In my opinion, this makes for weaker scholarship.

Please provide an example of where the above compromises the integrity of the research. I understand how the failure to critique will render a weaker product, but provide an example of where you see this in the scholarship of our people..

quote:
One last point, with respect to religious claims, I think one needs to be extremely careful in asserting that they are identical to scientific arguments with respect to facticity or historicity. One reason is that people seldom adopt a faith perspective due to its coherence with science. Further, adopting a position where religious claims are hypotheses subject to empirical methodology is untenable for most religious people. In science, one can not claim privileged perspective or insight. Further, if a better, more comprehensive theory is put forward, the older theory is jettisoned. In the case of Caucasians being the progenitors of monkeys and apes, I believe that such a claim is not scientifically credible. As a religious narrative or myth, however, I think that it is very interesting. I have raised the same point in the past with respect to Christian claims that result in people believing in a young earth and creationism.



I have not claimed that our claims are identical to any hypothesis. I have claimed that the findings of scientists are consistent with what Elijah Muhammad taught over 78 years ago. Further there is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting religious doctrine and then subjecting the beliefs to empirical tests in accordance to the scientific method. In science on can claim priviledged position if we are studying qualia, or subjective experiences..If a Doctor asks a patient "How do you feel?" Who else can answer that question besides the subject?

You say if a better theory is created the old theory must be jettisoned, well, there are certain Apriori truths which are timeless, and will endure for all time..

Finally you say that our theory of the genesis of the ape and monkey is incredible, and I say that you have just presented your bias. No one has explained why, or how..You already have made up your mind. You have already accepted the fact that it is a myth..

Just so that you will have something to chew on..Did you know that the accepted claim among biological anthropologists is that Men do not come from Monkeys at all? They speak of an evolutionary branch where men and monkeys like the chimpanzee evolved from the same ancestor..

If you remove the bias..and then consider the fossil record defeats the idea of human evolution from anthropids perhaps you would be willing to review other theories...


Whirling Moat
Peace....



quote:
Sorry, thirty year old stories of scientists being harassed by a leftist student organization (nothing new) doesn't illustrate your point. They weren't censored by their colleagues or the administration. And you could use better examples than some washed up Pioneer Fund wack jobs who are always crying persecution when their ideas are shown to have no merit and they are rightly criticized for trying to use the academy to promote white supremacist ideology.



Those harassing Professor Wilson were not simply a body of students as you put forward

" Shortly after the publication of Sociobiology, Richard Lewontin organized fifteen scientists, teachers, and students in the Boston area as the Sociobiology Study Group, which then affiliated with Science for the People. The latter, larger aggregate of radical activists was begun in the 1960s to expose the misdeeds of scientists and technologists, including especially thinking considered to be politically dangerous"

These were his colleagues..

Further, you make my point for me by arguing against the man instead of his science by calling him "Pioneer Fund wack jobs".

Even if he was promoting White Supremacy what would that have to do with his assertion that biological forces play a role in human social behavior?

Once this man is deemed to be a White Supremist advocate..Ears close..His is socially excommunicated, and people feel free to throw water on him, and requires a police escort. All because he wrote something unconventional from his capacity as a Harvard Professor..


Your reply made my argument..


Whirling Moat
Peace..


quote:
It seems to me that pressure comes from politics, or other forces outside of science. For the most part, anyway


Exactly my point. The politics control the funding, the administration controls the departments, the departments chiefs control the faculty....

Take into consideration another case "The Smithsonian-Sternberg affair". here is an excerpt from an article:

"The Smithsonian-Sternberg affair began with uproar over the publication of an article written by an intelligent design (ID) proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution (SI),[1] contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.[2] An article titled The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories by ID advocate Stephen C. Meyer was published in the August 4, 2004 volume of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, (PBSW)[3] Richard Sternberg was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).

Controversy ensued within hours of publication,[4] with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."[5] Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian: "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,"[6] and "Some [scientists] probably did speak intemperately,"[7] out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's editorial role.

Although Sternberg had announced his resignation from PBSW before the controversy irrupted, he continued to work at the Smithsonian as a National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) Research Associate (RA).[8] Sternberg states that he was subjected to a hostile work environment as an RA, and requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel (USOSC) investigate his allegations.[9] The USOSC ultimately concluded in a letter obtained by three media outlets that Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the NMNH."

Smithsonian-Sternberg

I am not endorsing his role as editor or the fact that he publish a work which was not peer reviewed as much as his opponents would have liked, I want to focus on the fact that it was his intelligent design argument which was really at issue.

Another quote from the article

"Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

Now either this is an amazing coincidence or evidence of an extreme bias against any scientist who would put forward ideas which substantiate the claim of intelligent design or creationism for that matter.

After an investigation it was determined that Sternberg was being harassed by his colleagues due to his views...This is the true culture of the Academy.

quote:
For example, that first example you gave. I had to google it, but the Sociobiology Study Group and the International Committee Against Racism are political groups. The second one is not even a group of scientists. I wonder where you thought you were going with that...


As I have cited in my response to Malik, some of the members were scientists.

quote:
Furthermore, WITHIN the realm of science, most ideas that have been rejected by mainstream science are rejected because either the scholarship was poor OR the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence more than militates against the truth of it. Dr. Wilson's work was probably the victim of one or the other. And of COURSE he's going to disagree with everyone else if they declare his work invalid. It's HIS WORK. And NO scientist is ever more biased toward their own work than the scientist whose work it is.



Man, c'mon bruh...Not the old it's probably his own fault argument..

