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.
Supine
Posts: 1017
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Supine »

-1- wrote:Supine, being an authority or claiming to be an authority is not part of the fallacy of appealing to authority.
It is if you are a person that regards yourself as an authority on everything, therefore, you are de facto a god, your intellect is that of a god, and no philosopher or homicide detective can know or understand more in their respective field than you already know about it. So, everyone must appeal to your authority unless perhaps they are a scientist too.
Supine, you wrote: "But then I did argue that appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy." Enough said.
I meant "But the I did not argue that appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy." So, I left out the "not" word by mistake.
You are pretending to own the knowledge on evil.
I don't pretend to be an expert on evil. I'm sure there are some very wicked men that can teach me a lot more about evil than I know. What I am stating is that I acknowledge the existence of evil. Like I acknowledge the existence of romantic love.
It is a human concept, it can't be felt or known by anyone more than by any other. Your claiming that scientists are ignorant to a large degree on the concept of evil...
I'm claiming scientist are wrong if they claim evil does not exist.

is-- like I said, or similarly how I said it -- ludicrous.


That is fine if that is your conclusion. If evil does not exist then Professor Jordan Peterson's and my view is not an "evil." It's just a view that does no harm to the surviving relatives of the young child that is abducted, raped, tortured, and then murdered by a serial killer.
Evil is a concept that is not hard to grasp or understand.
And if evil is the degradation of a good or the absence of good, then when a young man throws acid on the face of a beautiful young lady in India out of revenge for her choosing to not be his girlfriend, you are saying evil does not exist in such cases, all that exists is merely what is legal and illegal?

To be more accurate about evil it is not merely the degradation of good but intelligence, understanding of the harm being done, and maliciousness or indifference being combined to those things.
Do you think evil is a tough concept, one of the toughest ones extant, that takes years of practice or theoretical study to understand?
Yes and no. One can try and grasp romantic love but one only more fully grasps it once they have had experience with it in the "field." Likewise, field work with evil deepens your comprehension of it.
Did YOU personally experience evil in a study setting, or have you got a degree with honours in Evil?
I can still recall, although I was a very young and a small child (I'm not even sure I was grade school at the time or past the 1st grade if that), my aunt hysterically coming into my parents house the night of a party they had going on. She was crying uncontrollably and face entirely bloody. I can remember her tell my father (her brother) that the man she was with, along with his father, beat her up.

And I have never forgotten the Marine in my last company, duty station, who was taken off duty and lost his security clearance as he was suspected of having raped, murdered, and mutilated the bodies of women stretching from Okinawa to mainland USA. A serial killer. He let me know one day he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. He did not let me know by words. No, his admission--and warning to me--came through his eyes. Perhaps the first and last time I looked into the eyes of evil. His eyes not only stated he was guilty but something far more sinister and malicious and dangerous. They communicated he enjoyed taunting his victims (prey), seeing them crying, horrified and terrified, and he enjoyed murdering people. He enjoyed murdering innocent people. At least women, but for all I know he may have killed boys or men too. Might have began in his childhood for all I know. And this kind of evil, in the eyes of a person, you can only know in the field from coming in contact with it. You can not know it from a philosophy discussion or from a university lecture.

That is just two of my experience with evil. I have a few more. At least two more.
-- Updated 2017 July 29th, 10:28 am to add the following --

Okay, I get it. You read Jordan Peterson's book on evil and you accept that he is an authority on the subject. He knows more about Evil than most scientists.

I may accept that. That is, I accept that Jordan Peterson has encountered more physical and experiential examples of Evil in his readings than most other people, incl. scientists.

