Great Courses Review: Theory of Evolution: History of a Controversy

This is not a bad course, and Prof. Larson is an excellent lecturer, one of the better ones that I've listened to.  I bought this series because the reviews were pretty good, and I generally have enjoyed the science oriented lectures that I've purchased.  I also have steered away from lectures dealing with evolution because I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with them, but I did buy the series Biology: The Science of Life, which I quite enjoyed it and learned a lot from it.  There was a lot of hand waving in the parts where it talked about evolution but when it talked about the current trends in Biology it was fascinating.  In fact I would suggest Prof. Larson might benefit from listening to it.

One good thing did happen from this series was for myself.  Prof. Larsen talked about the "red eyed fruit fly" and that's something that I'd never heard of.  A little background checking to see what he was talking about and it appears that Prof. Larsen made a mistake and meant the white eyed fruit fly.  That's OK we all make mistakes but I'm somewhat surprised that this wasn't found and edited out some how.  It seems that I've noticed things that sound like edits on other series (when the sound quality changes somewhat from the surrounding lecture).  Well I'd heard of the white eyed fruit fly before, but didn't know very much about it and while I was checking on it I read a lot more about it.  That was very interesting.

Then Prof. Larsen talked about the peppered moth in England and I said to myself; "What the heck, that study's been discredited and he's using it?"  Now the funny thing is, that I'm nearly 100% sure that the first time I'd heard about the discrediting of that study was on another Great Courses series because that pretty much all I listen to anymore and it's not something that I remember reading.  It was most probably in Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It by Prof. Steven Goldman or Philosophy of Science by Jeffery Kasser.  If I had to guess it is probably the first series, Science Wars, one of my favorite series.  He also talked about the fossil record of the horse as being proof of evolution, and I knew that had been discredited as well.  This caused me to look around for more information about the peppered moth studies and that caused me to finally read The Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells.  I'd pretty much decided I wasn't going to read that book, because from the reviews I'd read I thought it was going to be a strident discourse about how evil evolution is and why it shouldn't be taught in schools.  I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't that.  All it was was a critique of the way evolution is taught as dogma in schools, and how all the examples taught as dogma have been discredited.  This course by Prof. Larsen proves Prof Wells case perfectly as far as I'm concerned.

After reading the book by Prof. Wells I went back and listened to the lectures again just to make sure that I'd heard everything correctly and it was just my imagination.  I found that Prof. Larsen used even more icons of evolution in his lectures and I hadn't known they'd been discredited so I had heard correctly, it was just worse than I thought.

Obviously I'm a person who finds the way evolution is taught is a travesty, so why would I buy this course?  Well first the title was Theory of Evolution: A History of a Controversy and I was hoping that the course might actually explain why there is still a controversy about evolution.  However, the only thing that I got from the series is that the only reason there is a controversy is because of benighted fundamentalist Christians don't accept evolution.  That may be a little polemical but that's how I felt.  However, I do have to give Prof. Larson points for admitting that Julian Huxley pushed a humanist atheist religion that was based on evolution.  Probably because Julian Huxley was honest enough to admit that that was what he was doing as opposed to Richard Dawkins who teaches the dogma just as strongly but doesn't claim to be doing that, he claims he's doing science.  Also, I have to give Prof. Larsen credit that when he talked about Intelligent Design (ID) he was honest enough to, seemingly grudgingly, admit that those who support ID are "mostly" Christian.  Most people who don't agree with ID just say that it's a bunch of Christian Creationist's and that it is only "Creationism in a tuxedo".  At least Dr. Larson's statement allows those who might be interested to know that there are atheists, agnostics, Indian Hindi's and people of other philosophical beliefs involved with it, who often don't like to be described as Christian Creationists.  Phillip Johnson may have started the Discovery Institute and came up with the idea of using ID as a wedge, but there are many others who find the ID arguments compelling and the Discovery Institute is practically the only place people can do ID research because everywhere else they are censored by the establishment.  The discovery Institute accepts fellow travelers even if they're not Christians.

The other reason I bought the series was because it was on sale and I had a coupon code that made it even cheaper.

Over all listening was a good experience and I learned a lot, not so much from the content of the lectures, but just from the fact that the lectures prove a point.  This has actually decided me on buying the other course on evolution that others reviewers have recommended as being more in depth just to see if it confirms my suspicions on college level teaching of evolution.

Great Courses Review: American Religious History

I was very pleased with this series as I began listening to it. Despite what Peirs Morgan says Americans love foreign accents and I really loved listening to Dr. Allit's accent. Religious history is something of a hobby of mine, and I've listened to a lot of the religion and history courses offered by The Great Courses. I was excited when Dr. Allit gave his history about how impressed he was with the religiosity of the US when he came here as a student, and especially when he said he was one of the few observant people in England.

