The Dark Side of Darwin's Legacy

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
athena
Premium Member
Posts: 971
Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am

Post by athena »

I think zoologist have much to teach us about ourselves, and I hope someday science improves our justice system, and all shared social decisions, with greater acceptance of our human nature, and an end to our unrealistic expectations of ourselves and others.

I am quite confident that our morality has its roots in our animal evolution. I am also curious about why some people stress things like humans kill, instead of humans cooperate. Our survival depended more on our cooperation than on any inclination to killing. Like packs of dogs must work together to bring down the prey, so did the earliest human hunters have to work together. Civilizations would not be possible if we weren't better suited for cooperation than not.
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1996
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice »

Darwin "Descent of Man" Chap 7
"Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so far important in that it is desirable to use, as far as possible, the same terms for the same degrees of difference."
"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle." Carl Marx
The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief. Freud
The major question here is one of "Identity". I find naturalism anti-human, in that it seems antithetical to human reason to have to search outside of the self in order to identify the self, even more self destructive is having to rely on other entities to do it for me. I mean if I excludes myself from external stimuli what am I left with but an "I".

It seems all to necessary to have an external reality and at the same time all too irrational.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Bluemist
Posts: 129
Joined: November 15th, 2009, 10:11 pm

Post by Bluemist »

There are many disturbing issues raised in this thread about Darwinism and its social implications that I can't understand.

First, I'd point to a clear distinction between Darwin's theory of evolution and a jumble of largely incorrect extensions and implications that are referred to as Darwinism. Darwinism, as a popularization of the theory was initiated almost immediately after the publication of the Origin of Species by Darwin's many vocal supporters, including Wallace. Darwin argued against Darwinism repeatedly without any success.

This thread, as most people in general, confounds the two: the scientific theory, and the popular bastardized version. Most of the arguments falsely attribute popular, socially tainted positions to the scientific theory.

The second point is that Darwin, himself was not free from English societal prejudices, and I would not argue that he was. In truth, not one of us is free from prejudices -- and it would be hypocritical for us to claim that we are. Each of us has an ingrained psychological need to imagine that we, our families, our tribe, our sex, our race, our species are somehow superior, whether by the grace of God or the grace of nature. False arguments to that effect will always abound.

Darwin's personal prejudices in no way effect the theory, nor it's pure and simple scientific implications.

Darwin's theory has not, nor will it ever be overturned. However, it has been elaborated and extended, and will continue to be so.

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all!
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1996
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice »

While I understand that most Englishman of Darwin's day believed in the inferiority of "darker" races, which may have influenced some of Darwin's writings and I may entertain an argument that Darwin was not racist since he vehemently opposed slavery I believe that some of Darwin's "observations", some not even his own are designed to lend credibility to a belief in inferior races. Also, while not entirely Darwin's fault his writings have been used to endorse some insidious ideas in modern times.

It is hardly a secret that the KKK and neo-nazi's have used Darwin to negatively characterize Blacks and Jews.

Darwinism is a term defined as the various concepts related to the transmutation of species and evolution.

Bluemist-Can you please explain the evolution of the butterfly and sexual reproduction using any of the various concepts attributed to Darwinism.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 71
Joined: September 10th, 2009, 8:49 am
Location: Yiwu City, China

Post by Nick »

Bluemist,

I agree. Darwin's theory deals with why two animal groups from the same species look different after having been isolated from each other for thousands or millions of years. The extrapolations from this theory which say specific human ethnic groups are inferior are just that -- extrapolations -- and are not part of the original theory.
User avatar
Bluemist
Posts: 129
Joined: November 15th, 2009, 10:11 pm

Post by Bluemist »

