News and Politics Forum

I'm torn between two responses.



The first is to point out that if the questions are that stupid (etc), they should be very easy to answer. And yet, you seem unable to do so.


The other response is a line from the movie; "What's Love Got To Do With It?" in which Laurence Fishburne's Ike Turner says to Angela Bassett's Tina Turner;
    ".... baby, you’ve got more excuses than a canadian going to jail ..."


BTW, I've quoted your post below because it's just.... Classic. I almost wish I could have it as my signature.




==========================================================

Qwinn wrote:

Oh noes!  I've been baited!  How can I possibly resist?

Easily.

You know why?  Cause you're wrong.  You think you're so fucking intelligent, but the fact is that you asked two of the stupidest, most moronic, senseless questions I've ever seen posed.  The only challenge they would pose in answering is how to do it without so much condescension that it would seem like I was talking to a complete retard.  Now, I don't feel the necessity to forebear from doing so when talking to -you-, because you -are- one.  That's why I'm willing to wait until someone besides you asks those questions, at which point it will pose the stated challenge and therefore be worth bothering.

It shouldn't be so hard to find someone else I've pissed off on here.  Go ahead, beg them to ask me.  As stated, I'll attempt to do so without the condescension that you deserve for not only thinking of them, but thinking they're so witty as to be even minimally difficult to answer.

And if someone else wants to ask me to answer the questions simply because it's been a while since I've been able to be bothered to give you the pummeling/smackdown you deserve to receive 24/7 just for being you, and they feel that the karmic balance of the cosmos is in peril by virtue of your having been allowed to exist for a period of time without being confronted with the sheer banality of your own existence, I can work with that too.

Cause -you-, by yourself, aren't worth the trouble, either to respond to or to take seriously.

Qwinn

MC Escher wrote:

Which is very much the objection some have to evolution as the explanation of the origin of man being taught in science classes.

Science can point to a vast collection of physical evidence collected over many years that traces the evolution of the various species on this planet. In the last few decades that includes a large body of DNA evidence.

All of which indicate man's history rather than his origin.

MC Escher wrote:

But again, I think you're missing a very important and surprisingly simple distinction here.
When evolution is taught in science classrooms the students are presented with the information on where the theory originated, the body of evidence that it has occurred and the predictions made that experiments were able to substantiate.

I think it is fair to conclude that neither of us has been in every biology or chemistry classroom, and are therefore poorly positioned to explain how this is taught.  My own highschool biology class involved explicit instruction that the bible is not a biology text and that biology answers based on it are wrong, full stop.  From my conversations with any, i conclude that there is a large body of people who cannot distinguish the methodological materialism of the material sciences from claims that materialism is correct, as well as people who consciously conflate methodological materialism and metaphysical materialism.

Teaching metaphysical materialism in a science class is no less a transmission of belief than teaching creationism.  Teaching AGW in a science class is no less a transmission of political and economic beliefs than a critical and logical analysis of the assertion implies.

You may not like the people who believe one or another position on these issues, but critical thinking about them isn't something worth avoiding.

MC Escher wrote:

This is the "wrong room" objection.

No, I'm sorry... It's really not.

You've no objection to addressing these question in an optional philosophy course, but oppose the very same content in a science classroom.  This expresses no objection but the "room" in which it occurs.  That why my "wrong room" objection label.

MC Escher wrote:

If a thing is worth teaching a child, the room and time of day are not material.

The room has nothing to do with it.
It's what's being DONE in the room.

A Science Class or a Philosophy class are not defined by the physical environment, they are defined by their subject matter.

This returns us to the idea that the two disciplines are separate.  For reasons that recurr throughout this thread that is problemmatic.

MC Escher wrote:

Math is a tough example because it is straight philosophy, not one of the material sciences.  1+1=2 is not itself axiomatic unless you assume that your numerical system is at least base 3.

No, it's a science, a very rigid one. It's just not a PHYSICAL science.
Also, 1+1=2 is ALWAYS axiomatic. It can't be proven, it can only be demonstrated.

Two points, one minor, one more general:

First, 1+1=2 assumes both that the number two exists and that the answer is not 10, as I believe it would be if your range of numbers tops out at 1.  This is only to illustrate that every assertion, even biological or ecological ones, will necessarily rest on beliefs not proven or demonstrated, but believed true even if only conditionally.