As I said, I do a lot of reading about Christian History. One of my favorite authors on the subject is Rodney Stark. He claims that Christianity in America revitalized Christianity, and I have to agree with him. I was hoping that this might give me some more insight into that. For the first 7 lectures things sounded pretty good. Then he got to Onieda and Mormons.

Now I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more commonly called Mormons. I don't expect Dr. Allit to know as much about Mormon history as I do because I read a lot about it, and he actually references one of my favorite Mormon authors Richard Bushman. And I know that it's OK to mock the Mormon religion, after all a big hit on Broadway was basically mocking our religion and no one really seemed to care. However, I expected more from a lecture series from The Great Courses.

The LDS Church has an official account of Joseph Smith's First Vision that is considered scripture.  I as a well read in the history of Mormonism know that there are other accounts as well. However, I wondered why Dr. Allit chose not to use the official version, or to at least point out that he was not using the official account. That was a small point but it seems to set the tone. He says that there were rumors of polygamy were being practiced in the Missouri period. Something I've never heard before, and don't think it's true. Then he said a sentence that can only be construed as misleading. He said 6 of the 11 witnesses of the Golden Plates left the Church, and immediately launched into the account of John C. Bennett. The way he said it "I" thought John C. Bennett was one of the witnesses of the Golden Plates. I had to go back an re-listen to the account to make sure I'd heard it right it was such an egregious implication. John C. Bennett is a problem for Mormon history but this presentation was ridiculous. So the main thing about the Mormons is polygamy, and just to make sure that everyone gets the point he reads from Mark Twain's account of the Mormons in "Roughing It". Now I have now problem with Mark Twain's account and it is funny, but I do have a problem when it is used in a lecture course for mocking purposes. I realized that that was how it was being used as I heard his audience laughing at the account. Nothing was said to put it in context. Dr. Allit's point was that some American Religions had strange sexual practices and Onieda and the Mormons were two of them.

OK fair enough I'm used to that. After all I'm a Mormon and I've been on a mission. I've been abused for my religion. I was going to ignore it.

Then he talked about Aimee Semple McPherson as part of the Fundamentalist movement. After he talked about her I thought she was simply a scam artist who was involved sex scandal. The way Dr. Allit talked about it I was sure she was hypocrite. However, since I never had heard of her, I decided to do some research my self. Dr. Allit said that she'd ran away with a technician and was in a love nest with him on the coast of California, while Aimee said she'd been kidnapped and held in Mexico. He didn't say it was alleged that that was what happened but that that was what had happened. I thought she was a scamming slut. However, it turns out that Dr. Allit apparently just likes to present the most salacious case possible religious figures. My research was not in depth, but I did learn that Aimee went to trial twice and was found not guilty over this event. I also found out that the technician she was supposedly with said that he was never with her, and that he turned down a great deal of money that he could have gotten from the tabloids of the time had he said it. He always spoke highly of her. Also, after this event Aimee continued to have a successful ministry. I don't know what Dr. Allit was trying to do with Aimee McPherson but his presentation of her in this lecture was abominable.

After I found that out I just had to let people know just how bad these two presentation were. I don't really have the time to research everything that Dr. Allit says but with these two statements my thoughts are that he is very prejudicial against religious beliefes he doesn't agree with like Mormons and Pentecostals.

Great Courses Review: History of Science: Antiquity to 1700

I only got this course after listening to the others in the trilogy and then wondering if they had a course covering the time period not covered by the other courses.  I'm glad I found it.

I've read some of the other reviews and it seems to me that people are mistaking science for technology.  No one would mistake the Wright brothers for scientists.  They owned a bike shop.  However, they did build a flying machine when most "scientists" of the time were saying a heavier than air craft would never be built.  Once the technology was proven scientists could then help improve the technology.  It's possible that a course could be taught on the history of the science of aeronautics without ever mentioning airplanes or jets.  It would probably be boring and depending on how far back you went it might be hard to explain just why the scientists switched from believing heavier than air flight wasn't possible to it was possible.  In fact Dr. Principe alludes to this when he talked about the "Clock Work Age" and how those who built the mills were illiterate for the most part and not interested in natural philosophy (science) but made great strides in the  technology of the time.

