Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a Bush?)

[Guest guest]

Your naivety continues to astound me. Have you heard of " Gentlemens Clubs " ,

masonic Lodges " or " Knights of St ?Columbus et all " The view from the

Ivory Tower can be seen by only a few.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: <12-step-free >

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:08:50 -0500

>

> > The Scientist as the modern day High Priest. Just as corrupt and

>misguided

> > using theories as fact to further power.

>

>First, I've never called scientists in general, as a class, high priests.

>Any research by scientists would be decided on by politicians acting on

>behalf of the citizenry in a republican government.

>Example: Oppenheimer et al invented and crafted the atomic bomb.

>Harry Truman, and not them, made the decision to use it.

>Second, that's either an ignorant and willful misunderstanding of science.

>The nature of science is not to " further " anything but the search for

>knowledge. The whole nature of the scientific enterprise, by definition, is

>that it *does not* claim it has possession of *any* absolute truth, unlike

>high priesthoods.

>Third, not all high priesthoods are corrupt.

>Fourth, as far as societal power, scientists in America, unfortunately,

>don't have any " power " to further. Your misinformed view of the nature of

>science would be Exhibit A.

>Now, how many more people on this list want to view scientific research and

>advancement as a bogeyman, a front man for fascism, or any other misguided

>thoughts you have?

>Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Those who fund science dictate its use. Its that simple.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:24:44 -0500

>

>

> >

> >Science has been of great benefit to SOME of humanity, not all of it by

>any

> >means. Whole cultures and creeds have been wiped out by the use of

> >scientific inventions for the benefit of some at cost to the many. Saying

> >that science has benefitted ALL mankind exhibits a myopacy borne out of

> >elitism. It is the fuel of Social Darwinianism.

>

>Ahh, you're blaming science for something that's not its fault. It is

>politicians, military leaders, etc., who make the decisions to use these

>scientific instruments for less than noble or moral purposes.

>And, in most of these cases, if country A had not used these scientific

>instruments in an ignoble way, some other country would have later.

>And science does not take cultural stands, elitist or otherwise. However,

>to

>the degree that science empowers people, it offers potential strength to

>anti-elitists.

>Science is certainly not the fuel of social Darwinism, either. A misuse, a

>twisting of bits of science, is instead.

>Let's look at the idea of " races, " for example. There is more genetic

>variation within races than between them. So true science shows there is no

>justification for social Darwinist racist theories.

>Finally, I sense an almost Rousseauian extolling of the " noble savage. "

>Such

>a culture never existed.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

You are treating science in the same way adherents of catholicism treat the

Pope, as being infallible. The object of faith appears to be the only

difference.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: <12-step-free >

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:27:31 -0500

>

> > So, if debatatable sciencific methodology claims that there is an

>inherent

> > preinclination to alcoholism, that is acceptable ; but if dodgy theology

> > claims that there is the same condition then they have arrived at that

> > correct conclusion by erroneous means. Which temple or laboratory do we

> > attend to worship your form of logic and thought process Mona?

>

>I won't speak for Mona, but as I started this thread, I will offer my own

>thoughts.

>I don't worship at any temple. Science does not set itself up as a temple.

>Rather, it sets up the discovery of knowledge and development of theories

>with more explanatory power for the elements of life as a temple, if you

>will.

>Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

>Your naivety continues to astound me. Have you heard of " Gentlemens Clubs " ,

>masonic Lodges " or " Knights of St ?Columbus et all " The view from the

>Ivory Tower can be seen by only a few.

Well, having now read several of your posts, your irrational fear of science

no longer astounds me. And it's not even worth the investment of my brain

cells to be bewildered by it.

And, your post above makes absolutely no sense as a reply to what I said

below. What do " gentlemen's clubs " have to do with science? Not that I

wouldn't mind doing all the necessary " research " for that one!

Steve

>

> >

> >Reply-To: 12-step-free

> >To: <12-step-free >

> >Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

> >Bush?)

> >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:08:50 -0500

> >

> > > The Scientist as the modern day High Priest. Just as corrupt and

> >misguided

> > > using theories as fact to further power.

> >

> >First, I've never called scientists in general, as a class, high priests.

> >Any research by scientists would be decided on by politicians acting on

> >behalf of the citizenry in a republican government.

