Theoblogian.org
http://www.theoblogian.org/Quality theological discussion.60Brian on Book Review, Review Rhetoric Criticism of “Do we live on a ‘privileged’ planet?â€
http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=8#Comment_123<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Valtor,</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">You should really read <EM>The Privileged Planet.</EM> I feel compelled, as someone who has actually read <I>The Privileged Planet,</I> to answer some of your ranting. At the conclusion of your first paragraph you suggest that everything would be different had we grown up in a different part of the universe. The hypothetical observations that we would make there would be radically different. Gonzalez and Richards answer this in multiple places in their book. They even give a brief answer to it in their appendices –so you don’t have to read the whole book. More importantly, they review the evidence that even the laws of physics defy life to develop in conditions other than what we have here on earth. Beyond this <I>technological life</I> (a term which may be new to those who haven’t read the book) depends on many more coincidences than even simple life does. That we have developed science to the level that we have is awe-inspiring, but it is also dependent on our opportunities to observe the universe starting with the sun and solar eclipses. That is in chapter one.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The scientific evidence that is readily available and even footnoted for you challenges the assumption that earth is a non-descript, disadvantaged member of the universe. The idea that we hold dear –that there is much more to discover–is born from our ability to make observations. Earth is the only place we know of where life (let alone technological life) could develop. Even if we grant you a batch of primordial goo on a very different planet, you have no reason to think it will ever even notice the stars.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">In your final paragraph you assert that “Most scientists…have wondered whether is meets any scholarly standards or warrants coverage at all.†This is amusing. The ongoing efforts to dismiss this book prove that it is a threat to the pet theories of the deans of scientific thought. The only ones who are “wondering†about the merit of this book are those who haven’t read it. Those who read it honestly recognize its value. Those who “wonder†about it are simply trying to dissuade others from reading it. If there were truly flaws in this book, there would be no “wondering.†Its critics would address the flaws in the book and move on. The evidence in this book is so compelling that even those who disagree with it cannot contradict it for in doing so they would be recognized as fools and charlatans.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">This book is not hard-science nor does it claim to be. Hard science deals with the discovery of evidence. By definition science cannot argue philosophy. The discoveries of science are important, but they cannot tell us <I>how</I> they are important. That is the role of philosophy and even theology. The idea that science only may interpret science is ignorant and ill-advised.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></P>Brian12/6/2005 5:38:00 PMgdv on Book Review, Review Rhetoric Criticism of “Do we live on a ‘privileged’ planet?â€
http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=8#Comment_120I don't think there is anything - much less anybody! - to which I can respond. The mythical Dr. Valtor with the phony e-mail address failed to do his research - in context, something it accused me of - and recognize that Dr. Gonzalez, the lead author, is, in fact a card carrying scientist and has the titles to boot: Assistant Research Professor of Astronomy, University of Iowa - credentials I maintain Ms. X cannot touch. Be that as it may, its point is moot: until science bends the knee to philosophy and recognizes its dependence upon it, it will continue to evaluate the data incorrectly and arrive safely and insulatedly at the wrong conclusions.gdv12/1/2005 6:04:00 PMDr. Valtor on Book Review, Review Rhetoric Criticism of “Do we live on a ‘privileged’ planet?â€
http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=8#Comment_117<P> </P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt">
<P>You should learn how to read. The review was both fair and equal (and I don't mean the sugar). Look, if you intend to defame someone, at least have the decency to get your facts straight. I believe that saying "their reasoning is circular" would be enough for someone with at least average mental ability to get some idea as to what the "problem is". If you had any aptitude for reading comprehension you would have noticed several fruitful examples that illustrate her point. Obviously another planet in a different solar system (or, dare I say, in our solar system) could potentially have different physical realities at work. But, and here is the catch, had we evolved (I know that is a difficult word for you to stomach) on said planet then our observation and communication approaches would also be drastically different. DUH. </P>
<P>We are just beginning to understand how other animal life forms on our own planet communicate, observe, and relate to the same natural systems we study.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>How dare you assume (yes making you an ass..umer) that human logic and earthly physical systems are the only complex reality possible. </P>
<P>I think that her review was far too kind to this so-called book. After all, she did complement the authors of the book, and her thoughts evoked interesting debate and conversation. Her argument was far more compelling than yours if only because she was able to communicate her argument without slandering any one, calling names, (lab-rat?) or being ignorant. (Something you obviously can't wrap your mind around). Had you done your research, you would have found that the author has a background in contemporary philosophy and is by no means a puritanical science methodologist.</P>
<P>The problem with this book is that it makes a feeble attempt to disguise philosophy as science.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I think even you can agree that this was futile. They allude to scientific methodologies and findings in an attempt to bolster a philosophical argument. It was almost amusing how they tried to prove their philosophical point with empirical evidence. I don't necessarily believe in alien life, but I don't appreciate some "Author" trying to tell me what God has done with HIS universe. </P>
<P>Most scientists haven't reacted negatively to this book, but they have wondered whether it meets any scholarly standards or warrants coverage at all. Obviously, as far as my opinion goes, it did not. Ms. X was gracious enough to review a book, which was not worth any review. She was also kind enough to pay several compliments, which I though was completely unnecessary. Maybe next time you decide to retaliate for something you see as negative you will stick to the facts and not stoop to posting your trashy, rude, and baseless comments. Although this seems impossible for you, we don’t want to hear it. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></P>
<P></SPAN> </P>Dr. Valtor11/25/2005 8:41:00 AM