It amazes me how much people don't understand how closely Christianity and science are linked.  Some reviewers have complained that Dr. Principe gives Christianity too much credit.  I personally enjoyed his insights and the linking of advances in natural philosophy to Christian philosophy.  In fact in my opinion it is exactly because Europeans were Christians that they developed "science" as we know it.  Certainly the inhabitants of the Asian Peninsula — incorrectly referred to as the "Continent of Europe" because of continental envy when Western geography books were written — were behind the great cultures of the East for most of history, with the possible exception of the Roman Empire.  Dr. Principe doesn't make a big deal of this but it's true only in the West did alchemy become chemistry, or astrology become astronomy.  Europeans were introduced to gunpowder by the Muslims from the Chinese, and they perfected it so that when the Europeans went on the voyages of "discovery" they totally dominated the historically great cultures because they had perfected putting gunpowder in tubes and shooting projectiles, among other things.  In fact Europeans took the ideas introduced to them and improved on them all.  They were introduced to algebra  and developed calculus. They were introduced to optics and developed telescopes, microscopes and glasses.  I can go on but the point is already made.

Another reviewer was upset because so much time was given to Newtons writings and studies on theology and alchemy.  Dr. Principe didn't make up the fact that Newton spent all his time studying and writing about those topics and ignoring the fact, like they did during the 18th century, doesn't make Newton a greater scientist — oops natural philosopher — it just makes him less interesting as a human.  Many biographers of Newton have said that he thought his writings on theology were his most important works.  That's just the way it is, most great scientists before the enlightenment were very devout Christians.  Many still are today.

I really enjoyed this course.  Dr. Principe covered a lot of ground and I thought he covered it as well as could be expected in 36 lectures.  Just be sure you know what he's going to talk about. 

Great Courses Review: Turning Points in Medieval History

Professor Dorsey Armstrong is an excellent lecturer. I very much appreciated the way that she presented the information. At first I was annoyed by the way she tied lectures together at the end and beginning of each lecture. It takes up a lot of the time. I grew used to it, and other commentators on this series have said that it is helpful.

I have a daughter and son-in-law that attends Purdue University so I actually paid closer attention than usual when the professors experience was given at the first of the lectures. I thought it would be interesting to hear from a professor who was involved in "women studies." Turns out she's a professor of English and Medieval Literature, and Purdue does actually offer a minor in women's studies. Well that's disappointing but I'm not an alumni so I can't really be that disappointed.

I like the way she taught the course where she pulls in the way that different events are connected. I like documentaries and books that do it as well, so that's just a personal opinion. She seems to jump around a lot some people may not like that.

This series of lectures was definitely taught from a liberal viewpoint. And I mean liberal in the modern PC liberal view point. When she first said that Europe became a "persecuting society" I almost laughed out loud, especially when she said they persecuted "infidels, pagans, homosexuals, leprorers, and Jews". She emphasized that there were still pagans at that time in Europe. this is the first time that I've ever heard that people specifically persecuted homosexuals in the medieval times. I suppose it's true, since homosexuals have never been treated very well and there might even have been some pagans at that time, but not many. However, I've never heard of it before, and every example of persecution she gave was against the Jews. Still as I said I almost laughed the first time she said it, but she said it often after that. Very often. In fact it's impossible not to notice since it was a constant refrain.

She also presented a very positive view of Islam. I kept wondering if she would like to go to a persecuting society today where they still actually do persecute homosexuals and Jews, and consider Christians infidels. In fact in Iran, an Islamic society they hang you for being a homosexual. While I'm sure that might have been done sometime in the past, somewhere in the Christian West, I can guarantee you it's not done today. This point leads me to something I found absolutely astounding in her choice for a turning point in Meadival History. She only picked two battles, one the Battle of Lechfeld, and the other the Battle of Hattin. I've never heard of the Battle of Lechfeld before, which doesn't mean that much except that I do like history and have listened to a lot of Great Courses history tapes. I'm pretty sure that that battle might or might not have really had a great impact on the development of the "persecuting society" of Europe, but I'm totally sure that the Battle of Tours is an actual turning point because it stopped the Islamic advance into Europe, then we would probably would have been much more like Iran, and would really be persecuting homosexuals. She does give some credit to this battle because she mentions the Song of Roland a couple of times, which she would practically have to mention as a Prof. of Medieval Literature, and that take place in the Battle of Tours.

The Battle of Hattin is a turning point, but Prof. Armstrong practically salivates over what a great guy Saladin was. I can't really blame her for that because that seems to be the PC version of the guy. Here's what I've written about Saladin on another Great Courses review that also thought he was a great guy. It's from my Great Courses review on Islam

"He then talks about how Saladin spared Jerusalem when he took it. He doesn't mention the account of Saladin taking Hattin. Saladin's secretary writes this account of how he treated the prisoners there: "[Saladin] ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair." He also doesn't mention that the Saladin planned to treat the prisoners at Jerusalem the same way. The reason he didn't it was because of an agreement he had reached with Christian commander of the city Balian of Ibelin who had threatened to kill all of the Muslims in the city of Jerusalem before Saladin could reach it if he didn't agree to spare the prisoners. He also only "spared" the prisoners that could be ransomed to freedom, the rest were sold as slaves. Nice guy Saladin. If you go to the Wikipedia account of the massacre of Ayyadieh it ends with this ironic sentence

"Aayadieh is perhaps the strongest refutation of Richard as a courteous and chivalrous warrior king. On this occasion his almost "theatrical" staging of the massacre showed that he was capable of using terror tactics in an attempt to terrify his opponents into submission. Ironically, Saladin's counter massacre did not hurt his reputation."