As Professor Wilson pointed out, his theories were fine until he began applying his research toward human beings..And then all hell broke loose.. People did not like the idea of biology playing a role in the development of society.It would have too many implications..

His adversaries were not Challenging his work, instead they were on a witch hunt because he had the audacity to forward such ideas.

quote:
For another example you give, Diop's work on the African origins of Egypt was riddled with illogic and inaccuracy. He cited the Kemetic words for "north" and "south" -- which are the opposite of ours (what they called north, we call south) --- as evidence of a "southern orientation," and claimed that people who lived north of the equator don't do that unless it's their point of origin. But Lower Egypt (which is northern Egypt to us) is downhill from Upper Egypt, and he never explained what on earth the equator has to do with anything. That kind of bullshit is why black Egypt has failed to gain a lot of traction in mainstream Egyptology. That AND the fact of what Kresge stated about the failure of Afrocentric scholarship to be more critical of itself, the way other forms are. If Afrocentrists had criticized Diop instead of embracing him so wholeheartedly, the scholarship would have been beefed up, and it would be much harder to dismiss or ignore by now.


Vox, this is what I am saying brother..You are passing on the same crap that others have passed on..

Cheikh Anta Diop crushed his adversaries in Cairo during a public symposium sponsored by UNESCO in 1974. It was one of the greatest triumphs in the history of black scholarship. Egyptologists from ever area, came to discuss the racial identity of Ancient Egypt and Diop and Theophile Obenga were ferociously challenged by white egyptologists, and at the end, Diop and Obenga wooped their collective white asses..

At the end of the Conference they bowed down and admitted that they were not as prepared or knowledgeable as Diop. Professor Diop was a multi genius...He was a physicists, a historian, anthropologist, egyptologist, linguist, and freedom fighter..I am not saying he is beyond reproach, I am saying that his acheivement and work for our people should provide enough reason for us to show more respect.

His work was not flawless, but is was sound.

quote:
And again, bringing it back to your monkey/grafting notion, again, this idea originated from nowhere but the mouth of a guy who claimed to be a prophet from God. On the other hand, accepted science on the subject began with observations of physical reality and the eventual development of hypotheses. In the case of the former, any analysis you try to do on the subject is done in the interest of proving Elijah Muhammad right, while any study on the other hand is in the interest of discovery and figuring things out. It's that whole testability thing again.


No sir..How can a person observe a monkey and not conclude that there is a relation between the two species..Whether they evolved from us or we from them is not obvious upon a simple observation. A hypothesis which asserts that Monkeys evolved from prehistoric Homo Sapiens is just as plausible as the opposite.

When you add the social construct, then it is only logical to conclude that we are descended from Monkeys.

Beyond that as I poionted out to Kresge..The field does not even endorse the idea the we come from monkeys, so either they come from us, or they come from a common ancestor of ours..

However, people will argue vehemently about this subject without even checking or doing any research....And no..Elijah Muhammad was not the first to make this claim..But, maybe we'll get to that..

quote:
I'll probably withdraw from commenting any further, in light of Kresge's post. His post is the definitive statement on the topic as far as I'm concerned, and I don't want you to keep replying to me and Malik while avoiding Kresge's comments.


I had to laugh when I read your comment about me avoiding Kresge..



Whirling Moat
fro The word "taboo" is probably as old as the word "ancient." In that this word is used to control one's thinking and behavior....dependent on whose in charge at the time. Although it used to be taboo to marry cousins....but! We know many cultures still pratice this to keep it all in the family.. Taboo should be something that is factually dangerous like fathers/mothers procreating with daughters/sons, aunts/uncles, nephrews, nieces, etc. This is still practiced in other cultures and definitely should be taboo just from the risk of having children afflicted with deformities........but! CLEARLY isn't considered taboo by those who engage in it. However, the idea of this practice is totally WRONG...and immortal. Yet being that way doesn't stop its existence. Also when adults have sex with children....this is also taboo...but is continuously done despite the idea of it being WRONG.

So as I said before, it depends on who is in control. [Whites] Having sex with blackfolks back in the day was considered taboo....unless you were MASSA trying to increase your slave count. Otherwise it was AGAINST the law. Making this taboo an idea, again, that is very WRONG. So. If it benefits a particular society to control a certain element....they will call it taboo. But if this same taboo benefits the element....then it will be called a necessity. fro
For those of you who are arguing that there is "open discourse and debate amongst intellectuals even amongst the fringes" are wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Science and research is not a "hey lets all have theories and debate them in good spirit". In fact there are many theories that do not see the light of day because of funding, social setting, lack of engagement by others in the community etc. Science isn't just about coming up with a testable hypothesis.

In fact, I would argue that science is inherently biased and conservative towards pre-existing theory and takes a helluva lot to change direction.

---

I am with Whirling Moat on this one. Why is the scientific method considered the "truth". In reality it operates on a closed system and is extremely limited. For example the whole concept of testability. The researcher must definine the variables, and then test the variables. So inherent in the testing process is the bias of the researcher in defining the variables. Since their is no "objective" anything, meaning everything that is defined is done so from the construct of the observer everything we do is biased.

Simply because something is retestable does not make it "true" it just means that variables were defined in the same way and therefore the same results manifested.

Lets also look at observation, and probability. Just because something occurs once, twice, a million times does not mean that it will occur until infinity. Therefore if you stretch the timeline long enough anything is probable. If anything is probable, anything can occur at anytime, therefore everything we do is based upon faith.

In regard to observation. What about the things that we in our human limitation can not observe? Does something not exist unless it is observable? Did atoms not exist until there was a microscope powerful enough to see them? Etc.

