Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Steve3007 »

Razblo to FOS:
You show me science text books which the laws of physics speaks of meaning for the universe. Dawkins is merely attempting to avoid the anthropomorphic trap in order to BE scientific.
If Dawkins had said something like:

"the laws of physics, chemistry and biology have nothing to say, one way or the other, about values such as good and evil."

then I think you'd be right. But he doesn't seem to be saying that. In the quote from the OP he doesn't seem to be asserting the value-neutral character of physical sciences. He seems to be saying that they actively preclude the existence of certain values:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

That's why I agree with the proposition that the above is more polemic than science. It's not a dispassionate attempt at neutral observation. I don't know if it was supposed to be.

-- Updated Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:04 pm to add the following --

On the other hand:

Perhaps Dawkins' use of the phrase "at bottom" is key here. He isn't ruling out the existence of morality in the creatures that inhabit the universe, such as us. He's just saying that observations of the large-scale universe suggest that there is nothing recognisable as morality in its underlying structure or physical laws. He doesn't rule out morality as an emergent property of a pitiless, amoral universe.
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Razblo »

Steve3007 wrote:Razblo to FOS:
You show me science text books which the laws of physics speaks of meaning for the universe. Dawkins is merely attempting to avoid the anthropomorphic trap in order to BE scientific.
If Dawkins had said something like:

"the laws of physics, chemistry and biology have nothing to say, one way or the other, about values such as good and evil."

then I think you'd be right. But he doesn't seem to be saying that. In the quote from the OP he doesn't seem to be asserting the value-neutral character of physical sciences. He seems to be saying that they actively preclude the existence of certain values:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
"We should expect" is to say, in my opinion, that all past evidence (therefore existing, yet to be superseded or refuted) maintains "no design, no purpose, no evil, no good," etc.

Steve3007 wrote: On the other hand:

Perhaps Dawkins' use of the phrase "at bottom" is key here. He isn't ruling out the existence of morality in the creatures that inhabit the universe, such as us. He's just saying that observations of the large-scale universe suggest that there is nothing recognisable as morality in its underlying structure or physical laws. He doesn't rule out morality as an emergent property of a pitiless, amoral universe.
Where is morality in a program trying to survive? All I see is competing programs. Sure, we tend to like the idea that is 'morality', but what is morality other than something an individual or group perceives as more important to them or it than another group program or individual program?
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Fan of Science »

Razblo: Since you brought up the issue of morality, keep in mind that Dawkins has for years now gone against science and made the claim, consistent with Harris and Krauss, that science, all by itself, can answer moral questions. This is nonsense. Science does not make value judgments. Rather than limit himself to stating that science can assist us in uncovering facts that can assist us in moral-decision making, Dawkins has been telling his listeners that science makes value judgments. Dawkins can't name a single experiment ever done in science that has resolved any moral issue. Neither has Harris or Krauss or any other scientist for that matter.

Dawkins is on the same level as a creationist -- he distorts science to promote his ideology.

-- Updated July 17th, 2017, 10:21 am to add the following --

Spectrum: Dawkins is stating that the observations of science that provide us with our present understanding of the properties of the universe rule out any purpose to the universe. How so? There is nothing we could ever observe about the universe that could ever answer such a question, so this is a distortion of science. Dawkins is claiming that science justifies his position, when it does nothing of the kind. Dawkins has a long history of making idiotic statements regarding science. Like his claims that science, all by itself, can answer moral questions. Or his claim that the existence of God is a scientific issue. So then what experiment is Dawkins going to perform to rule out the existence of a supreme being? No such experiment can be done, which is precisely why no scientist has ever done one to rule out the existence of a supreme being. Science is neutral on the topic. It would be nice if Dawkins would stick to real science as opposed to distorting it to promote his ideological views.
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Razblo »

Fan of Science wrote:Razblo: Since you brought up the issue of morality, keep in mind that Dawkins has for years now gone against science and made the claim, consistent with Harris and Krauss, that science, all by itself, can answer moral questions. This is nonsense. Science does not make value judgments. Rather than limit himself to stating that science can assist us in uncovering facts that can assist us in moral-decision making, Dawkins has been telling his listeners that science makes value judgments. Dawkins can't name a single experiment ever done in science that has resolved any moral issue. Neither has Harris or Krauss or any other scientist for that matter.

Dawkins is on the same level as a creationist -- he distorts science to promote his ideology.

.
We were having a specific conversation relating to the OP and your implication that a science text book should exist on meaning in the universe before one, such as Dawkins, should comment on such ideas. I feel you are being rather disingenuous by pivoting from our conversation on these specifics.