Many people point out how well Richard and Saladin got along even though they were adversaries. Saladin even sent his physician, who was probably much, much better than anything Richard had, to treat him when Richard was ill. They probably got along well because they were kindred spirits. Why does Dr. Espisito not tell this, if he "has" to tell about the villains of the plot why only the Christian villains? Muslims know Saladin, and not the happy charitable Saladin the west is told about by Dr. Esposito."

All that Prof. Tells us about Saladin and Hattin is he did behead was behead Raynald de Chatillon, who probably deserved it, and let King Guy go after giving him ice water. Well when supposedly knowledgeable people present facts like this no wonder everyone thinks Saladin was a paragon of virtue.

I liked some of the information she gave that came from her women studies background. I'd never heard of the women doctors before.

I'm always a little leery of taking professors to task here. After all they're professors and I'm a programmer. After reading some of the other reviews I see that I'm not the only one who finds her presentation one sided. However, I found her a most engaging lecturer. You can tell she loves the topic and she was very entertaining once you got used to her style. I'd recommend this this series to anyone, but I'd warn them of the biases, and after wards I'd want to see what they thought of it.

Great Courses: Great World Religions: Judaism

This was an awesome course. This was the first course I've heard from Dr. Gafni, but it will not be my last because after hearing this course I searched for more lectures by Dr. Gafni and found that he has one more set. Consider me sold. I learned something during every lecture. That usually happens, but with Dr. Gafni it seemed enlightening to me. He obviously loves the topic and presented it well.

Highly recommended.

Great Courses: Great World Religions: Islam

When I saw who was giving this course I was prepared to hate the course.  Dr. Espisito is a well know Islamic scholar who is an Islamic apologist.  He will not even condemn Hezbollah or Hamas.  He portrays them as a Sinn Fein type organization with an IRA arm.  However, Sinn Fein never felt that the Northern Ireland shouldn't exist, just that Ireland shouldn't be under British Rule.  Hezbollah and Hamas both think that Israel should not exist at all, and have that as a goal in the charters of their organizations.  Granted some people in those organizations have thought they were violent enough against Israel and will broke away, but they are not like Sinn Fein.

With that being said I didn't actually dislike the course as much as I thought I would, and I actually learned a few things, although not many.  I agree with many who have said that it probably would have been better to have a believer give the course than an outsider.  Dr. Espisito is Roman Catholic, which doesn't really matter, except that he's not Muslim.  Also, he does give a biased presentation of Islam, but to be fair, he gives the presentation that most people in academia give of Islam, which I think is disturbing.

I will give some examples.  He doesn't present the crusades as an outright attack by the Christians on the innocent Muslims, he does give some background and that the Byzantine Emperor had called for help with the Muslim attacks.  He also said that one reason the Pope called for the crusades was to increase his political position.  I haven't heard that before, and it's probably got some truth behind it.  He also said that there were hero and villains on both side on the war.  Then he proceeds to talk about the Crusaders sack of Jerusalem and King Richards massacre of the prisoners at Ayyadieh.  He then talks about how Saladin spared Jerusalem when he took it.  He doesn't mention the account of Saladin taking Hattin.  Saladin's secretary writes this account of how he treated the prisoners there: "[Saladin] ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison.  With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve.  Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair."  He also doesn't mention that the Saladin planned to treat the prisoners at Jerusalem the same way.  The reason he didn't it was because of an agreement he had reached with Christian commander of the city Balian of Ibelin who had threatened to kill all of the Muslims in the city of Jerusalem before Saladin could reach it if he didn't agree to spare the prisoners.  He also only "spared" the prisoners that could be ransomed to freedom, the rest were sold as slaves.  Nice guy Saladin.  If you go to the Wikipedia account of the massacre of Ayyadieh it ends with this ironic sentence

"Aayadieh is perhaps the strongest refutation of Richard as a courteous and chivalrous warrior king. On this occasion his almost "theatrical" staging of the massacre showed that he was capable of using terror tactics in an attempt to terrify his opponents into submission. Ironically, Saladin's counter massacre did not hurt his reputation."

