Tuesday, June 26, 2007

The Creation Museum on YouTube...

This is positively funny... watch it!


At 8:12 PM, Blogger MightyMom said...

thanks for sharing!!

At 11:43 PM, Blogger BEAJ said...

Here you go Gert, right up your alley.

At 2:21 PM, Blogger Gert said...


Why is this "right up my alley"?

From Part 1, at the very start:

"Understanding history is difficult unless one understands the psyches of the major players in history. This applies not only to individuals but to groups as well. Members of relatively homogeneous groups tend to think similarly and knowing how they think is a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding how they act.

Unfortunately, historians generally do not put primary emphasis on the state of mind of the subjects of their histories. Events are listed and discussed but not the psychology of the people involved. There are a number of reasons for this: historians are trained to deal with facts and to discount conjecture, and there is no greater conjecture than to guess how someone thinks. The reluctance to look at history through this prism is perhaps also due to an understandable reluctance to place entire groups of people into a single bucket, as this seems to be too close to racism. Paradoxically, today's Western mindset where the disgust of racism is paramount may be hurting the understanding of the mindsets of other cultures and historical periods."

Yep, this is just another wannabe historian who shits long, useless tracts. Mix in a few actual facts, use a lot of seemingly plausible conjecture and flowery language and there's going to be a lot of gullible people that will lap this up. In essence this is no different from what idiots like Sentinel's beloved Fjordman do. I have no respect nor interest in the ramblings of either "Elder of Ziyon" or Fjordman: neither have the slightest intention of seeking truth. Rather, they seek explanations for their hopelessly preconceived notions. Their pieces are nothing but comment, feebly disguised as "expert analysis".

Incidentally, my own thoughts on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are much more nuanced than you might think.

At 5:04 PM, Blogger BEAJ said...

I think there is a lot more historical info on Elder's site than you give him credit for.

Besides it is supposed to be a psychological account, which of course leads to subjective opinion.

At 5:20 PM, Blogger Gert said...

History as a subject matter is notoriously subjective. Any historian will accept the fact that one cannot run a piece of history back in a laboratory (as we can in the natural sciences) and so each historical narrative is by definition subjective, no matter how much it's based on actual, verifiable facts.

Mudding the waters with "psychology" is indeed just that: mudding the waters. Bacon, I'd have any psychologist for breakfast any day. "Psychology" is hardly more objective (or more interesting) than reflexology, irisology or any other form of unproven quack "science".

In many countries psychology isn't even a protected profession: there you can buy a brass plaque saying "Mr Suchandsuchabody; Psychologist" and you're in business. Swindling is what that's called.

Elder's attempt is an attempt at maligning in the same way Arabs and Palestinians malign Jews and Israel. Every war has a shooting part and a shouting part, this is Elder's contribution to the latter...

Psychology is for people who are too lazy or too dumb to study physics or chemistry.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home