However, my response to your pivot is as follows. Dawkins, like all of us, will wear many different hats depending on context. Even specifically within science many contexts, and hats to wear, will also be apparent. It is hardly fair to drag one of his conversations into another given that doing so was not his edit. What you have written is a consequence of your own editing.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -0+ »

Fan of Science wrote:Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins that makes no sense to me: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." How could he know such a thing?
There is no claim of knowing anything in the quote. There is a claim that properties we observe in the universe are what we should expect to observe if it has no design, purpose, etc.

This is questionable for a number of reasons. In particular, unless anyone has statistical data on the properties of other universes that are known to have, or not have, design, purpose, etc, there is no scientific place for expectation, especially "should expect".

The best anyone without experience of other universes can do is compare properties of the universe with other things that are believed to have, or not have, design, purpose, etc. Anyone can design something, observe properties of this, and compare this with observations of the universe. However, the thing that was "designed" is part of the universe, so any property of the thing is also a property of the universe. If anything in the universe has design, how can the universe have no design?

Another challenge is to create something without design or purpose and show that this has the precisely the same properties we observe in the universe. How to create something without design or purpose? One possibility may be to find something that happens naturally, like weather sculpturing fantastic rock shapes in some places, and say this has no design or purpose. However, this requires an assumption that the universe has no design. If it does have some design, then effects of weather could potentially be part of the design.

It is also questionable if we all observe the universe similarly. Faith can bias observation.

One interpretation of the quote that may make more sense is: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we expect to observe if there is, at the bottom of our hearts, faith that the universe has no design, no purpose, etc". In other words, anyone who has faith that the universe has - or doesn't have - design, purpose, etc, is likely to observe properties in the universe that support this faith. This is part of the nature of faith, as opposed to science.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Spectrum »

Fan of Science wrote:Spectrum: Dawkins is stating that the observations of science that provide us with our present understanding of the properties of the universe rule out any purpose to the universe. How so? There is nothing we could ever observe about the universe that could ever answer such a question, so this is a distortion of science. Dawkins is claiming that science justifies his position, when it does nothing of the kind. Dawkins has a long history of making idiotic statements regarding science. Like his claims that science, all by itself, can answer moral questions. Or his claim that the existence of God is a scientific issue. So then what experiment is Dawkins going to perform to rule out the existence of a supreme being? No such experiment can be done, which is precisely why no scientist has ever done one to rule out the existence of a supreme being. Science is neutral on the topic. It would be nice if Dawkins would stick to real science as opposed to distorting it to promote his ideological views.
Scientism is an abuse of Science.
I don't think RD is into Scientism, i.e. Science is the only source of knowledge to everything.

Even with the 'question of God', RD is theoretically an agnostic. In his God's Delusion he asserted his non-belief in God is something like 6/7 and leaving a 1/7 possibility. This is probably due to his low level in philosophical thinking. In contrast to me, it is 99.999% impossible for a God to exist as real.

As for RD and Harris on Science in Morality, they are merely stating Science is only a tool on the question of morality albeit a very efficient tool to be combined with axiology [the philosophical study of value] and other knowledge.
Note when the Connectome Project has reach maturity, humanity will be a good position to explain Morality & Ethics [in combination with other knowledge] with greater precision.

Surely RD, Harris and most of the other scientists understand Science is not technology rather Science [neutral] is merely a tool of technology and other areas of human developments. So Science is merely one tool in the Philosophy of Morality.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Chriswl
Posts: 21
Joined: May 28th, 2009, 9:10 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Chriswl »

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has read much Dawkins that he means that none of these things exist as objective features of the universe, that they are human values. He is being humanistic not nihilistic.

He very carefully says that the universe as we observe it (and of course our observations are fallible) appears to us to be just the way we would expect it to be if it was mechanistic and blindly indifferent to human concerns.

He is rhetorically inviting us to consider that this may not be a coincidence, that maybe the universe really is this way.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Dawkins:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Dawkins, I take it, is responding to those who make claims such as that the complexity of the universe is evidence of intelligent design. Put simply, he is saying that the properties of the universe do not require design or purpose or evil or good. If there were nothing but blind, pitiless indifference there is nothing in the absence of design or purpose or evil or good that would lead us to expect the universe to be different than it is. If anyone claims there is then it is on them to show that these are necessary features of the universe.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -0+ »

Fooloso4 wrote:Dawkins, I take it, is responding to those who make claims such as that the complexity of the universe is evidence of intelligent design. Put simply, he is saying that the properties of the universe do not require design or purpose or evil or good. If there were nothing but blind, pitiless indifference there is nothing in the absence of design or purpose or evil or good that would lead us to expect the universe to be different than it is. If anyone claims there is then it is on them to show that these are necessary features of the universe.
Alternatively, it can be on anyone who claims that the properties of the universe do not require design or purpose or good or evil to show something with same or similar properties that is known to have no design or purpose or good or evil.