Many people point out how well Richard and Saladin got along even though they were adversaries.  Saladin even sent his physician, who was probably much, much better than anything Richard had, to treat him when Richard was ill.  They probably got along well because they were kindred spirits.  Why does Dr. Espisito not tell this, if he "has" to tell about the villains of the plot why only the Christian villians?  Muslims know Saladin, and not the happy charitable Saladin the west is told about by Dr. Esposito.

Dr Espisto also says that every one of the suras, or chapters, of the Quran, starts with the bismillah "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful"   That's mostly true, except that it doesn't start the 9th Sura, or the "so called", as Dr. Esposito would say, Sword Sura.  That's what the "critics" of Islam call it, the name that Muslims give it is "The Repentance" or "The Ultimatum."  As Dr. Espisito says, "Many, not all consider this the last word of Mohammed..."  He says this about Quran 9:71-72 and says that this is how a man should treat his wife, as an equal.  I didn't know that those ayahs were interpreted that way and were applied to marriage.  So I learned something there.  Dr. Esposito also didn't mention that there is another ayah in the Quran 4:34 that says that it's OK to beat your wife if she's disobedient, but that since the 9th Sura comes later it abrogates the former ayah.  It's good to know that some Islamic scholars interpret the Quran that way.

Dr. Esposito also talked about the ayahs that the "critics", as Dr. Esposito called them, always talk about.  The so called "sword verses".  I was actually surprised that he talked about these at all.  Not to worry though.  We just don't understand them in context.  Many Christians understand that other Christians will rip proof texts out of the Bible and that when put in context they can sound different, so Dr. Esposito is going to set our minds at ease here.  He quotes 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush."  Yes you're right Dr. Esposito that sounds terrible, so here is the second line that puts it in context and makes it all OK.  "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free."  Really Dr. Esposito, putting it in context makes it better!!!!  If we convert and pay the zakat (which he talks about as one of the pillars of Islam) the Muslims are supposed to leave us alone, otherwise it's OK to ambush us idolaters?  That doesn't seem to make it any better to me.

Also, although he mentioned it with respect to marriage he doesn't mention that these so called "sword verses" are also in the last word of Mohhamad, and the only sura that doesn't start with the bismillah, the 9th Sura.  He also doesn't talk about the ayahs that say that Muslims should not be friends with Christians or Jews.  It's things like this that make people say that Dr. Esposito is giving a slanted view of Islam.

Now that I've written how bad the lectures are, they actually aren't that bad.  The lecture I learned the most on was lecture 4 about how the different law codes came about and the Sufis.  Also, Dr. Esposito is a much better scholar of Islam than I am, or I hope he is, and he does seem anguished that there is no Islamic nation that is not plagued by terrorist unrest or civil war.  He also seems to really believe that Islam has been hijacked by a violent minority.  It does seem that way to me, however, I don't think that ignoring the reasons that there is that violent minority is the way to help reform Islam.  Judaism and Christianity have changed over the years.  Jews have worked out how their religion works without a temple.  Christians, and Jews have worked out how to get around slavery and usury.  There are plenty of ways that the Quran can be interpreted peacefully, and America should be a safe haven for all Muslims that want to take that path.  Dr. Esposito says that is what he is doing, and I truly hope he is, but in my opinion, closing your eyes to all the bad things about Islam is not helping it reform, it's just letting the wolf into the sheepfold.

Great Courses: Comparitive Religions

One of my main interests in listening to Great Courses lectures is listening to the courses on religion and philosophy.  I saw this lecture series and thought it would be interesting.  I can only say that it's a very basic course.  If you didn't know that humans are pretty much the same throughout time and history this series will show you that they are.

I only listen to the lectures, and I must say that Dr. Kimball's presentation was passionless.  I had to listen to the first lecture over because I believed he said that he was a Christian minister.  I kept wondering what a sermon by Dr. Kimball would be like if this was what his lectures were.  I found it funny too because you can tell that he has been very involved in the ecumenical movement and had very interesting stories to tell, but he gave them in a very flat tone.  I personally didn't find this lecture series very informative and couldn't really recommend it unless it was to someone who know nothing about comparative religious studies at all.

Great Courses Review: The Barbarian Empires of the Steppes

I'm becoming a Professor Harl aficionado. When I saw that he was the professor for this course I was excited about listening to it. I'm primarily a listener of the GC presentations, and Dr. Harl is one of the best.

I loved this series. When you stop and think about it, we learn in school about the West, and a little about the East, mostly China and a little about Japan and Korea, mainly as they interact with China. Then you learn about the fantastic Silk Road and how much impact it had in bringing the rich products of the East to the West. OK, did the Silk Road happen magically? Obviously no, and this series fills in the dark hole of how it worked.