But what I don't accept is your -- pardon my expression -- naive claim that scientists are so removed from Evil that they can't identify it as an anthropomorphical paradigm and therefore it is inappropriate for them refuse to apply it to natural (not man-made or related to man) phenomena. This I can't accept, and I say this is ridiculous.
Yeah, scientists are so far removed from evil than 20 year long homicide detectives are, unless of course the scientist is evil himself or has someone evil in their life.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -1- »

Supine, you declared above that you, to your own satisfaction, determined that someone was a mass murderer without doubt, because you looked into his eyes when you were a child, and saw evil in his eyes; and nothing else happened and no evidence was extant to convince you, but you made the call because you saw evil in his eyes. You say he communicated with his eyes, how much he enjoyed hearing his victims' cries and how much he enjoyed murdering people. This, all with just looking at you and you looking in his eyes.

Supine, you declared that because a man in India threw acid in the face of the woman he wanted but could not get, you determined that I, known as -1- on this site, and never coming even near to that story in description or in mention or in analysis, have said that evil does not exist in such cases. For your information, I don't know how you got that idea. But enough is to know, that you formed that opinion going on absolutely no physical, mental, or written evidence. Just hearing the story, and knowing that I exist, you determined irrevokably, that I, based on that same story, determined that there is no evil.

Supine, you declared that if one thinks of himself as authority on everything, then he thinks of himself as god. (Mixing up authority with "knowing everything there is to know"... you mixed up "everything there is to know" with "a person who knows more about the subject than anyone else in the room, or else knows more-or-less as much as others, who are also authorities")

Thank you very much, you convinced me. (Not of the correctness of your argument, but of many other, more substantial things.)
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -0+ »

Fooloso4 wrote:
If not totally inferring that the universe has no design, it appears he is inferring that the universe looks like it has no design.
I take this to mean intelligent design. The universe is not designed.
This may have been what he intended to say. This may be what he believes. This may even be true. However, any assertion that "the universe is not designed" can not be based on science. Neither can any assertion that "the universe is designed".

Is Dawkins abusing science? 'Abuse' is a strong word ... Is he misusing science? In order to misuse science he needs to be using science incorrectly or improperly. If he is not using science then he can not be misusing or abusing it. If he is using science to claim that the universe is not designed, then it can be argued that he is misusing science. However, there is no mention of science in his quote.
Fooloso4 wrote:Whatever design or pattern or structure we see is the result of natural forces.
This may be true. However this overlooks the possibility that natural forces are the result of a design. Natural forces can be viewed as design.

If it can be shown (not just believed) that everything we observe is the result of natural forces, this may suggest that there is no supernatural intervention. However questions regarding the origins of natural forces remain.
Fooloso4 wrote:I am not aware of any explanation in any of the natural sciences that include a designer and yet there are many natural processes that are explained.
Sure, but this doesn't address the question: "How can anyone show that a natural process can occur without recourse to a designer unless it is already known that nature has no designer?"
Fooloso4 wrote:If you are dealing with the supernatural you are no longer doing science. Science is about natural processes not supernatural processes or supernatural occurrences.
Sure, we can say that the supernatural is none of science's business.
Fooloso4 wrote:Science cannot be open to supernatural possibilities.
Science may not be able to explore supernatural possibilities, but it can be open to them, and arguably it must be open to any possibility unless science can show it is not possible.

Part-time scientists and pseudo-scientists have no such obligation. They can be as faithful or as close-minded as they like whenever they are not using science.

Philosophers can explore supernatural possibilities without conflicting with science by not making any assertions that close the door on possibilities which have not been shown to be impossible.
Fooloso4 wrote:
One way to explore supernatural possibilities is to look at sub-universes.
You have gone way off topic. If you wish to discuss such things start a new topic.
Is this descriptive or prescriptive?

This may appear to be off topic but this led to questions directed at the heart of the topic from a different perspective. Sometimes it is necessary to go off on a tangent to view something from a different perspective.

Sometimes it helps to go outside the square.

Science operates inside the "square" of nature. It would help if science is also able to look at nature from the outside. If they could then scientists would surely do this. However, it is not known how they can do this. It is not even known if there is anything outside of nature to venture into and if there is a boundary between inside and outside ... Although, if anything imaginary is deemed not to be natural, we can ask where it dwells in relation to nature. If in the mind, we can ask where this mind is in relation to nature? If there is any separation between real and imaginary then it seems there may be some separation between nature and non-nature.

