Real Science Radio: Hitler and the NAZI Darwinian Worldview

[Jefferson]

RSR: Hitler and the NAZI Darwinian Worldview

This is the show from Friday May 9th, 2014

Summary:

Real Science Radio co-host Bob Enyart interviews Dr. Jerry Bergman about the leading influence that Charles Darwin had on the public policy and personal hatreds of the German Third Reich. Previously, racism was "justified" based on things like envy and vengeance. Darwin ostensibly gave scientists, economists, and academics a supposed biological justification for what actually was their sin.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Association fallacy

 

[aikido7]

The way I read the gospels, this is exactly why Jesus made such savage attacks on the family values of his day and did so very, very often.

Alice Miller talks here of the result of a dysfunctional attitude toward children can result in the most horrific history we are fated into suffering through:

Scroll down to "Dictators and the Dynamic of Cruelty."

http://alice-miller.com/articles_en.php?lang=en&nid=47&grp=11

 

[6days]

The holocaust in large part was related to Darwinian beliefs...eliminating the unfit.
A short video from that era...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdH0c2FS-Wg

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively), is a term coined by conservative philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951.[1] According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

According to Strauss, Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem or ad misericordiam, a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. Its name is a variation on the term reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card." According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.

 

[Jefferson]

Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card." According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.

That's simply not true. I'm a strong proponent of using reductio ad absurdum because it quickly shows if the person I am debating is willing to stand by their logic when I apply it to the extreme. That is a perfectly legitimate debating tactic. My usage of reductio ad absurdum has absolutely nothing to do with an attempt to "distract and anger the opponent."

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

That's simply not true. I'm a strong proponent of using reductio ad absurdum

So you knowingly use fallacious arguments?

That is a perfectly legitimate debating tactic.

Insofar as categorically fallacious arguments are 'Legitimate debating tactics'.

They're not.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Reductio Ad Absurdum

 

[Jefferson]

You'll note Leonard won the debate.

 

[aikido7]

That's simply not true. I'm a strong proponent of using reductio ad absurdum because it quickly shows if the person I am debating is willing to stand by their logic when I apply it to the extreme. That is a perfectly legitimate debating tactic. My usage of reductio ad absurdum has absolutely nothing to do with an attempt to "distract and anger the opponent."

The world of religion is much more than rationality or logic.

 

[Granite]

Repeating this nonsense doesn't make it true. Very frustrating to see this snake oil still keeps getting peddled.