Hi Nick,
Nick wrote: The extrapolations from this theory which say specific human ethnic groups are inferior are just that -- extrapolations -- and are not part of the original theory.
I agree. Darwin specifically denied that evolution has any direction -- there is no superiority or inferiority in nature. Natural selection is a blind (statistical) adaptation mechanism to whatever environment happens to living things.

~~~
Hello Juice,
Juice wrote: Darwinism is a term defined as the various concepts related to the transmutation of species and evolution.
That sounds like a good definition for "Darwinism", but is not what Darwin said. The Origin of Species is an agressive title but I don't think it proposed anything about the transmutation of species. Darwin concentrated on his collected observations within species and comparative data on organs.

Ironically, it is the simplicity of his proposal that makes it difficult to understand even after 150 years. This is not unusual. When a revolutionary notion goes against the grain of our foundations, we are likely to block it out of consciousness.

Darwin was proposing a natural evolutionary (rather than, say chaotic) mechanism for biological change, following the footsteps of Lyell, Malthus, and Adam Smith: individuals are in vast numbers and are naturally variable; whatever variations happen to survive become representative of the species; change happens gradually over eons.

That's all. He did not predict any new butterflies or any new features. He did not suggest that social change must follow a progression. He did not say that universes evolve.
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1996
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice »

It is obvious that there is some amount of confusion concerning Darwin's writings and the modern concepts and processes of evolution, which from my perspective, proves how little those who accept "Darwinism" know about the theory and its numerous variations and methodological processes.

Darwin's processes of ideas where contained in separate titled volumes, notebooks and journals;
"On the Origin of Species" by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). The sixth volume (1872) was just the short title in quotes.

"The Descent of Man", and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871)

The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872)

The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (1868)

RECORD: Darwin, C. R. Notebook B: [Transmutation of species (1837-1838)].
We can see that Darwin's interests in the concept of evolution extended outside the constraints of pure science. The reason for this is that as questions revolving around his theory arose from scientist, the religious and philosophers, whether mathematicians or other, Darwin was compelled to associate his theory along various disciplines. So that issues of origin of human thought and morality/ethics and the differences between men due to natural origin and culture began to emerge Darwin saw the need to at least attempt to explain them and in so doing made claims which fell outside pure scientific observation into less extrapolative concerns. This is evident in his various journals and notebooks which when examined show a man who was nervous of the exposure of his theory as immutable and sacrosanct. In reading the complete works of Darwin I am struck by his arguable vacillation between, atheism, agnosticism, egalitarianism, ethnocentrism, a hatred for God and his need to self validate.

We understand that mutations occur, this is evident by the mere observations of humans and the clear distinctions from one human being to another. Where Darwin fails and something which Darwin was well aware of, is when Darwinism is extrapolated with a single origin theory and common life origins from a single, original biological organism.

As stated, the very simple, clearly observable, biological fact of sexual reproduction, which "maledom" and "femaledom" can be argued to be the top tier of biological life distinction, and separateness as distinct "species" themselves, cannot be explained by evolution from a single random chance chemical construct, which should not only encourage but also demand the consideration and presentation of alternative theories to complement any understanding of life sciences.

It is unfortunate that "science" has removed itself from the "idea" of a collective endeavor to define the nature of being. I am not afraid to present that this is done deliberately to remove God from the nature of humanity. This is proven by the fear evolutionist have of "Intelligent Design". Obviously a prejudice against religion, particularly Christianity.

Considering the energy that is expended in legalizing a "theory" to exclude others one must ask why, and I do not believe that it is merely the suggestion of supernatural intent but "purpose" itself.

It is interesting when examining Aristotelean thought in that Aristotle presented the idea that change is natural as it happens through the natural course of things. In fact it is necessary for things to fulfill thier potential. The question here is if "potential" is directed, intentional, or if potential can be defined in and by random processes which can only result in random thoughts and uncertain potential requiring failures to complement success, and how one could tell the difference given the potential attributable to random chance.

Given that failures are not noted in the fossil records I am struck by how man seems so prone to failures and often disregards success and the potential reasons and rationals so obvious, at least to me.

What would be interesting to consider is the possibility that the fossil record proves the failures and man as the created success.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
lifegazer
Posts: 499
Joined: July 8th, 2009, 4:36 pm
Location: meaningless concept

Re: The Dark Side of Darwin's Legacy