One of the things that I really liked was that Dr. Harl said that Islam was influenced by the Persian Empire much more than the Roman Empire. In another lecture series, I can't remember off the top of my head, the Roman Empire is said to have left three civilizations in it's wake: Western, Eastern Orthodox, and Islamic. I've always felt that was wrong and that Islam was much more influenced by Persia than Rome. Dr. Harl makes the case for Persia as well, which is probably why I like it since it agrees with my thoughts.

I do find one thing funny about Dr. Harl's presentation. He doesn't give enough credit to the transfer of technology from the east to the west. He seems to think that the only idea that the West took from the East, via the Steppes, was gunpowder. He says the West took that technology and advanced it as artillery and hand held weapons which could be mounted on ships and this led to the West's subjection of the East. Well that's true, but the West also took the compass and improved it so they could sail their ships, they took printing and improved it so they could print cheap books and so transfer knowledge more easily, they took paper and used it in industrial amounts in the cheap books they read to transfer knowledge. They took algebra and applied it to real world applications so their mounted artillery worked better. I could go on. I think this is the first GC lecture series where I didn't think the lecturer gave the East enough credit for the West's development. It was bizarre. He may think that gunpowder was the most influential idea that was transfer ed, or had the most impact but it is weird that gunpowder is the only thing he mentioned.

Great course. I would highly recommend it.

Great Courses - The Philosophy of Science

This was a very tough course for me.  I'm glad that I listened to the "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It" before I listened to this, or I doubt that I could have understood any of it.  Unless you have a real interest in this topic you might want to listen to the other lectures as well.

However, I've listened to this lectures series twice now, and gotten more out of it each time and I'll probably do a little more reading and come back to it again.  I got one excellent term out of this series although Dr. Kasser never says it but he almost says it "Science is epistemologically privileged", and it's what he means.  As a society we tend to think that if it's scientific the information must be better.

Dr. Kasser's presentation is excellent.  If it wasn't I could never have stayed with the lectures.  I thought he brought up a lot of good an interesting ideas, and I have to admit that I've always thought Science was a little special, even though I've always been glad to be an engineer and thought that engineering is better than science.  I was surprised at many of the points that he brought up.

One thing that drives me crazy about this is how powerful a concept logical positivism is as a philosophy even though it's been mostly shown to be lacking.  Most people that I know think that science is only facts that are indisputably proven.  I kept hoping that he would bring up A.J. Ayer who said that the only thing wrong with logical positivism was that is was almost all wrong, but he didn't.  I actually heard that in another Great Courses Lecture Series, but I forget which one it was.

Good course.  I'd recommend it but with reservations.

Great Courses - Science and Religion

Here's my review of this set of lectures.  I don't know if it's going to get posted on the Great Courses site it's a little polemical.

I thought this was a very good set of tapes. I'me giving it a high ranking because of some of the low rankings that it's received. I thought this might be a good set of lectures to listen to, but I seriously thought it might just be covering ground that I've already covered in other lecture series that I've listened to such as "Skeptics and Believers". I looked at the rating and thought, man that's a low rating (it's actually gone up since I first looked at purchasing the set) and then I started reading the reviews. It was the low reviews of this set of lectures that did it for me. I bought it listened to it and enjoyed it.

There is a belief system in the world that hates religion, and believes that they have co-opted science. When you question their world view at all they become rabid. I think some of the reviews show this. Can you imagine that someone might question Saint Sagan!!!??? One of their most rabid leaders is Dr. Richard Dawkins, perhaps Pope Dawkins is better — who I believe hung out with Saint Sagan and may become unquestionable as well once he dies — who actually believes that the power of the state should be used to stop anyone from questioning his world view. That sounds exactly like the Catholic Church that tried to shut down Galileo. However, as Dr. Principe tries to show there was a lot more going on than just that they disagreed with Galileo. I don't know why Dr. Dawkins thinks that anyone that disagrees with him must be insane, and won't even debate with them because to do so give them credibility (I believe that's what he told Saint Sagan now that I think about it). If Dr. Dawkins is so sure about the power of his ideas he ought to debate every time he get a chance, to overcome their ideas with the power of his, not try to shut ideas down, but no: Shut those heretical ideas down he believes.

Anyone that would like a more nuanced approach to what has happened in the interactions between religion and science should like this set of lectures.

Science: It's Not What It's Cracked Up To Be part 1

I've listened to a bunch of lectures on the history of science, and the the philosophy of science and what I got out of it was pretty astounding. Science is nowhere near what I thought it was cracked up to be.

In my experience Science is taught in schools as fearlessly pursuing the truth, shining the pure light of reason on the mysteries of the universe wherever that might lead.  It's taught in an almost Whiggish fashion.  If there are questions in a scientific theory everyone accepts that and they work towards the answer knowing that only the fact matter.  That's not the way it is at all.