If there is a boundary, it seems unlikely that it will be square shaped, but we can talk about a hypothetical square between nature and hypothetical super-nature outside of this. Such hypotheticals may not be scientifically testable but they can be explored philosophically without conflicting with science.

One way (and perhaps the only way) that science can look outside a square of nature is to look at a square within the square.

A variety of squares can be created or discovered within the square for scientists to look at from both the inside and the outside.

Dawkins suggests we should expect a universe with no design or purpose, etc, at bottom to have precisely the properties we observe in this universe. It seems unreasonable to suggest "we should expect" this without showing us a "universe" with similar properties that is known to have no design or purpose.

Can anyone show us a square within the square that is known to have no design or purpose, with properties that are more similar to properties of this universe than properties of a designed square like Conway's Game of Life?

-- Updated 31 Jul 2017, 09:07 to add the following --
-0+ wrote:Can anyone show us a square within the square [...]
(Note: To qualify as a square within the square, there needs to be a clear difference and separation between the nature inside and the nature outside the inner square, where each space on either side of the inner square is deemed to be natural relative to itself, but not natural relative to each other. Ideally they would have different laws of nature, but they potentially could have same laws if there is some other significant difference between the natures, like one is virtual or imaginary relative to the other. Simply drawing a square around an interesting subset of nature doesn't count. It may be questioned if a human mind counts.)
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -1- »

-9+ wrote, Sure, but this doesn't address the question: "How can anyone show that a natural process can occur without recourse to a designer unless it is already known that nature has no designer?"
-------
In 1802, or in 1799, whatever the year was, Napoleon Bonaparte went into the Sorbonne, and asked a prominent scientist, Monsigneur Sauavaigauetuier, (name immaterial, not his real name) to explain the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, to him.

The perfesser started to scribble on a blackboard in the room, and made diagrams, and wrote equations, and explained relationships between objects, happenings and concepts, and when he was finished, he anti-dusted his hands of the chalk powder and reported that that's it. Napoleon Bonaparte scrutinized the blackboard, and finally put to the scientist, "right, but where is god in this picure?" To which the perfesser replied, "Your majesty, I do not need that hypothesis for my proof."

You may say there is no way to say there is no designer; but there is no way to say there is a designer either, as the world stands completely to reason without the assumption that a designer had been involved.

That's A. B. is that most people who advocate the work of a designer in the universe, insist that that designer was intelligent. Which is completely wrong. There are so many faults with the components of this universe, that a five-year-old child could prove it has been designed, if indeed designed, by a person of poor intellect.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -0+ »

-1- wrote:You may say there is no way to say there is no designer; but there is no way to say there is a designer either,
People can say anything they like. The question is how to show that nature has no designer. We can also ask how to show that nature has a designer.

We can show that there are people within nature (in this universe) who are commonly considered to be designers and what they have designed. Some of them have designed things that can be regarded as sub-universes. However it is not clear how anyone without access to the supernatural can show that this particular universe was designed by a designer. And it is not clear how anyone can show that any particular universe has no designer, let alone this universe.
-1- wrote:There are so many faults with the components of this universe,
What are some of these faults?
-1- wrote:that a five-year-old child could prove it has been designed, if indeed designed, by a person of poor intellect.
How can this be proved without knowing: that the universe was indeed designed; the person who designed it, and the intellect of this person?

In the absence of this knowledge, can anyone show a similar universe that it is known to have been designed by a person of poor intellect? Can anyone show a superior universe that is known to have been designed by a person of rich intellect?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Steve3007 »

If we accept the fact that nouns, such as "designer", can only be defined by referring to instances of the objects for which they purport to be symbols, then in asking ourselves "what constitutes evidence of the work of a designer?" we have to look at examples of things/people that we already know to be designers. So we look at people. Hence Paley's watch analogy.

