DaveScot:
No, it would not be okay to demonize it. Inanimate knowledge can’t be demonized. A demon is an animate object. It would be okay to demonize the higher race that would make use of the idea in that way.

i understand that you’ve criticised the Darwin-Hitler connection on this website, so i suppose this is more targeted at other people on here:

1. would it be okay to demonise the scientists who used Einsteinism to instead built nuclear power stations and used relativity to understand the universe?

2. would this demonisation, and misappropriation of nuclear physics by ideologies change the fact that e=mc^2?

3. in noting that nuclear physics has been misappropriated by regimes in the past, is this sufficient criticism of our current understanding of nuclear physics?

The most knowledged of men only knows what that limited organ in his head has been given by biology and the generations prior.

All behavior is learned behavior.

… Isn’t it funny, I shake a bag of dog treats said dog will look with ernst, yet if I approach a dog I have never trained, or shown said treats to, the bag and he happens to get a wiff, he’ll rip it apart and eat from it?

One might say that any animals most basic instinct is self gratification, could you really say Archimedes inventions are any different? He wanted to be noticed…

Humanity is vanity.
We all love to look at ourselves as being special, ultimately though, conceptual thought, even about subjects such as dualism, I doubt is unique to our species.

Of course you can’t ask the dog now can you? lol…

Point being yes some can rationalize relying purely on instinct, some may tell you all you have is instinct. Simply because you imply conceptual thought is seperate, does not mean it actually is.

Behaviorism is droll all the same though…

No, it would not be okay to demonize it. Inanimate knowledge can’t be demonized. A demon is an animate object. It would be okay to demonize the higher race that would make use of the idea in that way.

If Einstein argued that it would be inevitable that a higher race would make use of e=mc^2 to exterminate everyone else with atomic weapons would it be alright to demonize such an idea? What if he falsely pointed to e=mc^2 in order to justify such an idea, wouldn’t it be alright to point out that he was wrong? If he lamented the fact that everyone would be exterminated in such a way but some people who viewed themselves as a higher race came along who believed what he said about e=mc^2 and inevitable extermination by atomic weapons wouldn’t it be okay to point out that Einstein’s ideas were linked to their ideas?

Eugenics was being practiced long before Darwin was born. Darwin added no additional rationalization for it.

Darwin added the notion that artificial or natural selection could essentially create a new species of man. As I recall he even argued that artificial or natural selection would inevitably create differences so large that the new species of man would look down on others as we look down on apes.

“Thus the “most knowing” part of us knows that there is no rational ground for something based intirely on instinct.”

You can certainly rationalize acting out purely on instinct.

You are an end result of many different mechanisms reacting in unison. There is no free will and thus instinct is all you have…

Thus the most knowing part of us is otherwise described as unlearned behavior. Care to give it another shot–and this time, the target is above your foot.

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.

LOL. More bad reading. Do we or don’t we define species by who they can procreate with.

The only difference that can exist within the species must be…

Note the key phrase in there: “within a species…” Hitler is talking about how a fox seek foxes for mates and always the result of foxes mating is another fox.

Apparently the stretch to reading this as “a fox has always been a fox” is not too great for you guys.

Here’s a funny thing. Take a look at this Google search on The fox remains always a fox. Note how 3 of the top 4 citations show “vol .ii ch. xi”. Search the text of this page for “fox”; now search this one.. Notice how the error is propagated, with evidence that none of these “skeptics” are checking the source.

That’s funny.

For the quote regarding Darwinism and eugenics in the Weimar Republic, see “SCIENCE AS SALVATION: WEIMAR EUGENICS, 1919-1933″ at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/artic.....d=10007062

For the quote regarding the war as a cover-up, see “Mentally and Physically Handicapped:
Victims of the Nazi Era” at:
http://www.ushmm.org/education.....capped.php

I really don’t see how anyone can take issue with the U.S. Holocaust Museum about this issue.

Yet he still accepted sub species and the notion of lesser races as a real thing.

Clearly so did Darwin in commenting on the civilized races..

Why is this argument still going?

It can be said Hitler was a darwinist on some levels.

It’s a subjective comparison, a matter of opinion not fact.

What unenlightened boob really thinks Darwin didn’t sell this idea exceptionally well? Are we so ignorant to think Darwin’s social influence on race didn’t exist?

Yes, he is a product of his time and the time he lived in accepted some forms of bigotry, but that does not demonstrate his ideology having no significance on helping define that era.

More over, as “Dave” pointed out, simply because you do not create an idea, doesn’t mean you cannot sell an idea or warp that idea in a new and completely horrible way.

E=mc^2 is an excellent example… but noooo… we can’t acknowledge that there may be alternate outlooks on something, that’d require us to THINK about what others are saying.