> >Example: Oppenheimer et al invented and crafted the atomic bomb.

> >Harry Truman, and not them, made the decision to use it.

> >Second, that's either an ignorant and willful misunderstanding of

>science.

> >The nature of science is not to " further " anything but the search for

> >knowledge. The whole nature of the scientific enterprise, by definition,

>is

> >that it *does not* claim it has possession of *any* absolute truth,

>unlike

> >high priesthoods.

> >Third, not all high priesthoods are corrupt.

> >Fourth, as far as societal power, scientists in America, unfortunately,

> >don't have any " power " to further. Your misinformed view of the nature of

> >science would be Exhibit A.

> >Now, how many more people on this list want to view scientific research

>and

> >advancement as a bogeyman, a front man for fascism, or any other

>misguided

> >thoughts you have?

> >Steve

>

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>Those who fund science dictate its use. Its that simple.

And so you exactly illustrate my point below. Our government is the primary

funder of scientific research. Its governments, not scientists, who have

perpetuated atrocities you decry.

Steve

>

>

> >

> >Reply-To: 12-step-free

> >To: 12-step-free

> >Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

> >Bush?)

> >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:24:44 -0500

> >

> >

> > >

> > >Science has been of great benefit to SOME of humanity, not all of it by

> >any

> > >means. Whole cultures and creeds have been wiped out by the use of

> > >scientific inventions for the benefit of some at cost to the many.

>Saying

> > >that science has benefitted ALL mankind exhibits a myopacy borne out of

> > >elitism. It is the fuel of Social Darwinianism.

> >

> >Ahh, you're blaming science for something that's not its fault. It is

> >politicians, military leaders, etc., who make the decisions to use these

> >scientific instruments for less than noble or moral purposes.

> >And, in most of these cases, if country A had not used these scientific

> >instruments in an ignoble way, some other country would have later.

> >And science does not take cultural stands, elitist or otherwise. However,

> >to

> >the degree that science empowers people, it offers potential strength to

> >anti-elitists.

> >Science is certainly not the fuel of social Darwinism, either. A misuse,

>a

> >twisting of bits of science, is instead.

> >Let's look at the idea of " races, " for example. There is more genetic

> >variation within races than between them. So true science shows there is

>no

> >justification for social Darwinist racist theories.

> >Finally, I sense an almost Rousseauian extolling of the " noble savage. "

> >Such

> >a culture never existed.

> >Steve

> >

> >_________________________________________________________________

> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

> >

>

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Unsubstantiated theories are not fact. What you purport as fact is hotly

disputed by many scientists.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:40:58 -0500

>

>

> >

> >A biochemical/gentetic predisposition towards alcoholism is theory only,

> >not

> >fact To attack others with theory and call it scientific truth is the

>alter

> >ego of Steppers in action. Both sit on the margins to validate their own

> >fragile reality.

>

>What part of factual clinical research do you not understand? Research has

>also shown that personality traits such as shyness have a genetic component

>to them. May I suggest something by Jerome Kagan of Harvard?

>And facts aren't used to attack, they are simply presented as information.

>Third, neither I nor Mona is at the altar ego of steppers. Just because

>science and AA may agree on something doesn't mean that the science is only

>a theory and an attacking one at that.

>To put it directly, if both science and the " big book " said the earth

>rotated around the sun, would you then believe this was only a theory and

>not truth? Would you believe anybody who advocated this truth was acting as

>the altar ego of 12 steppers?

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>You are treating science in the same way adherents of catholicism treat the

>Pope, as being infallible. The object of faith appears to be the only

>difference.

>

If you will read other posts of mine, you will not that not only do I not

call science " infallible, " I state that **scientists themselves** do not

call science infallible.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Nevertheless inexactitudes remain and your faith in science is as debatable

to some as the faith others have in Jesus. False claims abound.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:44:59 -0500

>

> >No doubt the Steppers would say, God is hard to define but there is a

>God,

> >in much the same way you say " boundries are pretty fuzzy at times but

>there

> >are, nonetheless, boundries. mmmmmmmmmmmm???

>

>You obviously cannot understand that not all divisions in life are sharp

>ones.

>To give a simple example, where exactly is the boundary line between the

>colors red and orange. You may call a certain shade red, whereas I call it

>orange. Some other people may agree with me, and others with you.