Second, if you assert that Mathematics, a field of formal symbolic logic so detached from our physical experience that it includes imaginary numbers, is a field of science, then you have drawn the limits of "science" so broadly that it includes all classical philosophy.  This "science"/knowledge includes physics, sociology, grammar, politics, aesthetics, logic, and metaphysics.

I don't at all object to placing all our knowledge in one big bag, but it then is grossly inconsistent to reject so many sorts of knowledge as not "science".

MC Escher wrote:

Similarly, any scientific view will rest on conclusions it takes as given.  Chemists have long assumed the existence of electrons for their work, even without ever having observed them.  This work requires at least a qualified belief in the existence of electrons.  This belief is an integral and necessary part of a chemistry class.

Outside of knowing how to make things go boom, I don't know a lot about chemistry.
I do know that if you are saying what it APPEARS to me that you are saying, that there are some problems with your statement.

Would you be kind enough to back up and take another pass at that?

No problem.

If it is 1940 and I am a student of chemistry, my discipline involves models built on assumptions that atoms are made of protons and electrons, neither of which anyone has ever seen.  That doesn't mean that the model is wrong at all, but it does mean that this very productive field of study involves beliefs in things we've not seen.  That doesn't mean that the belief is irrational, or even that differeing beliefs about the same thing are irrational.  Is light a wave or a particle?  Different disciplines will come to different conclusions about which assumption is more productive or fits into a larger model with greater explanatory power.

These contigent beliefs, not held for their objective truth but for their power to explain, are epistemologically the same kinds of beliefs that Aristotle used to explain gravity.  We don't know them in any direct way, but they fit into a system of belief that makes good sense.


Let's look at this legislation from another angle.

Your son is taught by his science teacher that AGW is real, and an enormous present threat only to be averted by immediate, coordinated, international action to limit carbon emissions.  Your son is even shown Al Gore's film.

Now, would you like those conclusions to be accepted uncritically, or would a better education involve subjecting those claims to some logical rigor and critical analysis?

Qwinn wrote:

LOL.  Yeah.  You keep up with that whole "you're unable to answer" thing... by the sixth or seventh time you repeat it, it'll just make you look that much more of an idiot if someone does come along and asks me to smack you down again.

But why bother with just you?  Why answer the stupid ass questions so you can just turn around and claim "Heh, I only fuck with him cause he's so easy to bait", like trolls always do when they're smacked down?  Why let you successfully troll yet again?  Nah.  Your troll powers are null as far as I'm concerned, nak.  You'll have to find someone willing to help you troll, cause you yourself are such a sad comical figure that you're incapable of making yourself worth the time it takes to smack you down anymore.  If you're craving the sort of validation that you obviously get from having people notice you, even if it's with loathing, you'll have to find someone else willing to ask me to give it to you.

Qwinn

Nobody is going to rescue you Quinn. The nature of the questions is such that they cannot be answered on your behalf.

** YOU made the statements that led to the questions in the first place.

** YOU are the only one who can answer the questions because the questions are doing nothing more than asking you to defend/clarify your own statements.

** YOU were the one who decided to poke your nose into this thread and pick a fight.

** YOU were the one that demanded that back up my assertion that you can't think for yourself.



Well, you got your wish Quinn.

You have two questions that you cannot answer by Googling or going into your Bookmark list of "Other Peoples Posts".


The ball is in YOUR court Quinn. What you do with it is your problem.

Qwinn wrote:

Nobody is going to rescue you Quinn. The nature of the questions is such that they cannot be answered on your behalf.

** YOU are the only one who can answer the questions because ...

You take my statement that if you want me to answer the questions you'll have to find someone else to ask me to do it, and you turn it into me wanting someone else to answer them -for- me?

LOL.  You are the reason I didn't tell iD he was the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

Qwinn

I see...

You're under the impression that you're doing something clever.



You're thinking that if you can engineer a situation where ANYONE else re-asks you those simple questions, you will then be off the hook.

Not because you will then be able to answer the questions. You'll still be just as incapable of original thought as you ever were.

But you figure that once someone else asks you the questions, you can then toss out any ridiculous answer you want and thereafter claim that:

a) You answered the questions, and;
b) You don't bother to talk to me.

No, I just think it'll be funny watching you try to find someone who'll agree with your utterly bizarre accusation that I lack my own opinions.  You've taken what is probably my worst flaw - that I'm highly opinionated - and have tried to morph this into the 100% opposite.  It's hilarious, and even though I know there's plenty of people around here who hate my guts, I doubt anyone else is so stupid or delusional as to go -that- far in order to help you out here, or to want to associate themselves with your contemptible failed attempts at trolling.