Given that we do that, it seems to me that although we can never prove design or lack of it in the universe (we can never prove anything empirical) we can at least look for evidence of it. We can look for the kinds of features that we see in things that we know to have been designed by a designer.

We could of course say that a cosmic designer might have methods and motives that are completely different from those of designers we know and that therefore this method won't work. But if that is true then we're not looking for a designer at all, not according to any practicable definition of that word.
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Fan of Science »

If a scientist can computer model something like cosmology or evolution, then how can one rule out a designer? One couldn't. There is nothing in science that points either to a designer or not existing, which is why science orthodoxy remains neutral on the topic, while Dawkins publicly distorts the findings of science to promote what is purely an ideological viewpoint.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Steve3007 »

F of S:
If a scientist can computer model something like cosmology or evolution, then how can one rule out a designer? One couldn't.
True. But in that special case the designer is deliberately trying to mimic something that wasn't designed. In that case there still has to exist something that wasn't designed in order for it to me mimicked. It's perfectly possible that a Designer created the Universe with the deliberate intention of making it look like it wasn't designed. Clearly there's no way to know if that's what has been done. But if he/she/it wasn't doing that - wasn't creating a simulation - then it could be argued that we could look for evidence of it. Maybe.

Incidentally, I have actually had at least one discussion on this forum with young Earth Creationists who think that all the fossils and sedimentary rocks and what-not were created like this. And the light from bodies that are allegedly more than 6000 light-years away was created mid-flight, as it were. Just like Solipsism, it's difficult to refute that idea with rational argument, so you have to fall back on the fact that it's barking mad.
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Fan of Science »

That's false. The scientist is not claiming, and no one can know, whether what is being modeled was or was not designed.

Young-Earth creationists are a lot like Dawkins ---- people who will deny science orthodoxy to promote an ideological point of view. I'm against anyone who distorts science orthodoxy for any ideological viewpoint, even if that is for atheism, while I am myself an atheist. I'm standing by real science.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Steve3007 »

That's false. The scientist is not claiming, and no one can know, whether what is being modeled was or was not designed.
By my argument, we can know whether what is being modelled is itself the product of design, provided that that design is not itself a nested model.

So in my previous post I conceded that we cannot know if a designer is present if that designer is deliberately creating a model. I will also concede that the same is true if there is an infinite sequence of nested models. Models within models ad infinitum. But if at some point in that sequence the designer is modelling something that was not designed then we can (I propose) spot that by looking for evidence that it was not designed using the method I mentioned earlier.

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:00 pm to add the following --

A slight re-write (change shown in bold):

By my argument, we can know whether what is being modelled is itself the product of design, provided that that design is not itself a nested model.

So in my previous post I conceded that we cannot know if a designer is present if that designer is deliberately creating a model. I will also concede that the same is true if there is an infinite sequence of nested models. Models within models ad infinitum. But if at some point in that sequence the designer is modelling something that is not itself a model then we can (I propose) spot whether it was designed by looking for evidence using the method I mentioned earlier, resting on the definition of a designer.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Ranvier »

Fan of Science wrote:If a scientist can computer model something like cosmology or evolution, then how can one rule out a designer? One couldn't. There is nothing in science that points either to a designer or not existing, which is why science orthodoxy remains neutral on the topic, while Dawkins publicly distorts the findings of science to promote what is purely an ideological viewpoint.
I'm with Fan of Science on the subject :idea:

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 9:28 pm to add the following --

Just because car accidents happen doesn't mean that the car wasn't well designed or that there are no traffic rules. Personally it's shocking that in the chaos of universe we actually found mathematics and physics that prove order in madness.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -1- »

-0+ wrote:
-1- wrote:You may say there is no way to say there is no designer; but there is no way to say there is a designer either,
People can say anything they like. this is my point exactly, -0+. The question is how to show that nature has no designer. We can also ask how to show that nature has a designer. I don't think that could be shown.