No good or evil may be the easiest part to show.

No purpose would exclude anything that was created with the purpose of showing it has no design or purpose, etc, but could include something that is found.

No design? How can anything be known or shown to have no design without already assuming the universe has no design?

Minimal design is one thing. Consider Conway's Game of Life. This has a very simple design and yet it can produce interesting and complex patterns. These patterns are not part of the design. This does not mean that the Game of Life has no design. It does have a design which can be implemented in less than a day (much less than 7 days), and complex patterns can be a product of this simple design.

It is conceivable that the universe has a very simple design which could be described as a small number of laws and constants of physics (and perhaps initial seeding), and that humans and other complex entities observed in the universe are not part of the design, just products of the design.

Conway's Game of Life shows that complex patterns can arise from simple design, but how to show that complex patterns can arise from absolutely no design?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Fooloso4 »

-0+:
It is conceivable that the universe has a very simple design which could be described as a small number of laws and constants of physics (and perhaps initial seeding), and that humans and other complex entities observed in the universe are not part of the design, just products of the design.
Dawkins is arguing against a top model with God designing things as they are each with its own purpose.

The ontology of the laws of nature remains problematic. The unanswered question is whether they are descriptive or prescriptive. Do things at the most fundamental level behave as they do because they are as they are or because they follow a set of rules?
Conway's Game of Life shows that complex patterns can arise from simple design, but how to show that complex patterns can arise from absolutely no design?
There is an ambiguity with regard to the term ‘design’. Does design refer to the structure, properties, and behavior of the most fundamental things? Are they as they are according to a design or does the design refer to that structure, properties, and behavior? Does design require a designer or rules? And if so what about the designer or rules, what are they dependent on or do we arbitrarily declare a terminus?
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Togo1 »

Chriswl wrote:I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has read much Dawkins that he means that none of these things exist as objective features of the universe, that they are human values. He is being humanistic not nihilistic.

He very carefully says that the universe as we observe it (and of course our observations are fallible) appears to us to be just the way we would expect it to be if it was mechanistic and blindly indifferent to human concerns.

He is rhetorically inviting us to consider that this may not be a coincidence, that maybe the universe really is this way.
That's a fairly generous interpretation of his comments. Having read a great deal of Dawkins, he regularly goes well beyond the science, suggesting that his view of the universe is correct, and that other views are both incorrect and actively harmful to humanity. While he is quite careful in some areas, limiting his claims of what is and is not shown by the science to what can be reasonably inferred, he still adopts the view that his view is superior because it appears cosmetically similar to scientific principles. In doing so, he is making claims that are not scientific, and which lack philosophical rigour.

Sam Harris takes a similar approach, except with less care, and some fairly basic lapses in logic.

Both of these individuals are indulging in cultural polemic. Whatever you might think about the pros and cons of getting involved in this kind of discussion, it involves a fair number of arguements that are, from a scientific or philosphical perspective, hogwash. What standards we should be judging them against is a decision that needs to be made.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -0+ »

Fooloso4 wrote:Dawkins is arguing against a top model with God designing things as they are each with its own purpose.
Whatever the intended scope of his argument, he says "no design" - that the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is no desigh - "at bottom" - not just at top ... No design suggests no designer. Accepting that it could have a low level design is a step towards accepting that the universe could have a designer, and this designer could be called God, and this is a step towards accepting that God could exist ... These steps may not be compatible with any firm belief that God does not exist,
Fooloso4 wrote:The ontology of the laws of nature remains problematic. The unanswered question is whether they are descriptive or prescriptive. Do things at the most fundamental level behave as they do because they are as they are or because they follow a set of rules?
How can this be determined without access to behind the scenes? The first step can always be to describe the behaviour. The next step can be to try to find rules that fit the behaviour. If rules can be found that accurately predict behaviour, does it make much difference if they are descriptive or prescriptive?
Fooloso4 wrote:There is an ambiguity with regard to the term ‘design’. Does design refer to the structure, properties, and behavior of the most fundamental things? Are they as they are according to a design or does the design refer to that structure, properties, and behavior? Does design require a designer or rules?
Whoever claims there is no design can explain where to draw the line between design and no design. Most definitions of 'design' suggest there is some orderly action behind the design that would normally be performed by a designer, but "a coherent or purposeful pattern, as opposed to chaos" is less suggestive of this. If there is a designer, this still raises questions about the origins of the designer, and a designer-less design still raises questions about the origins of the design ...

