News and Politics Forum

zukiphile wrote:

If all the idiots have gotten is to encourage critical thinking skills...

Your optimism borders on the irrational.

zukiphile wrote:

The law involved in this latest dust up calls

john timmer wrote:

on the state Board of Education to "assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."

Whatever your opinion of people involved or other opinions they hold, this isn't an obvious manifestation of harm.

What harm flows from that language?

From the specific snippet you cut/pasted? None.

But don't bullshit a bullshitter Matt. This isn't moot court, it's the real world, and in the real world those of us who do NOT have our heads up our asses have a social obligation to label stupidity AS stupidity.

MC Escher wrote:

...label stupidity AS stupidity.

There is no stupidity in encouraging "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion".

It isn't useful to perpetuate misconceptions about scientific beliefs as differing fundamentally from other beliefs.  Countering some of those misconceptions appears to be served by the LA law.

MC Escher wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

There is no stupidity in encouraging "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion".

And you think that inserting religion into a science class does that?

Short answer: No, and I don't propose it. 

Longer answer:  Discussing the assumptions underlying the subject, as well as related assumptions, and the limitations of those beliefs is not a defect in the curriculum.  Neither does it insert any religion merely because some of the concepts may be compatible with some religions.

The only other options are to forbid discussion of the assumptions of the discipline, or only forbid discussion of the assumptions if someone thinks the assumption might be compatible with or supportive of a religious position.

The former option is designed to provide an inadequate education.  the latter is not religiously neutral, and so would not be a proper action of the state.

Matt -

This ISN'T a theoretical discussion.

We have people in this country who are the intellectual equivalent of the Taliban, and they want nothing better to wash us all in the blood of the lamb and turn back the clock on a half millennium of scientific and intellectual progress.


If you want to sit there and pretend that this bullshit they're pedaling is on the same scientific and intellectual level as Evolutionary Biology, Quantum Theory or any other SCIENTIFIC discipline; you go right ahead.

But don't peddle me this shit about how it's healthy to have an open dialog to promote critical thinking, or anything else along those lines. Because that's NOT what these people are about. These assholes are every bit as intellectually dishonest/deluded as the morons who turned Atheism into a religion; and they want to cram their religious beliefs down everyone else's throats.

And if you don't think that's EXACTLY what's at the very basis of what they're trying to do; you are fucking kidding yourself.

Point Blank: You KNOW better. And I'm quite honestly disappointed if you DON'T understand how dangerous these people can be.

Seabird, you obviously forgot what was in the original version of the user rules.

Do not feed the Nakona.

MC Escher wrote:

Matt -

This ISN'T a theoretical discussion.

We have people in this country who are the intellectual equivalent of the Taliban, and they want nothing better to wash us all in the blood of the lamb and turn back the clock on a half millennium of scientific and intellectual progress.


If you want to sit there and pretend that this bullshit they're pedaling is on the same scientific and intellectual level as Evolutionary Biology, Quantum Theory or any other SCIENTIFIC discipline; you go right ahead.

But don't peddle me this shit about how it's healthy to have an open dialog to promote critical thinking, or anything else along those lines. Because that's NOT what these people are about. These assholes are every bit as intellectually dishonest/deluded as the morons who turned Atheism into a religion; and they want to cram their religious beliefs down everyone else's throats.

And if you don't think that's EXACTLY what's at the very basis of what they're trying to do; you are fucking kidding yourself.

Point Blank: You KNOW better. And I'm quite honestly disappointed if you DON'T understand how dangerous these people can be.

You have just crossed the line into radical fundamentalism on behalf of YOUR religion -- scientism.  What makes your dogmatism the more valid?

Last edited by glfredrick (07-10-2008 12:26 PM)

zukiphile wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

But don't peddle me this shit about how it's healthy to have an open dialog to promote critical thinking, or anything else along those lines. Because that's NOT what these people are about.

Then a law encouraging critical thinking and logical analysis in schools doesn't appear to be the victory for them you think it is, right?

Exactly. And who's to say that interjecting the subject into the curriculum automatically means the zealots get to control its implementation from start to finish?

Vagrant wrote:

I'm anti-evolution.  There are some valid criticisms of evolution that are simply not addressed.  Some of the lay believers (heh) of evolution will tell you that lightning struck an ocean and created proteins.  Those proteins merged to create the first bacteria.  The bacteria, um err, did something to create multi-cellular organisms.

This aptly illustrates the problem of including an unrecorded historical event in the beliefs of people who maintain that their answers are solely the product of observation and method.  That same problem leads me to conclude that the probabilistic critique of the evolutionary narrative of the origin of life is itself a dead end.  Restated, if life started through an accident of cause and effect in a gooey puddle somewhere, all the math showing it to be terribly unlikely can't change its historicity.  If it happened, the probability that it happened is complete.