>Now, let's say we move further toward the orangish portion of the spectrum.

>You may now agree with me and call this shade red. However, some of the

>other people who agreed with you before may still call this new shade red.

>Nevertheless, if we move far enough into the orangish portion of the

>spectrum, we will eventually reach a shade that all will call orange and

>none will call red.

>Hence, it's perfectly simple to understand how one can talk about fuzzy

>boundaries.

>Fuzzy logic, which has many practical applications, such as computer

>controls on most newer automatic transmissions, is somewhat analogous.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>Unsubstantiated theories are not fact. What you purport as fact is hotly

>disputed by many scientists.

Once again, not true. These facts, and the conclusions drawn from them, are

not " hotly disputed " by any scientists in this particular field of study.

They may be disputed by other researchers in various fields of psychology

who come down squarely on the " nurture " side of the old " nature vs. nurture "

debate.

But that's because they see their scientific paradigm crumbling.

By the way, psychology in Europe has had a stronger focus on the nature side

than in America (excluding Freud, although he's been much less influential

in Europe than America for generations).

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Exactly, " your beliefs " . Introducing mood altering chemiclas will alter

moods of course, but do little to change the conditions of life from whence

those moods sprang. Take away the medication and the conditions return.

Expectations can play a large part in the ensuing effects also.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:56:50 -0500

>

> >What is the difference between, " one cant help himself but the group/HP

> >can "

> >and " one can't help himself but the medications/gentic implants can? "

>Two

> >sides of the same coin.

>

>They are totally different. I don't believe a higher power exists, and I

>don't believe other people can induce changes in my brain neurotransmitters

>or other functions of my metabolism. I believe the appropriate medications

>would be able to do so in the case of alcoholism. In fact, with cravings,

>Naltrexone is already demonstrating this to be true.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Read the book and see the false assumptions such claims are based on. Then

comment. Cutlural and class norms intervene to disrupt, to identify only two

of the contributing factors, any claims of objectivity in these areas.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 03:00:08 -0500

>

>

> > " The Making of Intelligence " , Ken , Weidenfield and (

>CN

> >8755 0 000000 087551)strongly disagrees with your statement below as

> >regards intelligence Mona. Its a good read for an open mind. Telling

>people

> > " facts " which are only assumptions is a very dangerous practice.

>

>Again, you are wrong, . Studies have indeed shown the genetic

>influence on intelligence, and to further Mona's comment that the only

>thing

> " outstanding " is the discussion over the degree of correlation, the numbers

>I have seen show that a broad consensus pegs the genetic influence

>somewhere

>between 30 and 50 percent.

>Again, facts, not assumptions, support this.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Knowledge and information is imparted by others. This alters understanding

which changes the messages the mind relays to the brain. Simple eh?

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:56:50 -0500

>

> >What is the difference between, " one cant help himself but the group/HP

> >can "

> >and " one can't help himself but the medications/gentic implants can? "

>Two

> >sides of the same coin.

>

>They are totally different. I don't believe a higher power exists, and I

>don't believe other people can induce changes in my brain neurotransmitters

>or other functions of my metabolism. I believe the appropriate medications

>would be able to do so in the case of alcoholism. In fact, with cravings,

>Naltrexone is already demonstrating this to be true.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Exactly. If the science had been used to help create new jobs or had been

used to protect the welfare of those put out of jobs by the advances the

Luddites would never have existed. Do you propose to talk for them as well

as the scientific establishment?

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 03:04:43 -0500

>

>

> >You are painting with too broad a brush. To equate all genetic research

> >with

> >the subject in hand is reaching out into the margins to sustain a very

> >shaky

> >position and bares little scrutiny. Luddites were not against science,

>per

> >se, but against the mis-use of science, which some would say you are

> >engaged

> >in.

>

>Au contraire, . Judging by how quickly, and ahead of schedule, the

>gene sequencing of the Human Genome Project was completed, I'd say that, if

>anything, I might have painted with a conservative brush.

>Luddites were actually against technology more than science in the research

>sense, but in any case it was not the misuse of science or technology they

>opposed. Rather, they were against any science they feel threatened them,

>especially, but not only, their jobs and livelihood.

>And as to " some " saying I am engaged in the misuse of science, you're the

>only one I've seen posting on this tonight.