We can show that there are people within nature (in this universe) who are commonly considered to be designers and what they have designed. Some of them have designed things that can be regarded as sub-universes. However it is not clear how anyone without access to the supernatural can show that this particular universe was designed by a designer. And it is not clear how anyone can show that any particular universe has no designer, let alone this universe. true.
-1- wrote:There are so many faults with the components of this universe,
What are some of these faults? Faults? How's this for a major fault: I am not getting laid every day by a different busty blonde bombshell. This may sound extremely trivial and trite to you, but to me it is a HUGE disappointment. This is not what I'd expected.
-1- wrote:that a five-year-old child could prove it has been designed, if indeed designed, by a person of poor intellect.
How can this be proved without knowing: that the universe was indeed designed; the person who designed it, and the intellect of this person? I said, in different words: "GIVEN that the universe was designed,..." I did not say it was designed; I said that in the case if it's been designed, then.... Oy vey.

In the absence of this knowledge, can anyone show a similar universe that it is known to have been designed by a person of poor intellect? Can anyone show a superior universe that is known to have been designed by a person of rich intellect?

"Define the Universe and give two examples."


I don't think we'll be in the habit any time soon of showing universes to each other. :-)

-- Updated 2017 July 31st, 9:55 pm to add the following --

other than our own.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -0+ »

-1- wrote:"Define the Universe and give two examples."
Oxford defines 'universe' as "all existing matter and space considered as a whole".

Collins adds energy to their definition.

Wikipedia adds time so can be defined as everything that exists, has existed, and will exist, consisting of space-time, forms of energy (including matter), and physical laws that relate them.

It could be defined as all things physical (space, time, contents, laws); or all things real (existing or occurring in the physical world).

It is not defined as everything. Definitions suggest that it does not include any space or contents that are imaginary, fictional, theoretical, virtual, subjective, etc.

When considering if there can be more than one universe, it may be argued that there can only be one universe by definition, and any additional space and contents that is claimed to exist beyond the universe is all just part of one bigger universe. However, if the spaces appear to be separate with different laws of nature then it may difficult to consider them as a whole and it may be more helpful to consider them as separate universes.

We can also consider that all things physical and non-physical could potentially consist purely of information, and a space only appears to be physical if one is in that space and subject to its laws of nature. Any space that appears physical to us could appear to be virtual or imaginary to any being outside that space, and any space that seems virtual or imaginary to us could seem real and physical to any being in that space who is subject to its laws of nature.

It may only be possible to show one physical universe but if physical and non-physical are relative to one's position then physical space could be viewed as if it is virtual, and virtual spaces could be viewed as if they are physical. A virtual space could be "shown" by simulating it on a computer and providing a physical view of this.

It may be questioned if a virtual space can qualify as a universe, but virtual spaces can be experienced via physical views for what they are worth. It may be worth considering these with regards to Dawkins' quote. In order for his "we should expect" to be reasonable, it seems that some kind of "universe" with similar properties that is known to have no design will need to be shown.

As previously mentioned, in addition to this universe, an instance of Conway's Game of Life can be viewed as a universe (a sub-universe of this universe). It has its own separate space (2 dimensional), contents, and laws of nature.

If we look at two instances of this game, they can have same laws of nature and same initial pattern but they will have separate space-times and contents (which may otherwise be identical) and could be viewed as separate universes with no connection to each other (except via their common origins in this universe). They could also have different initial patterns and different laws of nature which would result in universes that are different in content as well as being separate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Ranvier »

Well argued -0+, although too complicated for my limited mind...
One thing that can be considered as an absolute (I'm never certain of anything) but open to polemic, is the fact that nothing can exist as a closed system. We can't completely isolate anything within the universe, therefore the notion of vacuum of nothingness is not plausible. Furthermore, multiple universes as isolated separate systems are possible to imagine but not very plausible.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -0+ »

Ranvier wrote:One thing that can be considered as an absolute (I'm never certain of anything) but open to polemic, is the fact that nothing can exist as a closed system.
Does this mean that the universe can not be a closed system, isolated from everything else that is non-physical?
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