Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick From: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion,net.sci Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality Message-ID: <13627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Sun, 4-May-86 04:46:31 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13627 Posted: Sun May 4 04:46:31 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 6-May-86 04:12:56 EDT References: <534@bu-cs.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 150 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:5247 net.religion:10071 net.sci:795 In article <534@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: Barry. For shame. You of all people? One of the most insightful posters I have read? I can't believe you wrote this. Anyway, you guys have made me so mad that I hereby am declaring a holy net.reference war. I am going to drown you in references to Hitler's irrationality until you say "UNCLE! I've had enough! Hitler was not logical!" >Re: Would logic have prevented the rise of Nazism? >Although I must admit I am not acting at a terribly high intellectual >level, somehow I find this claim astounding and completely denying >how, in many ways, I heretofore have considered Nazism. > >I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or >an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German >people to justify his social engineering. Hitler perverted science to his own ends. You can hardly call Nazism scientific. It was anti-scientific. It was mindless application of technology, perhaps, but not scientific. The very essence of science is freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom for communication and interaction within the scientific community, independent critical analysis by scientists. Hitler's program was complete subordination of the German people to the will of a single individual, the Fuhrer. Have you studied Nazism? >For example, his racism was based largely on an extrapolation of >current eugenic theories. He referred to mongrel races and a need >to genetically purify an Aryan race. Do you claim this program was scientific? >His anti-semitic campaigns >did not stop with simple "we don't like them", he (let's take 'he' >from here on to represent the general Nazi race campaigns) used >biological arguments with diagrams of "Jews" showing how their >physical characteristics clearly belied an inferior form of human >being (not unlike racists in this country trying to show that the >flat nose bridges of blacks shows they are closer to monkeys and >other such drivel.) Do you claim these demonstrations were scientific? Would you consider the possibility that they were propaganda designed to mislead the German public and others? >Consider all those experiments under the guise of science in the Yes. *IN THE GUISE OF SCIENCE*. *NOT SCIENCE*. >concentration camps (like tying together the legs of a woman in >labor just to see what happened.) You call that science? >I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS HITLER'S NAZI GERMANY WAS PRECISELY SCIENCE > GONE MAD. Perhaps application of technology and method gone mad. "Science" without freedom of thought is not science. >You know, those cold, logical germans, killing off the impure blood, Logical in what sense? How can you be logical without questioning everything? Machine-like perhaps. Is that what you think logic is all about, functioning like a machine? >doing their secret weapons and other war research etc. As a matter of fact, the Nazis drove out many scientists, and many (even non-Jewish) left of their own accord. These logical people *DID* recognize Nazism for what it was, *BEFORE* it was too late. Perhaps I have an unusual perspective, since I know several of these individuals personally (some of whom are world recognized authorities in their fields, whom I will not name). One of these (my neighbor, who is like a father to me), at a testamonial dinner for his 75th birthday, included in the printed program which was distributed to the guests, the statement "the greatest achievement of my life was in recognizing Nazism for what it was, and leaving Germany" in the early 1930's. Hitler claimed that he could "do without this Jewish physics, for the first 100 years" of his "1000 year reich". The Nazi war effort suffered severely due to the loss of these scientists, while the allied war effort was immeasurably aided. Have you forgotten about the atomic bomb? >Now, I suppose one could argue that the point is that logic is abused >throughout I claim it was *NOT UNDERSTOOD*, especially by Hitler. Hitler was *ANTI-INTELLECTUAL*. He believed that *HIS WILL AND INTUITION* were supreme, that he was a *SUPERMAN* and *TRANSCENDED REASON*. >and the problem was that people were fooled by simple Yes, the people *WERE FOOLED*. The question is, *HOW CAN PEOPLE AVOID BEING FOOLED*. >logical prestidigitation, but somehow I feel if that is the argument >it is a poorly put argument, there is something more important going >on (like that people will believe what they want to believe, mass >hysteria etc.) How do you propose to counteract these dangerous tendencies, if not by developing people who can think for themselves, question their belief systems, and question the views of the mob? Is not a study of logic useful for these purposes? >No, I don't think it's logic that would save humanity, it's humanity >recognizing humanity, unless that also is logic. How can humanity recognize truth? Does logic have no part to play? > -Barry Shein, Boston University I feel very sad today. There are tears in my eyes right now Barry.