The first crack was when I first learned about Creation Science.  I went to BYU, a well know LDS sponsered college.  I got a degree in Mechanical Engineering.  I always wondered in the back of my mind if I was being duped by not believing completly in Evolution.  I mean I couldn't doubt my spirtual experiences, but did that spill over into Science?  I of course thought yes.  Then I joined a Christian Toastmasters group because it was suggested that I should by a sales job manager I had at the time.  One presentation there was done by a PhD Physicist who worked at Sandia Laboratory and he gave a presentation on how Young Earth Creationism works with Einstien Relativity.  I can't remember exactly what he said, and while I won't be suprised to find out that YEC is correct, I'm a little skepical about it.  What I do remember is thinking that I'd never heard anything that this guy was talking about!  Next day I was at the library checking out a book on Creation Science and what I read was astounding.  They seemed to have very good arguments, or reinterpretaions of the evidence of Evolution.  The idea in the back of my head that I was being duped was gone, I wasn't being duped by religion I was being misinformed by our education system.

That being said, I'm not against evolution being taught in schools, and would be upset if it wasn't.  I read in book about LDS Scholars where they shared their testimonies, a biologist said that he sometimes found it strange that he worked in a field that had at it's foundation an idea, evolution, that he didn't necessarily believe in.  That's all that I remember and I'm not sure what he meant.  I would say that it's obvious that species evolve and I think that's what biology is based on.  To me it's not obvious that species evolve into other species.  However, I made sure that my kids knew that there were other interpretations to what they were learning in school.

That was my first crack that maybe science is not everything that it's cracked up to be.  Over the years I'd read interesting things like that when the data by Miliken and the oil drop experiment, and Mendel's sweet pea data were examined with statistics it was discovered that the data was most likely faked.  Oh well at least they were right, and everyone cheats a little I thought.  I also read that Author Eddington was so sure that Einstien was right that he only showed the photos that proved that he was right, and ignored that ones that didn't by the logic that something must be wrong with them.  Well Einstien was right, right?  Well I then read a book called "Kicking the Sacred Cows" by James P. Hogan.  Mr. Hogan was a very good science fiction writer that I'd discovered on the Baen Books site, and when I read the excerpt on the book I didn't think it sounded that interesting.  Mr. Hogan sounded much like myself, with a few differences.  One big difference is that he describes himself as agnostic.  He had an engineering degree, and he bought into Evolution whole heartedly.  He explained that in his early novels he'd written about evolution as a fact.  Then one day he'd seen a book about Creationism or Intellegent Design, and he read it mostly with the idea to ridicule it.  Well that didn't happen, he became convinced that Intellegent Design (ID) was correct.  After that his novels pushed ID, so much so that when Earthlings discovered inhabited planets elsewhere in the Universe it was possible to interbreed with them.  Reading "Kicking the Sacred Cow" was eye opening about just how unscientific science is.  One of the funny things about this is that Mr. Hogan points out that people who say that ID is just an in for Creationism don't know what they're talking about.  Mr. Hogan doesn't accept the Bible, and there are people from other religious faiths who accept ID and obviously don't accept the Bible.  Most people who say that about ID is just Creationism are just trying to discredit it.

Some of the things that Mr. Hogan wrote about I'd known about agreed with.  Others I'd never heard of before and was surprised to be reading the stuff.  The most embarrising thing about the book was the information on Immanual Velikovsky, who wrote "Worlds in Collision".  Someone had asked me what I thought about him at church and I'd just looked around the web and decided that he was a crackpot because that was the accepted account.  After reading the book I started reading a little more deeply around the web and decided that maybe he had some good ideas after all.  I don't know that I agree with all of them but I don't dismiss them all now like I used to.  Pretty much everything that was said in Mr. Hogan's book I now agree with.

Great Courses - Science Wars: What Scientist Know and How They Know It

I recently listened to this lecture series again, and I liked it more the second time around than the first.  The professor is excellent in his presentation.  I love the historical approach that he takes for building up his ideas.  I also loved his development of his ideas around the concept of the God vs. The Earth Giants.

I often say a lectures series, or a book, is awsome if you get one great idea, or concept from it.  Well the great idea that I got from this series is how modern science seems to be built around a logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.  The first time I listened to the series I went back and listened to the lecture that explains this idea 3 times because I found the idea so astounding.  I also really appreciated how he points out that for many years technology drove science.  The statement was that no one would mistake the Wright brothers for scientists was marvelous.  Yet they figured out how to make a flying machine, then the scientists helped to make it better.