My point is this, science is rooted in faith and human bias, error, and limitation. What is acceptable in the "scientific community" in many was is what can be funded, and what will be supported by the masses and the community. Why are alternative hypothesis not taught in school along side the most acceptable ones. IE Einstein's E=MC2 is well know, how about the other less "popular" scientific hypothesis that have an equally valid chance of being what we call "true"?
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace..


quote:
It seems to me that pressure comes from politics, or other forces outside of science. For the most part, anyway


Exactly my point. The politics control the funding, the administration controls the departments, the departments chiefs control the faculty....

yeah

There can be but one explanation for this vagary of nineteenth century science. It was due to the slave trade and Negro slavery. It was due to the fact that the rise and support of capitalism called for rationalization based upon degrading and discrediting the Negroid peoples. It is especially significant that the science of Egyptology arose and flourished at the very time that the cotton kingdom reached its greatest power on the foundation of American Negro slavery.

-W.E.B. Du Bois


quote:
For another example you give, Diop's work on the African origins of Egypt was riddled with illogic and inaccuracy. He cited the Kemetic words for "north" and "south" -- which are the opposite of ours (what they called north, we call south) --- as evidence of a "southern orientation," and claimed that people who lived north of the equator don't do that unless it's their point of origin. But Lower Egypt (which is northern Egypt to us) is downhill from Upper Egypt, and he never explained what on earth the equator has to do with anything. That kind of bullshit is why black Egypt has failed to gain a lot of traction in mainstream Egyptology. That AND the fact of what Kresge stated about the failure of Afrocentric scholarship to be more critical of itself, the way other forms are. If Afrocentrists had criticized Diop instead of embracing him so wholeheartedly, the scholarship would have been beefed up, and it would be much harder to dismiss or ignore by now.


Vox, this is what I am saying brother..You are passing on the same crap that others have passed on..

Cheikh Anta Diop crushed his adversaries in Cairo during a public symposium sponsored by UNESCO in 1974. It was one of the greatest triumphs in the history of black scholarship. Egyptologists from ever area, came to discuss the racial identity of Ancient Egypt and Diop and Theophile Obenga were ferociously challenged by white egyptologists, and at the end, Diop and Obenga wooped their collective white asses..

At the end of the Conference they bowed down and admitted that they were not as prepared or knowledgeable as Diop. Professor Diop was a multi genius...He was a physicists, a historian, anthropologist, egyptologist, linguist, and freedom fighter..I am not saying he is beyond reproach, I am saying that his acheivement and work for our people should provide enough reason for us to show more respect.

His work was not flawless, but is was sound.


thanks

The general consensus reached at the Cairo Symposium was that there was no evidence that the ancient Egyptians were white and that it was peopled by people from "the Great Lakes region in inner-equatorial Africa.

Unfortunately, news of the symposium has been virtually ignored by academia and the media but its findings were chronicled by UNESCO in a 1978 publication entitled, Ancient Civilizations of Africa, Vol. II.

What accounts for this deafening silence? A report filed by an observer at the conference holds a clue.

The observer wrote:

"Although the preparatory working paper sent out by UNESCO gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance."

Diop developed the "melanin dosage test" which allowed him to prove, once and for all, the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians. This relatively simple test(later adopted by the U.S. forensic department to determine the racial identity of badly burnt accident victims) provided the means by which one could determine the phenotype of the royal mummies by examining the melanin content present within their skin. Although Dr. Diop had proven the viability of the Melanin Dosage Test, the Egyptian government has yet to authorize its use and so the issue of the "race" of the ancient Egyptians remains unresolved(scientifically).


http://www.zimbio.com/RBG+Afri...AY+Anthony+T+Browder
quote:
Does being Taboo make an idea wrong?


Absolutely not!

Should it [the/an idea] prove itself worthy of legitimacy or just get an ez pass?
Peace..


quote:
In fact, I would argue that science is inherently biased and conservative towards pre-existing theory and takes a helluva lot to change direction.



Yep....

Occasionally, a long tenured professor who is highly respected can change the course of a conversation.

I think the greatest resistance to change happens in fields where social order is at risk. Anthropology, paleontology, archeology, Astronomy, genetics, et. al, are very sensative subjects. The wrong paper can change social attitudes..Which can in turn change social dispositions as it relates to politics.



Whirling Moat
Peace...

quote:
Unfortunately, news of the symposium has been virtually ignored by academia and the media but its findings were chronicled by UNESCO in a 1978 publication entitled, Ancient Civilizations of Africa, Vol. II.


Which goes to show that it isn't always about the knowledge...

I think we must understand that there are very powerful forces which depend on the status quo way of thinking about science and history.

A wise man once said that "He who controls the diameter of your thinking will control the circumference of your activity".


Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Why are alternative hypothesis not taught in school along side the most acceptable ones.
Such as?

Yes, what "hypotheses" are you referring to. For something to be a valid hypothesis per the scientific method, it has to be falsifiable. This is why religious doctrines should not be taught as science. In other words, there has to be conditions for which the hypothesis can be dismissed as false. This is what I was noting with respect to the apologetic nature of much religious rhetoric that attempts to claim scientific credibility. This is incongruous with science itself.

This is why creationism/intelligent design is not science. I would hold the same for most religious claims. Further, for non-modern religious movements, the imposition of contemporary categories on the systems, IMO, does violence to the ideas and concepts. It is anachronistic. It does not take into consideration that historical consciousness is not static, that the way we think about the world is historically, socially, and culturally contextual. Our categories of history, science, or fact completely foreign to ancient peoples. This categories arise out of the Enlightenment.

