Best of Reader Comments, Week of September 3

From here forward, Best of Reader Comments will be alternating with Best of Reader Google Searches on an approximately weekly schedule. Or something like that. I don’t know. What do you think? – VVM

RE: I’m In Love With the Progressive Insurance Girl

Russ Wellen says: According to Wikipedia, Flo once played a role on the short-lived TV series based on Geico’s cavemen. Playing both sides against the middle, Stephanie (Courtney, her real name)?

Luke says: I’ve got the hots for “the Great Steve” from the TD Bank commercial.

RE: Talking to the Guy Who Brought a Gun to an Obama Event, Part II

Steve says: “Government is a necessary evil…”

That is intellectual sloth. Instead of blithely asserting that the only way to solve a problem is with coercion, why don’t you use your intelligence and creativity to find a non-coercive solution? Stop trying to justify violence! Yes, coercion is quicker, but maybe in the long run it creates more problems than it solves, not least by legitimizing violence.

As a libertarian, Kostric is someone who has *rejected* the initiation of force; his statist critics are blind to the irony that it is they who are violent. How they can keep such internal contradictions in their head is beyond me.

Dan says: Yes, Oliver, by all means invent a form of societal organization superior to all that have come before. Anything else is mere mental sloth.

Oliver Miller says: STOP PRESSURING ME, GUYS! Fine, fine. …I’ll come up with an entirely new system of government… in a little while…

RE: Why Science and Religion?

Jonah Goldwater says: As a fellow dual-topic TFT columnist – “Baseball and Philosophy”- I sincerely applaud the conjunction. And as someone interested in both science and religion as expressions of deep-seated human tendencies, I think treating them together is entirely appropriate, and I appreciate your explanation and defense of your topic. Of course there are many incompatibilities between science and religion, and there is no reason not to argue that one way of knowing about the universe may be epistemically superior to the other. But there are places where they coincide, both socially and in the psyche of individual people. (I happen to believe that baseball is a beautiful confluence of science and religion- of statistics and faith in a team, for example.) So, in any case, keep up the good work.

Steven Wells says: To the extent that science and religion have a “relationship,” it’s pretty much a one-way street. Religion would love to get cozy with Science, but Science keeps telling Religion, “I’m just not that into you.”

Arv Edgeworth says: The question is often asked, even in textbooks, “Could science either prove or disprove the existence of God?” A better question might be: “Should science try to prove or disprove the existence of God?” What an eye is, how it operates, and how to treat it for disease is definitely science. What about the question: “How did we get an eye?” Is that science or philosophy?

Do scientists ever start with the assumption that the Bible is wrong, and there is a natural explanation for everything? Do conservative religious people sometimes start with the assumption that if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture it should automatically be rejected? Starting with different assumptions always lead to different conclusions. How much of science and religion today is driven by a philosophical worldview? Is there actually anything wrong with that if your worldview is correct?

Arv Edgeworth says: Some religion certainly is superstition. Can we state as fact all religion is only superstition? Is that something anyone could have knowledge of, or is it something that is just believed? We should certainly respect someone’s right to believe that, I’m not sure it should be promoted as fact however.

Is denial of evolution the same as denial of science itself? Have any scientists rejected the theory of evolution? Although in the thousands they are still in the minority, but is the majority always right? How could we actually know how many have accepted evolution for purely philosophical reasons, and not scientific ones?

Civil rights have certainly been denied in the name of religion. Have they ever been denied in the name of science? That would certainly justify the rejection of all science wouldn’t it? Were certain nationalities ever denied their civil rights because some felt they had not evolved as far as others? Was that done in the name of science? How do we measure the harm that has come as the result of Social Darwinism? Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

RE: Michael Jackson’s Ultra Private Resting Place and True Stories of Celebrity Corpse Kidnappings

Will Dunbar says: not exactly a kidnapping, but the case of Oliver Cromwell’s head is still of note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell%27s_head

Amy Wallen says: Love the celeb history on grave robbing. Grave robbers used to make a lot of money in the days before medicine was legally allowed to use cadavers for research. Medical schools are low on research cadavers again and I keep thinking there will be a rise in grave robbing. Maybe if the economy keeps diving it will be something for the more entrepreneurial to consider.

Although I don’t think Michael’s body would qualify for medical research.

RE: White Sox GM Ken Williams Raises White Flag on Team’s Playoff Hopes

Alvaro Fernandez Ravelo says: Since Obama is a White Sox fan I’m guessing they were expecting a bailout. But now they need a GM czar!

Comments