That, or, if someone has had a bad day and needs to be cheered up by seeing you smacked down like the helpless impotent bitch you are once again... I'll comply for that reason too.

You're thinking that if you can engineer a situation where ANYONE else re-asks you those simple questions, you will then be off the hook.

This is so f'ing delusional.  If someone else asks me, that puts me -on- the hook.  I swear, I can't even begin to understand what the fuck passes for logic in that malignant tumor in your skull.

I mean, if I gave a "ridiculous answer", how the fuck was that situation made any better by having someone else ask me?  How the fuck did that get me "off the hook"?  If anything, that would make me look twice as bad.

God you're a moron.

Qwinn

P.S.  Your repugnant attempt to distort what I said into a plea for someone to answer the questions -for- me will not be forgotten, you impotent turd.  Look, I think that attempt made it clear how desperate you are.  I'll look in every once in a while to see if you've found someone (and not a brand new poster sock puppet, by the way) willing to hop on the delusional troll train with you, and I'll answer should that happen, but other than that, don't expect to bait me into another reply, cause they won't be coming.

Last edited by Qwinn (06-29-2008 08:05 PM)

If you don't mind me responding out of order, I can be more succinct.

MC Escher wrote:

My own highschool biology class involved explicit instruction that the bible is not a biology text and that biology answers based on it are wrong, full stop. 

That would be correct. "The Bible" is NOT a biology text and biology answers based on them ARE wrong; full stop. There iare a TREMENDOUS number of genuine historical and archaeological facts within The Bible, as Sincha Jacobovici demonstrates on his Emmy Award winning series; "The Naked Archaeologist". But it is NOT a biology tract.

And Mark...
If you personally believe the literal story of Adam & Eve, tell me now. Please.

I believe you meant to ask me rather than Mark.

I have a less than average knowledge of the Bible and it has little role in any theological instruction I've had.

My point is not that my highschool biology instruction from a jesuit was incorrect, but that the idea that there is a national standard for the content of a biology class, including which form of evolution is taught, is dubious.

MC Escher wrote:

All of which indicate man's history rather than his origin.

Actually, we have a pretty solid idea of where we sit on the Primate Family Tree, going back millions of years before Homo Sapiens even arose. The origin of our species hasn't been a mystery for a long time. All we're doing now is using DNA evidence to fine tune our knowledge; particularly in terms of Migrations in Pre-History.

All of which would indicate man's history, not his origin in a specific physical sense and certainly not his complete and ultimate origin.

To the degree a science teacher instructs on the latter, I believe you would agree that he is no longer teaching matters we ordinarily associate with a biology class.

MC Escher wrote:

I think the fundamental point here is that this is not a battle of different belief systems.
Science class, on ANY subject; is a narrowly define thing.
Appropriate subject matter is physical evidence, observable phenomenon and Experimentation & Result.

I would find it entirely satisfactory if science instruction were always handled in the spirit you suggest, but I think it very often isn't.  When a political or philosophical agenda is pressed to a captive audience, there is an attempt to indoctrinate students in something beyond standard science.  That does involve a battle of belief systems and opening that sort of activity to critical analysis is one remedy.

MC Escher wrote:

Beyond that, what do you do? Have a discussion about it? Congratualtions, you have now converted science into philosophy.

This harkens back to a misconception of science as simply "I ran this experiment and these are my results", and science and philosphy as separable.  They are not.

Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics use different underlying assumptions, different philosophies.  One doesn't build on the other; it replaces it.

MC Escher wrote:

Even if you WANTED to bring an issue of faith into a science class, how would you?

One effective method would be to indoctrinate students into methodological materialism, then make the short jump to metaphysical materialism.

Another method would be to present one side of an argument that is not data driven on the issue of whether the US should yield bits of its sovereignty so we can stop the calamity of AGW, and then dismiss questions about the underlying "science" with the assertion that there is no real debate about the data.

MC Escher wrote:

Teaching AGW in a science class is no less a transmission of political and economic beliefs...

Of course it is. AGW is BAD SCIENCE because the proponents of AGW are overlooking the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation. But it is still SCIENCE.

I cannot agree.  The AGW movement is a political movement that marshalls data to support arguments that support its political positions.  It doesn't simply misinterpret data.  It starts with a conclusion, i.e. that man is a hostile presence whose activities should be limited, and argues all facts as supportive of that belief.