Which came first, the design or the designer? Or must there ultimately be no separation between the two?
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Razblo »

Togo1 wrote:

Both of these individuals are indulging in cultural polemic. Whatever you might think about the pros and cons of getting involved in this kind of discussion, it involves a fair number of arguements that are, from a scientific or philosphical perspective, hogwash. What standards we should be judging them against is a decision that needs to be made.
Well you, right here and now, can make that decision as to what "standards" we should be judging Dawkins or Harris against. So what, therefore, are your standards for judging them against?

So far your argument is that their arguments are "scientific and philosophical hogwash". Is that it? Is that your example of standards?
Togo1 wrote: While he is quite careful in some areas, limiting his claims of what is and is not shown by the science to what can be reasonably inferred, he still adopts the view that his view is superior because it appears cosmetically similar to scientific principles.
I think Dawkins science is definitely superior to yours, at this point. Views and analysis can certainly be superior to other views and analysis. Science isn't a consensus based on some illusory equal rights notion.
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Razblo »

-0+ wrote:

Which came first, the design or the designer? Or must there ultimately be no separation between the two?
"Design" shouldn't even be a term to use either to dispute or promote. What is 'design' are merely patterns our brains perceive. In effect, such patterns ARE our brain. They are the pictures of our thinking, or pictures of cognitive process. Consequently we are not even designers of our own perceived patterns or pictures. We are not, therefore, designers of our perceptions. We ARE those perceptions.

What is 'the universe' if not merely patterns formulated by perceptions? What is 'the universe' to an early life form? What is 'the universe' to a worm? Surely, to a worm, 'the universe' is the perception of a worm. If we could know that a worm had dreams then we could conceive of a worm imagining/dreaming up a designer of it's perceived 'universe' (something or someone who apparently made the patterns that the worm experiences).

Concepts of a 'designer', therefore, can only really be a dream or figment of imagination - a flight of fancy.

"Which came first, the design or the designer?"

At least with the 'which came first, chicken or egg' question, we can safely answer it. That is, the chicken must always come first. This is because whatever develops in the egg is always a slight evolution due to two animals of opposite sex coming together to create it. But this also means we can answer the "Which came first, the design or the designer" question. The one who imagined the designer came before the imagined designer.
Chriswl
Posts: 21
Joined: May 28th, 2009, 9:10 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Chriswl »

Togo1 wrote:
Chriswl wrote:I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has read much Dawkins that he means that none of these things exist as objective features of the universe, that they are human values. He is being humanistic not nihilistic.

He very carefully says that the universe as we observe it (and of course our observations are fallible) appears to us to be just the way we would expect it to be if it was mechanistic and blindly indifferent to human concerns.

He is rhetorically inviting us to consider that this may not be a coincidence, that maybe the universe really is this way.
That's a fairly generous interpretation of his comments. Having read a great deal of Dawkins, he regularly goes well beyond the science, suggesting that his view of the universe is correct, and that other views are both incorrect and actively harmful to humanity.
I don't know what "go beyond the science" means here. A book isn't a scientific paper, there are different conventions, different expectations. Opinions and comment are allowable. An engaging writing style is more important than absolute precision - ambiguities are resolved through extended discussion (though I actually can't think of a general writer who writes with more precision than Dawkins). What's important is that he doesn't misrepresent things as being scientifically accepted facts when they aren't and I don't think he does this.
Togo1 wrote:While he is quite careful in some areas, limiting his claims of what is and is not shown by the science to what can be reasonably inferred, he still adopts the view that his view is superior because it appears cosmetically similar to scientific principles. In doing so, he is making claims that are not scientific, and which lack philosophical rigour.
Adopting the view that your view is superior is pretty much inherent in advocating for any position at all. If he's not publishing a science or a philosophy paper I don't see why he has to write as if he is.
Togo1 wrote:Sam Harris takes a similar approach, except with less care, and some fairly basic lapses in logic.
Yeah, I'm definitely less of a fan of Harris (though I thought his little book on free will was surprisingly good, he made a very strong case for hard determinism).
Togo1 wrote:Both of these individuals are indulging in cultural polemic. Whatever you might think about the pros and cons of getting involved in this kind of discussion, it involves a fair number of arguements that are, from a scientific or philosphical perspective, hogwash. What standards we should be judging them against is a decision that needs to be made.
Polemic is good and I've never found Dawkins' arguments to be weak. What always strikes me is his opponents' unwillingness to take him seriously at all. This thread is fairly typical in taking one sentence out of context and interpreting it in a deliberately uncharitable way. Not what you do if you want to seriously engage with someone's ideas.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021