>Rita sent a thoughtful, considered post yesterday, to which I replied in

>kind. Apparently, for now at least, that addressed her thoughts.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Scientifically that may be so but age is required when it comes to the

implications of such advances. How one Corporation controlling the entire

agriculture process of, say, the Indian sub continent for example, by way of

GM foods and the terminator gene, or its equivalent, will help htose who

live there is beyond me. They have carefully nurtured the seeds they use

over thousands of years and it is man made conditions which threaten them.

Using your energies to help get Bush sign the Kyoto Agreement would be one

way to deal with the cause of future famines rather than looking to exploit

a condition you have fostered. If as much research money had been put into

looking at ways of harnessing solar and oceanic power then much of the

" problems " which science created would not be there for them to " solve " .

Isn't that the old trick of power? Create a problem and then provide a

solution?

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 03:17:24 -0500

>

> >You appear to have much misplaced faith Steve. How old are you?

>

>I think my " faith " is well-placed, if you are making an allusion to my

>faith

>in scientific development. I prefer to think of it as wisdom. That wisdom

>is

>not blindly proffered, however. I do not consider many individual

>scientific

>advances to be unmixed blessings. Nuclear power can provide low-cost

>electricity while saving the atmosphere from the pollution of coal or

>natural gas burn byproducts and thus also alleviate possible global

>warming.

>Genetic engineering of food can double or triple crop production but narrow

>food variety so much that a new strain of bacterial blight could do more

>damage than in the past.

>My faith in scientific advances is carefully weighed and measured.

>

>And age has nothing to do with such wisdom, or " faith, " to use your term.

>It

>is quite possible for a 21-year old to be much wiser than many persons

>years

>older.

>In fact, when wisdom from new discovery or insight goes against a

>conventional grain, youth, less entrenched in that conventional grain, may

>find it easier to be wiser. Take young Einstein, who proposed the Special

>Theory of Relativity at just 26 at set 250 years of Newtonian physics on

>its

>head. The thought experiments that he used to generate his insights could

>have been made by other physicists. Problems with Newtonian physics had

>been

>around for nearly 20 years. But it was a young Einstein, not an older, more

>entrenched physicists, who propounded Special Relativity.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

I apologise. For " American " substitute " G8 citizen " and continue. Have a

look at Ivan Illytch classic from the 60's regarding medical advances,

Medical Nemisis. The medical profession has claimed much which it again

cannot substatiate in terms of demography. So much better health comes from

basic diet, sanitory and living conditions, which the arrival of science

decimated in every colonial situation. In todays world look at the effect of

Agent O in Vietnam. No doubt you will have an " explanation " for its use

there too?

No doubt those farmers living in India and SE Asia are fighting strongly

against GM crops because they are not as enlightened as yourself?

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 03:23:05 -0500

>

> >In certain countries science has benefitted the individuals at a material

> >level but in many more it has decimated not only the cultures but the

> >people

> >whol lived long and well balanced lives. Science has always promised more

> >than it could deliver and had little to say about the implications to

> >others

> >outwith its cultural boundries. Peep out behind the Stars and Stripes and

> >embrace the reality of all humanity Steve, not just the ones who sustain

> >you

> >in your views. Luddites, once more, are not against science per se, but

> >against the uses it is put too.

>

>Now you definitely show you don't know me, , if you accuse me of

>hiding behind the American flag. In other email groups, I've been attacked

>as a Euro-liberal. Second, until my official identification now of myself

>as

>an American, you had no way of knowing whether I was from this country or

>not.

>And I do consider all humanity. Scientifically guided hybridization has

>doubled and tripled rice yields in India and East Asia in the last

>generation.

>Smallpox vaccinations, coming from the West but made cheaply available

>*worldwide*, have eliminated that dread disease from the globe.

>Peaceful nuclear power, through international atomic energy accords,

>provides low cost electricity in countries that do not have abundant

>reserves of coal, petroleum, or hydroelectric power.

>I could go on, but I believe I've listed just a few of the benefits science

>has brought to countries around the globe.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

wrote:

Science it seems to me can be fallible. It may fit a certain

paradigm as infallible. But couldn't that be like a religion?