I highly recommend this series.  I also highly recommend it if you're considering the Philosophy of Science series because this one is much more accessible and lays the ground work for what is cover in that series.

Great Courses - The American Mind

This was a pretty good course.  It was taught by Professor Allen C. Guelzo.  Dr. Guelzo's presentation manner was excellent and the information was well presented.

Professor Guelzo said that there would be six recurring themes that would run through the lectures.  I forgot what they all were but two of them were that the Puritan beginnings of America and the Enlightenment were the two minds of America and they would continue to interact throughout the series.  I thought that was an excellent point and was well developed throughout.

There was one thought that was presented that I thought made the entire lecture series worth while.  He said that when Englishmen read Locke they had to imagine society rising from a state of nature and entering into contracts to keep their property safe.  However, the American's didn't have to use their imagination they could see it taking place around them.  I've never thought of it that way.  It was awesome.

I really enjoyed the first half of the series up until Lincoln and the Civil War.  Then I started noticing that Dr. Guelzo was concentrating on the liberal and progressive thought process of the American mind.  I kept waiting for him to mention the Christian Fundamental movement of the 20th Century.  Practically the only mention of it was when he said the Reinhold Nieburh was too old and tired to respond to something negative that Billy Graham said about him.  That's the only mention Billy Graham which was the only mention of the Fundamental movement, and Billy Graham wasn't that great a mention of the movement anyway.  Reinhold Nieburh is the only Christian mentioned in the 20th Century, and while he's a good representative I wouldn't say that he represented most American Christians.

However, in the 36th Lecture he redeems or explains himself.  He said that there were many strands of thoughts that he could have covered and that he covered those that he knew the best.  I'm sure that's true.  He also, talked about the conservative movement, and how he thought that President Regan was the first conservative president elected.  I thought that was pretty good.  He also said that he thought that the left was caught be surprise when Regan was elected because they had totally bought into Marxist idea that mankind was homo economist, or man driven by economics.  With Regan they voted culturally.  this delivered 5 of the next 7 presidencies to the Republicans.  I wish it was that the current Republicans would learn that lesson: people don't just vote their pocket books but sometimes vote their consciences if they have a choice.  Of course this caught the the left by surprise for much the same reason that Dr. Guelzo didn't cover the Christian Fundamental movement.  The Left ignores the majority of Christians, and just relates with the intellectual Christians like Reinhold Nieburh, the kind who wouldn't vote for Regan on a dare.

Overall an excellent lecture series.

Great Courses - Histroy of Christianity: From the Disciples to the Reformation

A few years ago a co-worker turned me on to the Great Courses.  Since then I've gotten a number of courses and have really enjoyed them.  I feel almost like a History Major now.  I've decided to start writing reviews on them as I get a chance and decided to post the reviews here as well.

A few years ago a co-worker turned me on to the Great Courses.  Since then I've gotten a number of courses and have really enjoyed them.  I feel almost like a History Major now.  At first I pretty much just accepted what was said, but now I’ve definitely developed some opinions myself and  I've decided to start writing reviews on them and decided to post the reviews here as well.

When I heard who this author was I thought; "Oh good a most likely a believer."  After all the professor Dr. Timothy Johnson is a former Benedictine Monk.  However, this was a lecture that was far from friendly. 

I am a believer in Christ and that Christianity is the greatest force for good in the world.  If this is an example of teaching about Christianity in colleges it's no wonder that colleges turn out atheists so often.  I usually expect this in most lecture but sometimes it's not true.  Dr. Phillip Cary for instance seems to give good lectures that are positive without being fawning.  Professor William Cook seems to be able to do so as well.

Dr. Johnson wasn't outright hostile, but he seems to present everything in the most negative light possible.  Two examples stood out.  First he said that the 4th Crusade was hijacked by the Venetians and they conquered Constantinople.  I guess that's not incorrect but it's got to be the worst possible light to portray what happened.  He sounded positively gloating as he talked about the inquisition.  It seemed almost with regret that he admits that the inquisition averaged only 3 deaths per year it it was mentioned only in passing not emphasized.  The English started a propaganda campaign against the Spanish when the Spanish were the European super power and it seems to have been successful because Dr. Johnson is still propagating it.  I've read from other historians that the Inquisition was really put in place to stop the worse offenses caused by over zealous Catholics punishing those they thought were heretics.  The statement about the Inquisition only causing  3 deaths a years would seem to support this, but you wouldn't guess from the way the whole section was presented.

That being said I overall enjoyed this lecture series, and it's not the first that I've heard from Dr. Johnson.  I did really enjoy this series.  I especially enjoyed the amount of time he gave to the Eastern Orthodox part of Christianity, and the branches that were considered heretics such as the Nestorians and the Monophysites.