Post by lifegazer »

Nick wrote:All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?

What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.
Interesting discussion Nick.

I just wanted to comment on this, above. From my own perspective, Darwinism has led to far more than you claim that it has. Not least of which, is the eventual discovery - and understanding of - the gene. Of course, genetics is a major science itself, with all manner of profound implications. Evolutionary psychologists should also get a mention, for now they seek to explain every droplet of our behaviour in terms of advantageous adaptations.
Also, one should note the impact of Darwinism - unlike ANY scientific theory before or after - upon religious/spiritual/metaphysical beliefs. Quite literally, Darwinmism has drastically affected the general mindset of the world, which of course impacts upon the destiny of that world.

To be honest, I'm an idealist - I believe in 'a God'. But any objective assessment of "the scientist that has made the biggest impact", must surely focus upon Darwin whether you like him and his theories, or not.
You ask about the "practical benefits" evolution theory has had for humanity. Well, if you're a materialist - and one who believes that mankind is best served by cutting off the head of God - then what more could you ask for?
User avatar
Bluemist
Posts: 129
Joined: November 15th, 2009, 10:11 pm

Post by Bluemist »

Juice wrote: It is interesting when examining Aristotelean thought in that Aristotle presented the idea that change is natural as it happens through the natural course of things. In fact it is necessary for things to fulfill their potential.
By coincidence, I've also been thinking along these lines.

One of the innovations of Aristotle was the incorporation of time, as was required by shift in emphasis from Plato's formal world to the scientifically real world of particulars. Aristotle's reality is not a solid, fixed, timeless block, but a sequence of fixed slices. These slices are disconnected in time, but are in order, like a pack of cards. The sunny side of the rock changes from cold to warm. The acorn becomes an oak. These are indeterminate time gaps, so that when we look for time, it is never there, it is an illusion, it does not exist.

With Galileo, modern science shifted to the explicit study of change in continuous time. Newton developed calculus expressly for this purpose - it is the calculus of change over time. Then Einstein adopted time as a continuous real dimension of spacetime.

But for the study of Darwin's historical theory, Aristotelean time is completely adequate.
Juice wrote: The question here is if "potential" is directed, intentional, or if potential can be defined in and by random processes which can only result in random thoughts and uncertain potential requiring failures to complement success, and how one could tell the difference given the potential attributable to random chance.
I don't see why there should be a conflict. If you believe that God created the world, then God also created change, all the potentialities, and all of the mechanisms of change, whether those be chaotic, statistically directional, or with a designed purpose. Perhaps God chose to drive an automatic? Why wouldn't He?
lifegazer wrote:I believe in 'a God'. But any objective assessment of "the scientist that has made the biggest impact", must surely focus upon Darwin whether you like him and his theories, or not.
I think you're quite right. Darwin completed the Copernican revolution of removing us from our unique physically central position in the universe that we have always assumed to be unquestionable. We are now just one of the animals on this planet. We have been humbled. Yet, whenever I look at the heavens, I am reminded of the immensity that is out there, awsome and beautiful both in its being and in its workings.
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1996
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice »

Bluemist-Now you are talking about "intelligent design"

I believe "time", as it attempts to be understood, is an illusion, as is all of perceived reality, since from my perspective both are irrational no matter how much rationality can be supposedly perceived to apply to being.

Ultimately, without purpose, reality can't have any meaning. Therefore, since we have a perceivable and somewhat definable reality then being must have purpose.

Since purpose is defined as "reason" and since reason requires conscious cause and effect, then reality in order to be perceived and defined must have conscious cause and effect from a designed purpose.

All potentiality is dependent on a successful result.

If I have the potential to become president and never become president did I ever have the potential to become president?

If a single randomly constructed biological organism has the potential to become a human being did the potential then cause the result?

As I have stated the single most perplexing aspect of material evolutionary theory is sexual reproduction and sex differentiation.

In "Descent of Man", Darwin gives a protracted and false impression of embryology and although many anatomists of the day refuted Darwin's claim that all animal embryos bared "striking' similarities still to this day it is presented as fact in biology texts across the globe. Darwin even called the "evidence" indisputable.

From "Descent of Man"
The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken, for the close similarity between man and the lower animals in embryonic development, as well as in innumerable points of structure and constitution, both of high and of the most trifling importance, - the rudiments which he retains, and the abnormal revisions to which he is occasionally liable, - are facts which cannot be disputed. They have long been known, but until recently they told us nothing with respect to the origin of man.
Further from "Descent of Man"