It may fit one model but not another. Do I make any

sense? :-) I'm just pondering this off the cuff.

wrote:

> Nevertheless inexactitudes remain and your faith in science is as debatable

> to some as the faith others have in Jesus. False claims abound.

>

> >

> >Reply-To: 12-step-free

> >To: 12-step-free

> >Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

> >Bush?)

> >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:44:59 -0500

> >

> > >No doubt the Steppers would say, God is hard to define but there is a

> >God,

> > >in much the same way you say " boundries are pretty fuzzy at times but

> >there

> > >are, nonetheless, boundries. mmmmmmmmmmmm???

> >

> >You obviously cannot understand that not all divisions in life are sharp

> >ones.

> >To give a simple example, where exactly is the boundary line between the

> >colors red and orange. You may call a certain shade red, whereas I call it

> >orange. Some other people may agree with me, and others with you.

> >Now, let's say we move further toward the orangish portion of the spectrum.

> >You may now agree with me and call this shade red. However, some of the

> >other people who agreed with you before may still call this new shade red.

> >Nevertheless, if we move far enough into the orangish portion of the

> >spectrum, we will eventually reach a shade that all will call orange and

> >none will call red.

> >Hence, it's perfectly simple to understand how one can talk about fuzzy

> >boundaries.

> >Fuzzy logic, which has many practical applications, such as computer

> >controls on most newer automatic transmissions, is somewhat analogous.

> >Steve

> >

> >_________________________________________________________________

> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have no fear of science, only how it is used and what areas research money

is poured into. I will not accept labels which you give to me for purposes

of your own.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 03:32:39 -0500

>

> >

>

> >Your naivety continues to astound me. Have you heard of " Gentlemens

>Clubs " ,

> >masonic Lodges " or " Knights of St ?Columbus et all " The view from

>the

> >Ivory Tower can be seen by only a few.

>

>Well, having now read several of your posts, your irrational fear of

>science

>no longer astounds me. And it's not even worth the investment of my brain

>cells to be bewildered by it.

>And, your post above makes absolutely no sense as a reply to what I said

>below. What do " gentlemen's clubs " have to do with science? Not that I

>wouldn't mind doing all the necessary " research " for that one!

>Steve

> >

> > >

> > >Reply-To: 12-step-free

> > >To: <12-step-free >

> > >Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

> > >Bush?)

> > >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:08:50 -0500

> > >

> > > > The Scientist as the modern day High Priest. Just as corrupt and

> > >misguided

> > > > using theories as fact to further power.

> > >

> > >First, I've never called scientists in general, as a class, high

>priests.

> > >Any research by scientists would be decided on by politicians acting on

> > >behalf of the citizenry in a republican government.

> > >Example: Oppenheimer et al invented and crafted the atomic bomb.

> > >Harry Truman, and not them, made the decision to use it.

> > >Second, that's either an ignorant and willful misunderstanding of

> >science.

> > >The nature of science is not to " further " anything but the search for

> > >knowledge. The whole nature of the scientific enterprise, by

>definition,

> >is

> > >that it *does not* claim it has possession of *any* absolute truth,

> >unlike

> > >high priesthoods.

> > >Third, not all high priesthoods are corrupt.

> > >Fourth, as far as societal power, scientists in America, unfortunately,

> > >don't have any " power " to further. Your misinformed view of the nature

>of

> > >science would be Exhibit A.

> > >Now, how many more people on this list want to view scientific research

> >and

> > >advancement as a bogeyman, a front man for fascism, or any other

> >misguided

> > >thoughts you have?

> > >Steve

> >

> >

> >_________________________________________________________________

> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

> >

>

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

To seperate Governemnts from Corporations is naive in the extreme. Lokk

beyond the trees and see the forrest.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 03:34:47 -0500

>

> >Those who fund science dictate its use. Its that simple.

>

>And so you exactly illustrate my point below. Our government is the primary

>funder of scientific research. Its governments, not scientists, who have

>perpetuated atrocities you decry.

>Steve

> >

> >

> > >

> > >Reply-To: 12-step-free

> > >To: 12-step-free

> > >Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

> > >Bush?)

> > >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:24:44 -0500

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > >Science has been of great benefit to SOME of humanity, not all of it

>by

> > >any

> > > >means. Whole cultures and creeds have been wiped out by the use of

> > > >scientific inventions for the benefit of some at cost to the many.

