Re: new abortion quiz

Moorad,
You do a great job at missing the point. I asked when you had presented
an emotional response as scientific evidence and you responded that no
one knowingly avoids a problem because it is unpleasant. My clear
intention was to emphasize that feelings are not acceptable as evidence
for a scientific claim, however much one's emotional involvement may
influence one's choice of research area. This is related to my claim that
ethical decisions need to be made rationally, not on the basis of
emotion. I well remember the effects of the claim by Logical Positivists,
when they were dominant some decades back, that the intensity of feeling
determined right and wrong. They at least recognized that this was
irrational. Reporting results honestly has nothing to do with my
question.

Note that nothing I wrote prejudges the morality of embryonic or cloned
stem cell research. I merely challenged an emotional reaction as
rational evidence. When you say that "knowledge ought to precede ...
decision," you are endorsing my point. But your claim that viewing an
abortion trumps rational questions runs directly counter.
Dave

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:48:32 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
The student did not see that speed limits are man-made as attested by the
fact that different countries have different road conditions, different
driving rule, different quality of cars, and thus different limits.
However, the commandment about murder cannot be man-made otherwise the
Ottoman Empire genocide of 1.5 millions Christian Armenians, Nazi
atrocities against Jews, Gypsies, Stalin’s murder of millions, etc. would
be acceptable as the law of the land. My main point is that knowledge
ought to precede the taking of decisions. Plain and simple! We are not
talking about publishing a paper on the physical aspect of reality but on
the behavior of conscious, rational, human beings. No one writes a
scientific paper and knowingly avoids some aspect of the problem just
because it may be unpleasant for the author.

Moorad

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:44 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: BundrickD@evangel.edu; lcameron@apa.org; sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net;
asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: new abortion quiz

Guys,
You've totally missed my point. I am open to any RATIONAL argument.
Looking at something, anything, that turns your stomach is not an
argument. I note that the common argument of atheists is that a good and
almighty deity would not produce whatever it is that they don't like.

That students did not, when it was sprung on them, see a connection
between speed limit and murder (not killing) is no argument against my
statement. You can partly fill in the gap to show that speed tends toward
a higher probability of fatalities. But this is a tendency toward
manslaughter. Are you accusing me of murder because I drive 75, the limit
on rural interstates in Arizona? By the way, if you want a justification
of speed limits, you'll do better with I Peter 2:13f (a reference Bible
will give you more verses on the topic)than the Ten Commandments.

May I suggest that you think through your position, get your definitions
clearly in mind, rather than jumping on anyone who does not agree with
every aspect of your views. A reflexive response does nothing to
communicate to those who disagree with you, but may be persuaded by sound
argument. Moorad, when did you present an emotional response as evidence
in a scientific paper? Do you need to be reminded that philosophers
strive for reasoned presentations, though they do not have the empirical
check that restricts scientific studies?
Dave

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:47:56 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
Dear David,

I am not surprised at Dave’s comments. I teach a science course to
non-science majors----based on the book “Great Ideas in Physics” by Alan
Lightman-----and once I asked the class if they saw a difference between
“Thou shalt not kill” and “Speed limit 70 mph. ” To my surprise and
consternation some students said that they didn’t. What can I say?

Moorad

Dave,

With all due respect, to compare (a) watching a tiny, innocent human
being salted and/or dismembered in the womb (or partially delivered
outside the womb) with (b) smelling vomit or (c) watching sausage being
made is quite unconscionable and unreasonable. This is an example of why
science devoid of morality and Christian ethics has a bad name and an
even worse track record.

Sincerely,
David R. Bundrick
David R. Bundrick, PhD
Received on Wed Oct 13 15:21:54 2004