The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning powers and consequently of a just public opinion, but especially from his sympathies having been rendered more tender and widely diffused through the effects of habit, example, instruction, and reflection. It is not improbable that after long practice virtuous tendencies may be inherited. With the more civilised races, the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise or blame of his fellows as his sole guide though few escape this influence, but his habitual convictions, controlled by reason, afford him the safest rule. His conscience then becomes the supreme judge and monitor. Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.
More from "Descent of Man"
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion, whether or not we are able to believe that every slight variation of structure, - the union of each pair in marriage, - the dissemination of each seed, - and other such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose.
And Finally;
Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system - with all these exalted powers - Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.
Clearly, and although Darwin deliberately skewed observations and attributed his concept to requiring some "imagination", Darwin still felt that the advent of man as a noble creation needed to include God. Darwin also freely admits that his theory is far from complete and requires further elaboration, experimentation, deliberation and study. Even though he himself wanted to insure his credibility for the overall discovery.

So how do we now come today with the expectation that the creation and development of man is possible without an intelligent designer?

IMO evolution theory has been hijacked by atheists who fight to maintain it as a material endeavor, which, if Darwin is to be so exalted, goes against his proclamation of mans nobility and exceptionalism.

In "Descent of Man" Darwin never discusses how there came to be sexual reproduction and sex differentiation even though those questions abounded. It is my belief that Darwin overlooked that aspect due to its natural conclusion and instead left the door open for Gods absolute, necessary inclusion into creation.

He still insists on random development but also suggests that without an intelligence, morality and reason God cannot be actualized by "barbarian subspecies".

Some of Darwin's thinking can be argued to have a creationist tint to them. For Darwin this is an admission of sorts that his theory is not only debatable but gap filled as it is today, best explained by intelligent design by reason and not default rather than a strict materialist view.

Although Darwin insisted on the randomness of evolution he left the door open for God by claiming that without reason, civilization and morality no "barbarian subspecies" could actualize God. And it can be argued that Darwin sought some atonement with creationism by the admission.

I believe that Darwin, as an intellect, realized the "GAPS" in his theory which current evolutionist still fill with expectations, imagination and hope, but are best explained by a rational acceptance of natural Intelligent Design.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
JPhillips
Posts: 207
Joined: October 22nd, 2009, 2:49 pm

Darwinism

Post by JPhillips »

athena said:
I am quite confident that our morality has its roots in our animal evolution. I am also curious about why some people stress things like humans kill, instead of humans cooperate. Our survival depended more on our cooperation than on any inclination to killing. Like packs of dogs must work together to bring down the prey, so did the earliest human hunters have to work together. Civilizations would not be possible if we weren't better suited for cooperation than not.
Some of us believe we are far superior to animals and should act much more humanely. Some of us expect people to act civilized because we are civilized. Some of us expect cooperation because we are cooperative. The fact that there are others who are capable of commiting act of violence and capable of killing another human being without cause is incomprehensible to some of us.
User avatar
pjkeeley
Posts: 695
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley »

Juice wrote:I believe that Darwin, as an intellect, realized the "GAPS" in his theory which current evolutionist still fill with expectations, imagination and hope, but are best explained by a rational acceptance of natural Intelligent Design.
One of the gaps in evolutionary theory during Darwin's lifetime was the fact that genetics was not very well understood. Since then we have made great leaps in understanding how genetics works which have served to advance Darwin's theory. If we had filled those gaps prematurely by insisting that they could only ever be explained with reference to an intervening God, such discoveries might never have been made. So why should Intelligent Design be used to fill such gaps today, when the future could hold scientific explanations for that which seems inexplicable at present?
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1996
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice »

The title of this thread is conspicuous for several reasons. As the author points out this is the 150th anniversary of the advent of Darwin's theory. While it may be by European standards that the unsophisticated American has yet to fully embrace Darwinism as the last word of human origins and human development since we are prone to "cling to our Bibles and guns" fully 89% of Americans have doubts that all life started from a single chemical happenstance of "natural" biological fortune, and with good reason. From a Darwinian perspective the American has "evolved" an independent spirit very often given to "gut" reactions rather than "consensus", even from our more sophisticated cousins across the pond. Americans are more prone to challenge and be challenged by new ideas, especially those supported by "real" science. It may very well be that this "adaptation" is what will save the world as it has shaped it.