To say that religious claims are not science, however, does not invalidate them. They should be addressed, however, as alternative systems of meaning, which I feel much more comfortable applying the term of myth (deploying - symbols, metaphors, poetry, analogy, etc. to convey truths about human experience in a way not so dissimilar than literature or art).

So, when Elijah Muhammad refers to existence of rifles 6,000 years ago (Message to the Black Man p.117) or that the Moses used dynamite on Mount Sinai (Message p.120), it is not a matter of scientific denial view these claims with suspicion. However, reading symbolically, I believe there is some interesting and compelling insights being communicated.
quote:
For something to be a valid hypothesis per the scientific method, it has to be falsifiable.


I've learned that a basic tenet of science is that no assumption can be considered inviolable, including the scientific method itself.

Does this coincide with what you are saying, kresge?
quote:
To say that religious claims are not science, however, does not invalidate them. They should be addressed, however, as alternative systems of meaning, which I feel much more comfortable applying the term of myth (deploying - symbols, metaphors, poetry, analogy, etc. to convey truths about human experience in a way not so dissimilar than literature or art).
yeah
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
For something to be a valid hypothesis per the scientific method, it has to be falsifiable.


I've learned that a basic tenet of science is that no assumption can be considered inviolable, including the scientific method itself.

Does this coincide with what you are saying, kresge?

My point is actually a little different. Initial articulations of the scientific method asserted that a hypothesis and/or a theory was something that was subject to empirical validation. This is a very strong claim, but it is not practicable. There are many scientific theories that are not empirically testable due to constraints on technology or scale, for example, the Big Bang Theory can not be empirically tested, it is not reproducible, at least not on a human time scale. Thus, philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Carl Popper, argued that a more comprehensive articulation uses falsifiability. Falsifiability means that a theory has to have a means of showing that it is false.

Thus totalizing claims, associated with religion or ideologies, are not scientific, because they are not falsifiable. A quick example is vulgar Freudianism. If on disagrees with the claims of the analyst, they are told that they are in denial. The position of the analyst is absolute. The same is often present certain expressions of religious,spiritual, and secular systems; e.g., Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Afrocentrism. Those that disagree or offer evidence to the contrary are readily labeled heretics, heathens, sinners, unenlightened, ignorant, or evil.
My point is actually a little different. Initial articulations of the scientific method asserted that a hypothesis and/or a theory was something that was subject to empirical validation. This is a very strong claim, but it is not practicable. There are many scientific theories that are not empirically testable due to constraints on technology or scale, for example, the Big Bang Theory can not be empirically tested, it is not reproducible, at least not on a human time scale. Thus, philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Carl Popper, argued that a more comprehensive articulation uses falsifiability. Falsifiability means that a theory has to have a means of showing that it is false.

Thus totalizing claims, associated with religion or ideologies, are not scientific, because they are not falsifiable. A quick example is vulgar Freudianism. If on disagrees with the claims of the analyst, they are told that they are in denial. The position of the analyst is absolute. The same is often present certain expressions of religious,spiritual, and secular systems; e.g., Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Afrocentrism. Those that disagree or offer evidence to the contrary are readily labeled heretics, heathens, sinners, unenlightened, ignorant, or evil.---kresge

This gets me to my starting point...for my resolution of identity for Americans of unknown African ancestry.

I have recognized from the beginning of my work that while my declaration can be validated with deductive reasoning...proof in the scientific method was not likely to ever be achieved.

I have resisted the temptation of saying anyone 'is in denial'...although I think I have come close...for the very reason you cite concerning 'not agreeing with the analyst'.

I am very reluctant to 'label' anybody.

And I know I come close...particularly when I reference 'suffering from 'The DeGruy-Leary Effect', and 'The Willie Letter Phenomenom'.

Therefore...as you have stated...'Falsifiability means that a theory has to have a means of showing that it is false.'

Does you see my 'ideology' as having no 'falsifiability'?

And...if your answer is 'Yes.'...

Does this make it invalid??

If 'Yes.'...Why???


PEACE

Jim Chester
Peace...


quote:
My point is actually a little different. Initial articulations of the scientific method asserted that a hypothesis and/or a theory was something that was subject to empirical validation. This is a very strong claim, but it is not practicable. There are many scientific theories that are not empirically testable due to constraints on technology or scale, for example, the Big Bang Theory can not be empirically tested, it is not reproducible, at least not on a human time scale. Thus, philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Carl Popper, argued that a more comprehensive articulation uses falsifiability. Falsifiability means that a theory has to have a means of showing that it is false.

Thus totalizing claims, associated with religion or ideologies, are not scientific, because they are not falsifiable. A quick example is vulgar Freudianism. If on disagrees with the claims of the analyst, they are told that they are in denial. The position of the analyst is absolute. The same is often present certain expressions of religious,spiritual, and secular systems; e.g., Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Afrocentrism. Those that disagree or offer evidence to the contrary are readily labeled heretics, heathens, sinners, unenlightened, ignorant, or evil.


There are many who would argue that there religion is scientifically derived. A good example would be those who align themselves with Spinoza's pantheism.

I think we could become religious apologists, and try to make peace by rationalizing away literalism in every religious doctrine, however, this would not be done in the pursuit of truth..If the religious of this world want the truth, then they must embrace a world view which can be supported by real evidence. Or walk away..

If the religions of the world are always allegorical it would place a duty on the learned to explain to the vulgar masses the true meanings of their religion so as to avoid certain behaviours which arise out of literalism and fundamentalism.