But let's just call it bad science for the moment.  Doesn't that bad science deserve some sort of critique in the classroom if it is presented to students?

What have YOU got?

An understanding of the AGW as the same arguments deployed by the new ice age people and an appreciation of the corrupt nature of using pseudo-science as authority for otherwise unappealing political positions.

But that risks using critical thinking skills.

MC Escher wrote:

You've no objection to addressing these question in an optional philosophy course, but oppose the very same content in a science classroom.  This expresses no objection but the "room" in which it occurs.  That why my "wrong room" objection label.

Seriously Matt...
I know you, and I know that YOU know that's a BAD argument.
You've said to me more than once that you feel that these discussions are valuable as a teaching tool for the observers. But what are you trying to teach here? How to make a bad argument?
You know as well as I do that "Wrong Room" doesn't apply here, because the room itself is not the issue. Now I have to fix it.

Folks, what Matt is trying to do here is raise an issue in my argument. For the record, because it's easy to get lost in here; my argument is that a discussion involving the question of whether evolution was purely mechanistic or Intelligently driven is appropriate for a PHILOSOPHY class, but not a SCIENCE class.


His claim is that my argument is nothing more than an objection to physical location.

No, it isn't.  I put "wrong room" in quotes in recognition that it is a label rather than a summary.  The examples I used indicated the nature of the objection.

If a student in the gym is given 20 pushups as a punishment, and protest that he "ain't" going to do them, would it be wrong to give him five extra for saying "ain't"?  After all, it isn't an english class, and the subject matter of gym is all about getting exercise, not speaking properly.

Similarly, if a student meets an epistemologically dubious assertion made in a science class with "How do we know this?", your objection is that this isn't a matter of physical evidence or lab work, is therefore philosophy, and can't be addressed in the class in which the question arose.

Apparently they can't discuss the basis of their study because...

MC Escher wrote:

Have a discussion about it? Congratualtions, you have now converted science into philosophy.

MC Escher wrote:

Not SEEING something and not having evidence for something are two different things.

Theologians largely agree with you.

Much of your interest and argument seems animated by ID or creationism.  However the scope of the legislation seems less specific and more broad.

MC Escher wrote:

AGW is BAD SCIENCE, but at least it's still SCIENCE; with a legitimate possibility that it may yet turn out to be more correct than we realize.

Well, those people who write the "left behind" books might turn out to be more correct than either of us realise, which would be bad news all the way around, but I doubt that would turn their work into science.

MC Escher wrote:

"Critical Thinking" has NO MEANING outside of philosophy. "Critical Thinking" is what you do when you don't have physical evidence, observable phenomena or experimental data to rely upon.

History?  Politics?  Literature?  How would you distinguish a plausible hypothesis from a crumby one without critical thinking skills?

MC Escher wrote:

CS/IW is Faith, pure and simple.

And if you want to convince people otherwise, it'll take more than fancy rhetoric; it'll take evidence.

Fancy?  The only context in which I use that word is "fancy book learnin' and store bought clothes".

This bit leads me to believe that you are arguing against a creationist rather than my position.

As a matter of epistemology, I believe you attempt a bright line distinction between what we know, i.e. science/knowledge that we can confirm with rock hard indisputable evidence on the none hand, and on the other hand opinions we hold without support but bullheadedly believe anyway as matters of faith, an unreasoning resolution to believe.  If that is a pastiche it is a product of brevity, not hostility.  That dichotomy is untenable.

As a matter of politics, you seem to believe that the legislation is merely an excuse to teach creationism.  The text in the article doesn't indicate that.


If I've missed something pivotal in your prior post, let me know.

zukiphile wrote:

As a matter of politics, you seem to believe that the legislation is merely an excuse to teach creationism.  The text in the article doesn't indicate that.

I wanted to address this separately.

I do not judge either People or Politicians by their words. I judge them by their actions.

In Science, Correlation does not equal Causation. With people it often does.


Are you familiar with U. S. District Judge John E. Jones or the Dover Mandate?