As most of you know, at least those who find me worthy by reading and responding to my posts, I make no excuses for my political, religious and scientific ideology. While some may disagree, which I more than welcome, I try very honestly to present support for my arguments and this is one argument that is very much supportable, unlike those made in favor of global warming claims. Those of us who were wise enough to portend the fraudulent claims made by "climatologists" did so based on gut feeling. I, myself, and many like me looked to Biblical Scripture to rationalize our laugh out loud response to many of the radical emotional environmental claims and pleas while we endured record snow falls and frigid temperatures along with mild summers. While listening to ones gut may not be considered too scientific, considering the ample girth of Al Gore's abdomen, dispelling any claims that size matters, it appears that some credibility is gratefully garnered for the gut from the global warming hoax.

Darwin subjected proofs of his theory of natural selection by comparing it to animal husbandry, a decidedly intelligent exercise, designed to produced a favorable outcome. He concluded that the same relative results can be produced randomly by the forces of nature on favored traits. And here we have the basis of classical Darwinism.

Today we have "neo-Darwinism" since, as suggested much more is known about the transference of genetic material in species. Mutations direct the force of change in species necessary for species survival in accordance with environmental influences. Those organisms best able to adapt survive. A wholly random process created by natural processes to secure, "drive" and guarantee the success of biological organism. What does it matter that inorganic entities with no stake in conscious flux change to either secure organic success or produce organic success?

The concentration today is on the ethereal nature of matter, energy (quantum physics) and "information". Interesting is the commonality of descriptive language used between distinct disciplines. Information technology is as much a product of quantum physics as it is of biology and information technology. Information is a massless, measureless necessity of being. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God". Enter quantum biology. No longer a matter of the observable chemical or atomic properties and processes of proteins but the translation of those inorganic substances into the "word". The production, transference and translation of information by subatomic conversations into "US", being, the universe and reality.

How mundane and apathetic to search for the origin of life in material reality befitting the unjust cause of defining reality by philosophic pseudo-realism by halting the search for God in this creation through legal pandering. If we are to call ourselves philosophers in "search" of truth then how do we not consider the ability to search by the immaterial properties of thought and information onto the structures of consciousness not the product of purposeful intelligent design?

The God of the design may not be "scientifically" definable as per the restraints placed on the search but that does not preclude defining the message inherent in the creation. And, while science searches, unhindered by God, for answers overlooking the message in the design may be a detriment to the actual purpose of science. Instead of looking for what is already apparent maybe we should be looking for God.

Some ask why don't we see God, well it seems to me that we do. Just as when you talk on a cell phone, the information being transfered is ethereal, traveling through space and time, without us having any clue how waves of sound become something understandable. Yet messages, information, are received, understood and responded to. What is a "WORD" if it cannot be turned into something useful.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Re: The Dark Side of Darwin's Legacy

Post by Alun »

Nick wrote:What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.
The discovery of penicillin is great, sure, but without evolutionary biology we would have no clue why penicillin is less effective now, where to look for alternative antibiotics, or even the safest way to distribute antibiotics like penicillin. So Darwin's theories did lead to extremely important biological theories.

That said, Darwin's theories have not been deliberately publicized just because scientists love them so much; the only reason he is so highlighted is because the theory he instigated offends religious creation stories, and therefore has to be defended in public. This is the same reason that many people know all about Sarah Palin's oldest daughter's sex habits, but not the name of a single judge in their county. Controversy. I'm surprised that someone who spends his time talking about politics thinks that publicity correlates to importance.
Juice wrote:89% of Americans have doubts that all life started from a single chemical happenstance of "natural" biological fortune, and with good reason.
And the popularity of abiogenesis has what to do with Darwin?

And the rest of this thread is political too. It's amazing to me that, just because people are so hyped about this, it is assumed that biologists are also just pulling evolutionary theory out of the air.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

I'm going to have to second Alun. There is little here besides the mention of Darwin and evolution, that has to do with science, this is a political topic horribly misplaced.

and the link in the op doesn't work

wtf pjkeeley, but you did make some great points.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

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