I would say that before we explain away the perceived fallacies of the respective religions of the world, we should objectively allow the religious community to make a case for their beliefs..If it is supported by the evidence then we call the religion science..if it fails, then we call it symbolic, or mythology..But there is no necessity which requires that a religion be cast aside before it has received the opportunity to prove itself.



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Why are alternative hypothesis not taught in school along side the most acceptable ones.
Such as?

Yes, what "hypotheses" are you referring to. For something to be a valid hypothesis per the scientific method, it has to be falsifiable. This is why religious doctrines should not be taught as science. In other words, there has to be conditions for which the hypothesis can be dismissed as false. This is what I was noting with respect to the apologetic nature of much religious rhetoric that attempts to claim scientific credibility. This is incongruous with science itself.

This is why creationism/intelligent design is not science. I would hold the same for most religious claims. Further, for non-modern religious movements, the imposition of contemporary categories on the systems, IMO, does violence to the ideas and concepts. It is anachronistic. It does not take into consideration that historical consciousness is not static, that the way we think about the world is historically, socially, and culturally contextual. Our categories of history, science, or fact completely foreign to ancient peoples. This categories arise out of the Enlightenment.

To say that religious claims are not science, however, does not invalidate them. They should be addressed, however, as alternative systems of meaning, which I feel much more comfortable applying the term of myth (deploying - symbols, metaphors, poetry, analogy, etc. to convey truths about human experience in a way not so dissimilar than literature or art).

So, when Elijah Muhammad refers to existence of rifles 6,000 years ago (Message to the Black Man p.117) or that the Moses used dynamite on Mount Sinai (Message p.120), it is not a matter of scientific denial view these claims with suspicion. However, reading symbolically, I believe there is some interesting and compelling insights being communicated.


yeah tfro
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
If the religions of the world are always allegorical it would place a duty on the learned to explain to the vulgar masses the true meanings of their religion so as to avoid certain behaviours which arise out of literalism and fundamentalism.


Not if some 'learned' want to retain power and control...

daz
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...


quote:
My point is actually a little different. Initial articulations of the scientific method asserted that a hypothesis and/or a theory was something that was subject to empirical validation. This is a very strong claim, but it is not practicable. There are many scientific theories that are not empirically testable due to constraints on technology or scale, for example, the Big Bang Theory can not be empirically tested, it is not reproducible, at least not on a human time scale. Thus, philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Carl Popper, argued that a more comprehensive articulation uses falsifiability. Falsifiability means that a theory has to have a means of showing that it is false.

Thus totalizing claims, associated with religion or ideologies, are not scientific, because they are not falsifiable. A quick example is vulgar Freudianism. If on disagrees with the claims of the analyst, they are told that they are in denial. The position of the analyst is absolute. The same is often present certain expressions of religious,spiritual, and secular systems; e.g., Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Afrocentrism. Those that disagree or offer evidence to the contrary are readily labeled heretics, heathens, sinners, unenlightened, ignorant, or evil.


There are many who would argue that there religion is scientifically derived. A good example would be those who align themselves with Spinoza's pantheism.

I think we could become religious apologists, and try to make peace by rationalizing away literalism in every religious doctrine, however, this would not be done in the pursuit of truth..If the religious of this world want the truth, then they must embrace a world view which can be supported by real evidence. Or walk away..

If the religions of the world are always allegorical it would place a duty on the learned to explain to the vulgar masses the true meanings of their religion so as to avoid certain behaviours which arise out of literalism and fundamentalism.

I would say that before we explain away the perceived fallacies of the respective religions of the world, we should objectively allow the religious community to make a case for their beliefs..If it is supported by the evidence then we call the religion science..if it fails, then we call it symbolic, or mythology..But there is no necessity which requires that a religion be cast aside before it has received the opportunity to prove itself.



Whirling Moat


I've stated before that if the message is true, the story doesn't have to be true.

On the other hand, what is wrong with saying "I don't know"? Could it be because practitioners of a religion fear that, in saying so, they/the religion would lose 'credibility'..., potential recruits or shake up those on some level who are/have settled with what it is they are content with believing?

We can chalk just about every and anything up to faith, but what does that explain?

The "absolute certainly" argument (decoy rhetoric), commonly attached to it, is virtually meaningless, to any or everyone but the self claiming such.
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...


quote:
My point is actually a little different. Initial articulations of the scientific method asserted that a hypothesis and/or a theory was something that was subject to empirical validation. This is a very strong claim, but it is not practicable. There are many scientific theories that are not empirically testable due to constraints on technology or scale, for example, the Big Bang Theory can not be empirically tested, it is not reproducible, at least not on a human time scale. Thus, philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Carl Popper, argued that a more comprehensive articulation uses falsifiability. Falsifiability means that a theory has to have a means of showing that it is false.

Thus totalizing claims, associated with religion or ideologies, are not scientific, because they are not falsifiable. A quick example is vulgar Freudianism. If on disagrees with the claims of the analyst, they are told that they are in denial. The position of the analyst is absolute. The same is often present certain expressions of religious,spiritual, and secular systems; e.g., Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Afrocentrism. Those that disagree or offer evidence to the contrary are readily labeled heretics, heathens, sinners, unenlightened, ignorant, or evil.


There are many who would argue that there religion is scientifically derived. A good example would be those who align themselves with Spinoza's pantheism.
quote:
The claim is different than the reality, and this is true of Spinoza. His Ethics takes the form of mathematical proofs, but this is a matter of appearance than logical rigor. I think among contemporary persons who would claim that there religion is scientific would be those who are intellectual descendants of Whitehead.


I think we could become religious apologists, and try to make peace by rationalizing away literalism in every religious doctrine, however, this would not be done in the pursuit of truth..If the religious of this world want the truth, then they must embrace a world view which can be supported by real evidence. Or walk away..
quote:
Why do you assume that literalism inheres in religious claims? You are also assuming that there is a truth and that is can be supported empirically, but this is by no means in and of itself self evident.

If the religions of the world are always allegorical it would place a duty on the learned to explain to the vulgar masses the true meanings of their religion so as to avoid certain behaviours which arise out of literalism and fundamentalism.
quote:

Firstly, I did not say that religions are all allegorical. Religions are varied and complex ritualistic and symbolic systems that utilize a variety of genres and discourses. Secondly, I do not believe that it is the place of some learned elite to "educate" the vulgar masses. Our truth claims should not be violently imposed on others. That is just as bad if not worse than literalism and fundamentalism, indeed, it is just another form of these. They are all variations of the fallacy that is essentialism.

I would say that before we explain away the perceived fallacies of the respective religions of the world, we should objectively allow the religious community to make a case for their beliefs..If it is supported by the evidence then we call the religion science..if it fails, then we call it symbolic, or mythology..But there is no necessity which requires that a religion be cast aside before it has received the opportunity to prove itself.
Whirling Moat

I am not advocating doing away with any religion. I am also not interested in assert truth claims or matters of meaning. For me, those are matters that are historically, culturally, and socially determined. I also do not believe that religion is about that which is objective, and therefore, do not feel compelled again to impose this on any tradition. Now if a religion makes claims that it contends are subject to empirical examination, then I have no problem holding it to such standards. However, I seriously doubt that adherents of such traditions are truly willing to adhere to the canons of any methodology that would require them to view their beliefs as tentative, subject to modification, revision, or rejection. This is what I meant by my assertion that they would fall back upon apologetics once their faith claims were seriously challenged, something that one truly committed to science or rationalism would disavow.
Peace...

Some religious claims are scientific in nature, others are historical, and some are socio/political. Those claims which are meant to be literal representations of scientifc fact, or historical fact should be scrutinized pursuant to the standards of scientific or historical review which other theories are tested by.

For Christians it may be difficult to sort through and determine which beliefs are historical and which are allegorical, however for other systems the distinction may be clear.

Elijah Muhammad's claims relating to the genesis of monkeys, the caucasian, and other areas of the doctrine are clearly taught as literal truth and are subject to testing according to the methodology of science.

Since the above assertions are matters of science, like others who present such claims, the claimant should have the opportunity to defend the position. Whereas some may reject the idea that they must prove a belief, others do not. Mr. Muhammad exhorts the muslims to "Show and Prove".

Of course every doctrine will have it's own nomenclature which should be expanded upon during a review process so that there will be no mistake as to the meaning of the terms. Once the terms are agreed upon..Come what may..



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...

Some religious claims are scientific in nature, others are historical, and some are socio/political. Those claims which are meant to be literal representations of scientifc fact, or historical fact should be scrutinized pursuant to the standards of scientific or historical review which other theories are tested by.

For Christians it may be difficult to sort through and determine which beliefs are historical and which are allegorical, however for other systems the distinction may be clear.

Elijah Muhammad's claims relating to the genesis of monkeys, the caucasian, and other areas of the doctrine are clearly taught as literal truth and are subject to testing according to the methodology of science.

Since the above assertions are matters of science, like others who present such claims, the claimant should have the opportunity to defend the position. Whereas some may reject the idea that they must prove a belief, others do not. Mr. Muhammad exhorts the muslims to "Show and Prove".

Of course every doctrine will have it's own nomenclature which should be expanded upon during a review process so that there will be no mistake as to the meaning of the terms. Once the terms are agreed upon..Come what may..



Whirling Moat

If they are indeed scientific, then what are the conditions for falsifiability. Moreover, if they are scientific, then the findings should be reproducible and subject to corroboration or rejection by others. If this is not the case, then they are not scientific.

To my knowledge, these theses have not been offered to the larger scientific community for evaluation. Also, if they attempting to be scientific, then their articulation must adhere to the conventions of the discipline, or a defense offered as to why they do not cohere. Again, these should be accessible to the entire scientific community. Finally, as I said before, apologetic defense of data or claims to revelation or special gnosis have no place in authentic scientific discourse.
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
quote:
It seems to me that pressure comes from politics, or other forces outside of science. For the most part, anyway


Exactly my point. The politics control the funding, the administration controls the departments, the departments chiefs control the faculty....
The example you cited, though, fundamentally involved political action groups. It doesn't matter if some of the members were scientists. They were acting as political groups, not as a scientific body. You won't get much of an argument from me about political influence in universities, except that real suppression of real science only goes so far. Look what the Bush administration tried to do with intelligent design, and with climate change. On balance, I think it's clear that he failed.
quote:


Take into consideration another case "The Smithsonian-Sternberg affair". here is an excerpt from an article:

"The Smithsonian-Sternberg affair began with uproar over the publication of an article written by an intelligent design (ID) proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution (SI),[1] contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.[2]
I apologize if anyone has addressed this example already, but as soon as you start talking about a scientist coming under fire for publishing an article about intelligent design, you make my point. Intelligent design is not science. I'm sure there can be scholarly discussion about it in a philosophical realm, but not in the realm of biological science.

quote:
"Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"
That's odd; most of the criticism I've heard about it stems from the fact that it's religion posing as science.

quote:
quote:
Furthermore, WITHIN the realm of science, most ideas that have been rejected by mainstream science are rejected because either the scholarship was poor OR the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence more than militates against the truth of it. Dr. Wilson's work was probably the victim of one or the other. And of COURSE he's going to disagree with everyone else if they declare his work invalid. It's HIS WORK. And NO scientist is ever more biased toward their own work than the scientist whose work it is.


Man, c'mon bruh...Not the old it's probably his own fault argument..
Of COURSE not... SURELY no scientist whose work is debunked by science was EVER actually wrong. Please, man... In an example like this, the scientist whose take on the issue is going to be the most inherently biased will be the one who holds the position that was rejected. He'll feel like he was right, he'll WANT to be right, his reputation would suffer if he's rejected. Few scientists in his position are going to say, "Gee, you're right, I'm totally wrong. Cast me out, and never take me seriously again, please."

It's indisputable that he'll be far more biased about his predicament than anybody else. If all you're going on his what he said, coupled with your own religious predisposition toward believing him, then you're going on absolutely nothing that's facially valid scientifically.

quote:
As Professor Wilson pointed out, his theories were fine until he began applying his research toward human beings..And then all hell broke loose.. People did not like the idea of biology playing a role in the development of society.It would have too many implications..
Possibly. Or maybe they've established through reams of peer reviewed scientific study that biology doesn't play such a role in humans.

quote:

Vox, this is what I am saying brother..You are passing on the same crap that others have passed on..
No, I'm drawing my OWN conclusions. I love Diop; overall he's definitely a thorough scholar, so don't get me wrong. But his early work on Kemet was flawed to death. I read and studied this stuff in African Studies classes in college. The department's chair at the time was Molefi Asante. So by no means am I parroting any white person's criticisms, because I was not being exposed to any eurocentric criticisms of Diop's work at the time I formed my opinions. I was reading Diop's early, seminal work on the subject (translated) and other Afrocentrist's positive commentary on it. The north-south thing, and other linguistic and historical misinterpretations were embarrassingly illogical.

But yes, his overall body of work as I know it, and most importantly, his impact, is definitely tfro in my opinion, unlearned as it may be...

quote:
quote:
And again, bringing it back to your monkey/grafting notion, again, this idea originated from nowhere but the mouth of a guy who claimed to be a prophet from God. On the other hand, accepted science on the subject began with observations of physical reality and the eventual development of hypotheses. In the case of the former, any analysis you try to do on the subject is done in the interest of proving Elijah Muhammad right, while any study on the other hand is in the interest of discovery and figuring things out. It's that whole testability thing again.


No sir..How can a person observe a monkey and not conclude that there is a relation between the two species... Whether they evolved from us or we from them is not obvious upon a simple observation. A hypothesis which asserts that Monkeys evolved from prehistoric Homo Sapiens is just as plausible as the opposite.
As much as you try to make that argument, you're avoiding the point that makes it irrelevant: it originated not as a hypothesis, or a theory; it was presented as divine revelation. That's where that comes from. Now, it might be nice if an actual scientist who wanted to test this hypothesis would go ahead and do so. But, if it were tested and failed the test (assuming it hasn't already), does that mean you'd stop believing it? Would that mean that your prophet was wrong? I'd think you'd continue to find some way to continue embracing your beliefs, or to find some meaning in it. This is the key difference.

quote:
...The field does not even endorse the idea the we come from monkeys, so either they come from us, or they come from a common ancestor of ours..
The testability of the hypothesis is where that comes from, though. They used to think monkeys evolved into humans, but now they've come to understand that all primates evolved from a common ancestor, that split millions of years ago. It would be fairly easy for a scientist to look at the fossil record and determine that to be false.

quote:
...And no..Elijah Muhammad was not the first to make this claim..But, maybe we'll get to that..
Doesn't matter; Elijah Muhammad's claim is grounded fundamentally in his claim of divine revelation on the point. Nothing scientific went into it.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...

Some religious claims are scientific in nature, others are historical, and some are socio/political. Those claims which are meant to be literal representations of scientifc fact, or historical fact should be scrutinized pursuant to the standards of scientific or historical review which other theories are tested by.

For Christians it may be difficult to sort through and determine which beliefs are historical and which are allegorical, however for other systems the distinction may be clear.

Elijah Muhammad's claims relating to the genesis of monkeys, the caucasian, and other areas of the doctrine are clearly taught as literal truth and are subject to testing according to the methodology of science.

Since the above assertions are matters of science, like others who present such claims, the claimant should have the opportunity to defend the position. Whereas some may reject the idea that they must prove a belief, others do not. Mr. Muhammad exhorts the muslims to "Show and Prove".

Of course every doctrine will have it's own nomenclature which should be expanded upon during a review process so that there will be no mistake as to the meaning of the terms. Once the terms are agreed upon..Come what may..



Whirling Moat

If they are indeed scientific, then what are the conditions for falsifiability. Moreover, if they are scientific, then the findings should be reproducible and subject to corroboration or rejection by others. If this is not the case, then they are not scientific.

To my knowledge, these theses have not been offered to the larger scientific community for evaluation. Also, if they attempting to be scientific, then their articulation must adhere to the conventions of the discipline, or a defense offered as to why they do not cohere. Again, these should be accessible to the entire scientific community. Finally, as I said before, apologetic defense of data or claims to revelation or special gnosis have no place in authentic scientific discourse.


If we are discussing the NOI's claim relating to the origin of monkeys and gorillas, we should note that The Honorable Elijah Muhammad a specific claim as to the point of origin. Perhaps it could be established that monkeys and gorillas existed prior to such time, or perhaps it could be established that the existing science clearly establihes that monkeys could not result from any evolutionary degeneration, de-evolution, or genetic engineering.