Kitzmiller v. Dover PDF


In the interests of saving time, I'll borrow someone else's review:

U. S. District Judge John E. Jones issued a 139-page findings of fact and decision in which he ruled that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional.  Judge Jones's decision was surprisingly broad.  He concluded that "ID is not science," but rather is a religious theory that had no place in the science classroom.  Jones found three reasons for his conclusion that intelligent design was a religious, and not a scientific, theory.  First, he found ID violated  "the self-imposed convention" of the scientific method by relying upon a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon, rather that the approach favored in science: testability.  Second, ID is based on the same "contrived dualism" as creation science, namely its suggestion that every  piece of evidence tending to discredit evolution confirms intelligent design.  Jones found ID's "irreducible complexity" argument to be "a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design."  Finally, Jones concluded that the expert testimony offered by the defendants in support of ID (generally relating to "irreducible complexity") had been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers.

People of Faith in this country are going to someday realize that the Separation of Church and State doesn't just protect the State from the Church; it also Protects the Church from the State. Unfortunately, by the time they realize it; it will be too late.

MC Escher wrote:

Are you familiar with U. S. District Judge John E. Jones or the Dover Mandate?

"Familiar" may be too generous a characterisation.  I've read the decision and some of the writing for one of the P's experts.

The Dover case presents several problems.  The foremost and one specific to that case was that members of the board appeared to perjure themselves at trial. A number of them had a very clear history, on the record, of trying to have biblical creationism (not ID) taight in their school.  This kind of history in a case is what Paul Salamanca calls "the toxic backstory" - essentially, the improper act that comes to color subsequent innocuous acts in the eyes of the court.

This had some unfortunate effects on the court's opinion.  The court discusses at length what is and is not science, a matter not a legal issue, one in which he had no training, and therefore one in which he adopted the P's expert metaphysical analysis completely.  Like the expert, the court's thoughts about science and religion assume their own conclusions.  Infidel produced the expert's treatise without reading it, and became indignant at questions about it.

I want to read this from the beginning but don't have the free time.

MC Escher wrote:

In fact, I do not [claim that a discussion on Intelligent design should be "promoted" from Philosophy class to Science class].

Sure you do.

If I do, it should be easy to show where I claim that.

I've made the point repeatedly that philosophy and science are not separable in the manner you urge, and your link on demarcation touches on some of the problems with your distinction.

MC Escher wrote:

Do you believe that ID should be part of the curriculum in science class?

I think an examination of any metaphysical or political material presented in a class ostensibly dedicated to normal science like memorising the creb cycle and other things that drove me from the material sciences.

MC Escher wrote:

Like string theory?

The Large Hadron Collider is being built, in part; to try to create the energies needed to test string theory. The theory is also built on a mathematical foundation and is part of a larger body of cosmological work.

So it is built on philosophy and cosmology?  So is lots of theology.

MC Escher wrote:

Can you point me towards the mathematical foundation of Intelligent Design? Is there a body of work underlying Intelligent Design OTHER than the Bible or the need for Benevolent Aliens that are so advanced and Godlike that they were already "here" before the Big Bang?

Yes.  Some of its advocates are atheists, too.  Saw an interesting panel on CSPAN on that topic within the last year.  The mathematical material is cumbersome and beyond my interest, but it does exist.

MC Escher wrote:

Did you notice that you produced patently philosophical authority in support of your position that science and philosophy are two very different genres?

Trying to explain it to you from a scientific standpoint wasn't working.
And my I remind you that YOU are now attacking the FORM of my argument and not the substance?

I do not agree.  The substance of your last argument is that philosophy shows us what is and is not science, but that it would be somehow wrong to let philosophy invade the teaching of a discipline the limits and content of which are defined by philosophic work and authority.

Beyond that your link persuasively undercuts your position.

MC Escher wrote:

I claim that promoting critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories would not "unleash an assault against scientific integrity..."


This is not about "an assault on scientific integrity". It is about what IS and what IS NOT; Science.

I do not agree.  See post #4 in this thread.

MC Escher wrote:

And how is it that we come to believe in the things we can get our hands on?

I don't understand your question.

You assert,

MC Escher wrote:

If you cannot in any way "get your hands on it", metaphorically speaking; then the only way to believe in it is to CHOOSE to believe in it. And THAT my friend, is the definition of Faith.

As I understand your statement, you define faith as the only way to believe things you "cannot in any way "get your hands on"..., metaphorically speaking".

Is there a different way we come to believe things we can get our hands on?

Zukiphile wrote:

I've made the point repeatedly that philosophy and science are not separable in the manner you urge, and your link on demarcation touches on some of the problems with your distinction.

The proper question would be along the lines of:  "Which branch of science is it that tells us that science is true?"

I would agree.  Sad that you have so effortlessly mastered both.

Qwinn