Quote:

You have Euwe, Lasker, Tal, Botwinnik and probably Karpov as a mix of academics and chess. You have Fischer, Kasparov and probably some more Wch (Petrosjan springs to my mind)as no connection between academics (and sometimes reality) and chess. And then you have the bonvivants like Capablanca, Spassky and Aljechin, who focused everything on chess when they needed it and for the rest didnt care.

As a side note, just because something is not scientific does not make it inaccurate or not true.  The scientifice method is based on repeatability.  A hypothosis is tested, and the for it to be confirmed it must be able to be tested by others under the same conditions.  It works very well.

However, using the scientific method you can't prove things such as whether Abraham Lincoln ever existed.  Since it is not repeatable, it cannot be proven using the scientific method.  Other methods such as the legal/historical method must be used where you look at the weight of the evidence and not on repeatability.

It is a vast error to equate empiricism and intellectualism.

Just a thought

Ah

Quote:

Well basically her statement was basicly as you say though certainly not that specific, however in typical christian democratic fashion she later said that that was not what she had meant, she had only meant to start a debate between scientists (prompted by that idiotic law thingy on the subject in Kansas iirc). 

I think that will make it much clearer for the foreigners

Not disagreeing with you. The only scientific part of it is where they try to point out loopholes in the evolution theory (and usually not very convincing). They dont create a scientific theory themselves. 
I was merely responding to the statement about our minister.

Quote:

I'd like to see her go for a host of reasons, but that is not what she said. She said something along the lines that there should be a debate about the intelligent design theory (which also without much scientific backing is not the same as the creation "theory") in academic circles.

Especially the unilateralism explains a lot of anti-USA tendencies in Europe - and probably in the rest of the world too.
History teaches us, that a world power threatens to decline if the development of science comes to a halt. The Roman and the Chinese empire are good examples.
But I am not sure, if the place of chess in a society is a good indicator. Especially the example of the Soviet-Union is complicated and dubious.

Chessbase recently posted a very interesting article from Prospect about the relationship between chess and intellectualism, arguing that the place of chess in European culture reflects the rise and fall of the educated elite.  The URL is: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2431. ; It got me to thinking about the success of chess in the former Soviet Union, where chess and (to a degree) intellectualism were encouraged; chess was also a safe outlet for intellectual energies among the country's brighter citizens who might otherwise have been persecuted.  While the article examines the European example, I wonder if it might be applied to the United States?  Intellectualism in America has been in serious decline since the 1970s and drastically so since 1980.  This theory would overlap with Fischer's withdrawal from chess (not that we should read too much into the correlation of this), and the almost complete ascendency of American immigrants taking over the highest ranks of chess in the United States.  Exceptions, of course, exist, but it seems as though they prove--rather than discredit--the rule.  I've noticed some interesting under-currents throughout a number of threads on this forum that discuss the differences of style/approach/interest/etc. of chess on either side of the Atlantic, and I wonder to what extent the role or place of intellectualism plays a role?

At the moment, the United States is rejecting evolutionary theory in public schools, charging university professors with bias, and seeking to abolish the tenure system at universities (which was designed to ensure that academics could use free speech without losing their jobs).  In "Old" Europe, these institutions are less under attack.  This is perhaps a rather simplistic or anecdotal sort of evidence, but it raises an interesting question about the relationship between chess, culture, and politics.  I'd be interested for people's thoughts...