> >Saying

> > > >that science has benefitted ALL mankind exhibits a myopacy borne out

>of

> > > >elitism. It is the fuel of Social Darwinianism.

> > >

> > >Ahh, you're blaming science for something that's not its fault. It is

> > >politicians, military leaders, etc., who make the decisions to use

>these

> > >scientific instruments for less than noble or moral purposes.

> > >And, in most of these cases, if country A had not used these scientific

> > >instruments in an ignoble way, some other country would have later.

> > >And science does not take cultural stands, elitist or otherwise.

>However,

> > >to

> > >the degree that science empowers people, it offers potential strength

>to

> > >anti-elitists.

> > >Science is certainly not the fuel of social Darwinism, either. A

>misuse,

> >a

> > >twisting of bits of science, is instead.

> > >Let's look at the idea of " races, " for example. There is more genetic

> > >variation within races than between them. So true science shows there

>is

> >no

> > >justification for social Darwinist racist theories.

> > >Finally, I sense an almost Rousseauian extolling of the " noble savage. "

> > >Such

> > >a culture never existed.

> > >Steve

> > >

> > >_________________________________________________________________

> > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

> >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

> > >

> >

> >

> >_________________________________________________________________

> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

> >

>

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Rhetorical escape hatch. The implications of your postings indicate the

opposite.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 03:36:08 -0500

>

>

> >You are treating science in the same way adherents of catholicism treat

>the

> >Pope, as being infallible. The object of faith appears to be the only

> >difference.

> >

>If you will read other posts of mine, you will not that not only do I not

>call science " infallible, " I state that **scientists themselves** do not

>call science infallible.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

It is true. See some of Steve work, Professor of Genetics, University

College, London. Once more you use science as infallible.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 03:40:32 -0500

>

> >Unsubstantiated theories are not fact. What you purport as fact is hotly

> >disputed by many scientists.

>

>Once again, not true. These facts, and the conclusions drawn from them, are

>not " hotly disputed " by any scientists in this particular field of study.

>They may be disputed by other researchers in various fields of psychology

>who come down squarely on the " nurture " side of the old " nature vs.

>nurture "

>debate.

>But that's because they see their scientific paradigm crumbling.

>By the way, psychology in Europe has had a stronger focus on the nature

>side

>than in America (excluding Freud, although he's been much less influential

>in Europe than America for generations).

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Rhetorical escape hatch considering the content of his postings.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:09:12 -0700

>

> wrote:

>Science it seems to me can be fallible. It may fit a certain

>paradigm as infallible. But couldn't that be like a religion?

>It may fit one model but not another. Do I make any

>sense? :-) I'm just pondering this off the cuff.

>

> wrote:

>

> > Nevertheless inexactitudes remain and your faith in science is as

>debatable

> > to some as the faith others have in Jesus. False claims abound.

> >

> > >

> > >Reply-To: 12-step-free

> > >To: 12-step-free

> > >Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

> > >Bush?)

> > >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:44:59 -0500

> > >

> > > >No doubt the Steppers would say, God is hard to define but there is a

> > >God,

> > > >in much the same way you say " boundries are pretty fuzzy at times but

> > >there

> > > >are, nonetheless, boundries. mmmmmmmmmmmm???

> > >

> > >You obviously cannot understand that not all divisions in life are

>sharp

> > >ones.

> > >To give a simple example, where exactly is the boundary line between

>the

> > >colors red and orange. You may call a certain shade red, whereas I call

>it

> > >orange. Some other people may agree with me, and others with you.

> > >Now, let's say we move further toward the orangish portion of the

>spectrum.

> > >You may now agree with me and call this shade red. However, some of the

> > >other people who agreed with you before may still call this new shade

>red.

> > >Nevertheless, if we move far enough into the orangish portion of the

> > >spectrum, we will eventually reach a shade that all will call orange

>and

> > >none will call red.

> > >Hence, it's perfectly simple to understand how one can talk about fuzzy

> > >boundaries.

> > >Fuzzy logic, which has many practical applications, such as computer

> > >controls on most newer automatic transmissions, is somewhat analogous.