I think we have already come to a consensus as it relates to testability, repeatability, and objective review.

The objectivity of the scientific community is at the heart of this discussion. I believe that I have provided sufficient evidence which establishes that there is a significant bias in the academy toward subjects which do not mesh with the established and accepted lines of thinking. If we can agree on this point, it follows that we should not place this particular burden of "corroboration and rejection" on any who would be subject to this bias.

I would recommend something sort of like a voir dire of members of academia, and also venue selection. Perhaps we could find an objective pool and then proceed with the defense of the doctrine.

Science is not something which must be arrived at by consensus. From Wikipedia:

"Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"

Science is defined by many dictionaries as "a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Last, the claims of Mr. Muhammad are vey public. They are available to anyone for testing. A close reading of Elijah Muhammad's teachings will reveal that he does not claim to know such things by mystical divine revelation. he says that he was taught these things by a scientist who studied...This scientist according to Mr. Muhammad even spent time in the colleges of America..

He put the gauntlet down...The NOI has been called many things, but when have you ever known any of Minister Farrakhan's critics to publically criticize or challenge him on the issue of Monkeys, Yakub, NOI Cosmology, The messenger's teaching on How to Eat to live, etc.. They steer cleer of these things..

The NOI is not dodging anyone..

The title science is bestowed on the one who can measure up to the process..It requres nothing more..


Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...

Some religious claims are scientific in nature, others are historical, and some are socio/political. Those claims which are meant to be literal representations of scientifc fact, or historical fact should be scrutinized pursuant to the standards of scientific or historical review which other theories are tested by.

For Christians it may be difficult to sort through and determine which beliefs are historical and which are allegorical, however for other systems the distinction may be clear.

Elijah Muhammad's claims relating to the genesis of monkeys, the caucasian, and other areas of the doctrine are clearly taught as literal truth and are subject to testing according to the methodology of science.

Since the above assertions are matters of science, like others who present such claims, the claimant should have the opportunity to defend the position. Whereas some may reject the idea that they must prove a belief, others do not. Mr. Muhammad exhorts the muslims to "Show and Prove".

Of course every doctrine will have it's own nomenclature which should be expanded upon during a review process so that there will be no mistake as to the meaning of the terms. Once the terms are agreed upon..Come what may..



Whirling Moat

If they are indeed scientific, then what are the conditions for falsifiability. Moreover, if they are scientific, then the findings should be reproducible and subject to corroboration or rejection by others. If this is not the case, then they are not scientific.

To my knowledge, these theses have not been offered to the larger scientific community for evaluation. Also, if they attempting to be scientific, then their articulation must adhere to the conventions of the discipline, or a defense offered as to why they do not cohere. Again, these should be accessible to the entire scientific community. Finally, as I said before, apologetic defense of data or claims to revelation or special gnosis have no place in authentic scientific discourse.


If we are discussing the NOI's claim relating to the origin of monkeys and gorillas, we should note that The Honorable Elijah Muhammad a specific claim as to the point of origin. Perhaps it could be established that monkeys and gorillas existed prior to such time, or perhaps it could be established that the existing science clearly establihes that monkeys could not result from any evolutionary degeneration, de-evolution, or genetic engineering.

I think we have already come to a consensus as it relates to testability, repeatability, and objective review.

The objectivity of the scientific community is at the heart of this discussion. I believe that I have provided sufficient evidence which establishes that there is a significant bias in the academy toward subjects which do not mesh with the established and accepted lines of thinking. If we can agree on this point, it follows that we should not place this particular burden of "corroboration and rejection" on any who would be subject to this bias.

I would recommend something sort of like a voir dire of members of academia, and also venue selection. Perhaps we could find an objective pool and then proceed with the defense of the doctrine.

Science is not something which must be arrived at by consensus. From Wikipedia:

"Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"

Science is defined by many dictionaries as "a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Last, the claims of Mr. Muhammad are vey public. They are available to anyone for testing. A close reading of Elijah Muhammad's teachings will reveal that he does not claim to know such things by mystical divine revelation. he says that he was taught these things by a scientist who studied...This scientist according to Mr. Muhammad even spent time in the colleges of America..

He put the gauntlet down...The NOI has been called many things, but when have you ever known any of Minister Farrakhan's critics to publically criticize or challenge him on the issue of Monkeys, Yakub, NOI Cosmology, The messenger's teaching on How to Eat to live, etc.. They steer cleer of these things..

The NOI is not dodging anyone..

The title science is bestowed on the one who can measure up to the process..It requres nothing more..


Whirling Moat

So you would be willing to jettison NOI teaching if a cogent, comprehensive, empirically grounded scientific theory was presented. I would note as Vox mentions that the NOI claim not is based upon anthropological, archeological, or genetic investigation. It is a claim predicated on divine revelation. It does not proffer anything in the way of methodology or procedures that can be interrogated, evaluated, or reproduced. This also disqualifies it as a scientific hypothesis or theory. It is not science.
If they are indeed scientific, then what are the conditions for falsifiability. Moreover, if they are scientific, then the findings should be reproducible and subject to corroboration or rejection by others. If this is not the case, then they are not scientific.---kresge

I appreciate this discussion on science vs ideology.

I agree that there can be no valid way to use one to measure the other.

Most of the (energized) discussions I have been challenged with around the audacity of identity for Americans of unknown African ancestry has revolved around (scientific) documentation, and/or authority enabling a valid assertion of identity for us as a people.

I have always tried to advance the point that identity is a (individually) sovereign act.

The only valid measure...outside of that sovereignty...is the inherent logic.


P.S. kresge: Thanks for locating this thread for me.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×