Trying to displace an historical claim with current observation isn't effective.

zukiphile wrote:

This aptly illustrates the problem of including an unrecorded historical event in the beliefs of people who maintain that their answers are solely the product of observation and method.  That same problem leads me to conclude that the probabilistic critique of the evolutionary narrative of the origin of life is itself a dead end.  Restated, if life started through an accident of cause and effect in a gooey puddle somewhere, all the math showing it to be terribly unlikely can't change its historicity.  If it happened, the probability that it happened is complete.

Trying to displace an historical claim with current observation isn't effective.

I'm still wondering where the "goo" came from before there was any "organic".

It sort of ends up like the old creationist joke:  Several scientists, excited by the fact that they had now figured out how to re-create life from inorganic materials, challenged God with their breakthrough.  "Fine," said God, "Let's have a little creation contest."  The scientists were very excited at the chance to show God what they could do, as they stooped over to grasp a handful of dirt.  "Whoa," God said...  "Bring your own dirt."  End of experiment...

Life exists -- in the current observable format -- with the current observable genetic structure, complexity, etc., and observational data extends the current realm of knowledge into the ancient world via various means, but what it cannot observe, even through experimentation, is what ACTUALY HAPPENED in one MOMENT OF HISTORY.  EVERY experiment is an example of desgin -- for the experiment is designed, the parameters are controlled, and the "wild" is excluded.  The level of presupposition is rampant, and many an experiment is based on nothnig more than "just so stories" which at the end of the day are not more worthy of belief than trust in a designer, who, it seems, actually left plenty of fingerprints if one is inclined to see them.

MC Esher wrote:

This ISN'T a theoretical discussion.

We have people in this country who are the intellectual equivalent of the Taliban, and they want nothing better to wash us all in the blood of the lamb and turn back the clock on a half millennium of scientific and intellectual progress.

Really?  Who?  I haven't met anyone like this.  Maybe you've been reading too much Sam Harris.

MC Esher wrote:

don't peddle me this shit about how it's healthy to have an open dialog to promote critical thinking

So, critical thinking is unhealthy?  Har   I getcha.  But I think you're reading too deeply into the motives of these people.  Nobody I know wants to replace evolution for something else.  The ones you criticize want both taught critically.  If ID is wrong, this will bear out and evolution will stand just fine.  Let people exercise their critical thinking to sniff out the crap for themselves.  If evolution is right, they'll be even more sure of it by the end of the class.  I mean, I don't think any Christian would be worried about teaching their kids about Zeus.

Vagrant wrote:

I don't think evolution is anti-theist.

I agree.  God and evolution can co-exist rather well.  The difficulty is with the Judeo-Christian God, because he specifically said He did things differently that evolutionary theorists tell us.  Atheist Bozarth got it right:

Bozarth wrote:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.

zukiphile wrote:

Trying to displace an historical claim with current observation isn't effective.

Is this a scientific claim, then, if the scientific method cannot touch it?

Slap wrote:

I think it would be ideal to teach people philosophy prior to attempting to teach them science, or the Rules of Evidence.

+1

Slap wrote:

I think it would be ideal to teach people philosophy prior to attempting to teach them science, or the Rules of Evidence.

It would be sufficient if they merely kept the different subjects separate.

It would also be entirely reasonable to have an elective course, even in high school; titled something like this:


"Science and Spirituality: How do we reconcile what we know about the world through science with what we feel about it through religion and philosophy?"

MC Escher wrote:

If a guy wants to burgle your house and is having trouble getting past the property line fence; do you ignore him until he manages to reach the silverware? Or do you recognize him for what he is and nip the problem in the bud?

This requires that you have correctly assessed his intent.

If you are wrong and it was just a gimp soliciting donations for muscular dystrophy, blowing him away at the fence gate is not doing him substantial justice.

MC Escher wrote:

Seabird wrote:

I s'pect all he's trying to do is evolve the discussion a bit.

THIS is not a discussion that should be elevated. Certain types of stupidity should be shunned and ignored, and by taking them even a LITTLE bit seriously; you give credibility to the stupidity.

If I'm crucifying him for it, it's because he knows better. This isn't a high falutin' discussion about God, existentialism and Man's pursuit of knowledge. it's about a group of people who want their religious beliefs made, if not official; then at least co-equal to objective fact.

You've yet to support your view of science of any stripe as objective fact.  I am open to discussing it, but you've not responded to the prior invitations to do so.  If you don't intend to discuss it, the repeated assertion appears to be proof by assertion or argument by repetition, which are hardly ever persuasive.

MC Escher wrote:

Slap wrote:

I think it would be ideal to teach people philosophy prior to attempting to teach them science, or the Rules of Evidence.

It would be sufficient if they merely kept the different subjects separate.

It would also be entirely reasonable to have an elective course, even in high school; titled something like this:


"Science and Spirituality: How do we reconcile what we know about the world through science with what we feel about it through religion and philosophy?"

Spirituality?  What is that?

What problem is addressed by indoctrinating students into a false dichotomy between beliefs about things and ideas?

Why would a course about the underlying assumptions of a mandatory course be an elective?