A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology

[Montmorency]

That's not true about history. It's too complex to simplify into a narrative (define roughly as a story simple enough for you to explain it verbally and have someone understand it). That's why historical narratives end up saying things like "and then Rome fell, and Europe was plunged into the dark ages".

Chronology is complex. History is about simplifying chronology into a comprehensible narrative. I notice you picked a very simplistic and discredited narrative, anyway.

There is enough of an understanding.

Then it is simply prejudice against science which you proselytize. Religion in America very clearly has an ideological upper hand.

A large part of what such thinkers have to deal with was the same then as it is now.

For how much longer?

Other questions are circumstantial to the times and involve the adaptations people have had to make to changes in the world. So there is an important place for modern thinkers, but older thinkers are crucial as well--not only because there is a very limited number of great thinkers, but because they dealt with some things honestly that we lie about, and they had some things right that we have wrong.

Perhaps you relate to the moral conclusions of the greats, I don't know. I think that's silly, but we'll leave it aside. How can you see their non-moral philosophy, on the other hand, as having any worth at all? At least, I hope you don't.

Defense can be a good method of offense.

The attacker has the advantage of choosing the point of concentration, unless the defender has extensive reserves and excellent intelligence - this has up to now not usually been the case.

Yes, and I could say the same about religion--people who misuse it

This is crucial. It is impossible to misuse religion; it is possible to misuse a particular fixed doctrine, but religion is whatever one wants it to be. Science, however, at least within a particular historical context, can indeed be misused - that is, misapplied.

We are arguing about the misuse of it

But you aren't referring to the misuse of science - you are referring to the derivation of inappropriate - as you see it - conclusions from scientific data. This is quite an important distinction.

Some people need to feel like their moral compass is rational and logically cohesive

You don't believe your moral compass is rational and logically coherent or consistent? I've never heard that one before. Unusual. Does that explain your strange beliefs?

But imagine a moral philosophy which didn't consider human life to be sacred.

Done. Easy.

As an analogy, think of the people who try to use science or logic to figure out something social like dating.

They presumably try to investigate particular aspects of the courtship ritual. What's wrong with that? Ethology can be applied to humans just as well as to chimps...