> > >Steve

> > >

> > >_________________________________________________________________

> > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Who said anything different. In much the same way you do not need AA to

stop/control your drinking/drug habits then I do not need AA nor genetic

fantasies or substitute drugs in the form of medication to control mine. I

am a creature of choice, like yourself, but object to getting psuedo

scientific information based on prejudices and assumptions with which to

make those choices.

Modifying behaviour can reduce stress as can changing the situation one

leads out one's life in. Intergrating what a person learns over the course

of his/her life into their daily routine can also be beneficial for those

who use drink/drugs to change their consciousness as oppsed to hightening

it. A subjective evaluation though, I agree.

>From: doglvr000@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 06:00:03 EDT

>

> writes:

>So, if debatable scientific methodology claims that there is an inherent

>preinclination to alcoholism, that is acceptable; but if dodgy theology

>claims that there is the same condition then they have arrived at that

>correct conclusion by erroneous means. Which temple or laboratory do we

>attend to worship your form of logic and thought process Mona?

>-----------------

>The problem is these dodgy theology claims are further accompanied by the

>claim that one has to attend aa meetings for life in order to abstain from

>substance abuse. I fail to see how " religious conversion " , whatever the

>fuck

>that is, is supposed to cure alcohol abuse, pot abuse, overeating,

>gambling,

>and the list goes on.

>

>aa, in case you haven't noticed is a religion based entirely on the

>controversial Oxford Group Movement. What the hell do any of the steps

>have

>to do with an inherent genetic disposition to drink too much? Since many

>of

>my ancestors where alcoholics, I could be persuaded to believe I have a

>genetic predisposition to addiction. However, I have a brain and free

>will,

>and CHOOSE not to abuse substances. Which doesn't mean I don't

>occasionally

>want a nice joint. I just CHOOSE not to get one. That statement alone

>would

>cause an aa groupers hair to stand on end. That I was continuously

>abstinent

>for 10 plus years is my choice of behaviors not to engage in. god didn't

>have anything to do with it.

>

>Jan

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

A Stepper? Good heavens no. Does everyone that has a variant on your views

have to be labelled and thus discarded so the views you hold remain firm in

light of contradiction? I have been to aadeproramming.com on many occasions

but i have little time for extremists on either side.

>From: doglvr000@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 06:06:38 EDT

>

> writes:

>Using pseudo-facts to frighten people into agreeing with your postulations

>is acceptable to you Steve? Does it keep your own world view intact? Ok, we

>know where you stand. Thank you

>---------------------------------------------------

>: Are you a stepper? If so, goto WWW.AADEPROGRAMMING.COM right now

>and

> " get your brain out of hock. "

>Steve: I rather find your world view interesting. It's apparent you're

>educated and well read.

>

>Jan

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Whole cultures and creeds have been wiped out by the use of scientific inventions for the benefit of some at cost to the many. Saying that science has benefitted ALL mankind exhibits a myopacy borne out of elitism. It is the fuel of Social Darwinianism.

Fuck off . Then do it again.

Steve -- this one is a troll who won't stay away. I suggest you treat him accordingly.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry you remain so blinkered in your approach Jan. It is common for a

person who becomes so disallusioned with one form of BS to immediately go ot

the other extreme, which usually, in the fullness of time, turns out to be

just as crazy. A Christian? Me?? How far you are from hte truth jan, how

far. Vaccination can be dangerous as well as unecessary, humans are the only

mammals that take milk after weaning and the benefits of the milk of other

mammals are now also in doubt and i try to take care of my health at a

primary level via diet and lifestyle prior to illness. Science can and is

beneficial in certain circumstances but not all. I also use acupuncture,

homeopathy and other complimentary approaches to conventional medicine which

appear to work quite well.

>From: doglvr000@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 06:18:19 EDT

>

>In a message dated 7/29/01 3:40:01 AM Central Daylight Time,

>W51@... writes:

>

><< Nevertheless inexactitudes remain and your faith in science is as

>debatable

> to some as the faith others have in Jesus. False claims abound. >>

>

>:

>Are you a fundamentalist christian? I thought you might be a stepper,

>still

>do.

>Why are you so hostile to science? If so, don't vaccinate your children

>(better yet, don't reproduce), quit drinking pasteurized milk, get rid of

>your doctor, build a shack somewhere in Montana and live off the land. You

>could be the next Unabomber.

>Jan

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp