Critical Thinking, reductionism, epistemology RI megathread

[Canadian_watcher]

Yes, only idiots want complete freedom to read and write and say and listen to and publish and draw and film what they want to. What if the 'idiot crowd' went about screaming that they loved chocolate? would you have to hate chocolate? And who are these idiots, anyway? What do they have to do with us?

Idiots often equate "censorship" with "nobody wants to hear about this" or "nobody is taking me seriously." Prison Planet isn't censored, but Alex Jones froths about it every 30 days like clockwork. Nobody's censoring the Westboro Baptist Church, but Christ almighty, they can't stop talking about it. Likewise, Intelligent Design isn't getting censored anywhere and is in fact an extremely well-funded and professionally run PR campaign -- but hot damn, ID advocates sure do talk about censorship a lot.

So were those academics who mentioned ID actually not disciplined, expelled, denied tenure, denied funding, etc ?
Even the Scientific American review of the problems in Expelled only takes on the case of Richard Sternberg, not looking at all at Carline Crocker, Michael Egnor, Robert J Marks or Guillermo Gonzales. How do you propose to know what really happened?

And good question, CW -- what does chocolate have to do with this?

only to show how polarized your thinking is. You can't really oppose claims of censorship just because you don't like what the people who claim it are all about, can you?

I'm not a fan of Rockefeller-designed social conditioning centers, but here's the reason educators are so emotional and fucking exhausted with the charade of Intelligent Design "debate" -- because they're having a hard enough time teach them one "side" ... you know, actual science.

Science according to Wombaticus Rex, you mean.

This brings up an important question about the utility of school. Should we be teaching kids the Christian Scientist version of Why People Get Sick, simply because it exists? Should we be teaching people the David Irving version of the Holocaust right after the official version -- or right before it? Speaking of teaching all sides -- why isn't Henry Makow's research exposing the NWO origins and hateful plans of Feminism being taught in school? Why is he being censored like that?

Yes, there should be courses on all of these things in university if there is an audience for them, let's just make sure that the research is legitimate. IE, no one is making shit up. There are lots of courses like that, in fact - surveys of world religions - that kind of thing. Intro to Feminism probably does mention the Makow type stuff (can't remember) if only as a counterpoint.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Science according to Wombaticus Rex, you mean.

No, science according any measurable standard. Are you seriously going to tell me that kids who don't know what DNA is have some detailed alternative theory?

[barracuda]

So were those academics who mentioned ID actually not disciplined, expelled, denied tenure, denied funding, etc ?
Even the Scientific American review of the problems in Expelled only takes on the case of Richard Sternberg, not looking at all at Carline Crocker, Michael Egnor, Robert J Marks or Guillermo Gonzales. How do you propose to know what really happened?

I posted this link seven pages back, which covers each of those individual cases.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

[Wombaticus Rex]

Yes, there should be courses on all of these things in university if there is an audience for them...

See again, you're not getting the argument you're having. ID advocates want ID taught in elementary school as part of the core curriculum. This is a major part of why the debate is so contentious and again, you don't seem to get what we're talking about here.

[Canadian_watcher]

If you're pretty sure of it it's probably true to you

No, it isn't. That's not what true means; truth isn't subjective (if it's subjective it's not truth). My statement isn't true to me; it's plausible, or makes sense. The only way of proving its truth is actually asking those two specific people, which none of us is in a position to do. I think it's plausible because I've had some surreal experiences with racists who believe that blacks are the sons of Ham, which supposedly explains everything. But maybe these neo-Nazis don't know those verses; maybe they're Odinists or irreligious. They still have an opinion about races, a belief they took from someone else, which motivates their actions.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. I like where you're going with this. We don't know about this case. At first you said:

I'm pretty sure those neo-Nazis have some kind of religious justification for their racism.

That opinion fits nicely with your last statement, above.

I take it you don't support what they did and wouldn't do it to them, even though you've formed an opinion about them, a belief which you took from someone else and which motivates your actions. What differentiates what you do in response to the same stimuli? The stimuli, or the person receiving them? Or is there a difference?

Faith isn't the sole or prime driver of human action, as I said to barracuda. That doesn't mean that we should assign equal validity to bullshit and proven fact. Particularly not in schools.

I know, the theory of evolution is rife with bullshit, but it's the best thing we think we've got. Might as well not stop now.

If you honestly think every creation myth of every culture in human history ought to be taught to kids who ask "where do we come from", when we have a theory of where we come from that explains almost everything we know, then I'm not surprised you're able to redefine truth as like, just someone's opinion.

that's funny! We don't have the true answer to the question "where do we come from." Even evolutionary biologists will tell you that. People keep talking about this like I think we should take a full year in primary school and go over all known creation stories. I don't think that, but only because of time constraints, not because I fear any negative psychological repercussions for our younguns.

Where do you go with this slippery Platonism?

wherever.

Do you think it was "probably true to" Colin Powell in New York that Saddam Hussein had uranium? Because it wasn't really true, was it? It was a lie, and Powell's subjective opinions made no difference. Do you at least believe that some things are true and some things are not true?

Yes, some things are true and some things are not true. I don't know if Colin Powell thought he was lying or not.

[Canadian_watcher]

Science according to Wombaticus Rex, you mean.

No, science according any measurable standard. Are you seriously going to tell me that kids who don't know what DNA is have some detailed alternative theory?

I sincerely do not understand this question.

[Canadian_watcher]

So were those academics who mentioned ID actually not disciplined, expelled, denied tenure, denied funding, etc ?
Even the Scientific American review of the problems in Expelled only takes on the case of Richard Sternberg, not looking at all at Carline Crocker, Michael Egnor, Robert J Marks or Guillermo Gonzales. How do you propose to know what really happened?

I posted this link seven pages back, which covers each of those individual cases.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Ahh, okay here's my ante:

http://www.ncseexposed.org/

[Canadian_watcher]

Yes, there should be courses on all of these things in university if there is an audience for them...

See again, you're not getting the argument you're having. ID advocates want ID taught in elementary school as part of the core curriculum. This is a major part of why the debate is so contentious and again, you don't seem to get what we're talking about here.

Well, I seriously doubt that kids under 17 would come close to grasping the physics necessary to approach the subject. BUT, if they are advanced in maths to that degree then I have no problem with it being offered... not in primary school. I mean, HOW would you approach teaching it? Evolution, OTOH, is so easy - the birth story writ large.

Nothing, though, so far explains that origin of LIFE.

[Searcher08]

Yes, only idiots want complete freedom to read and write and say and listen to and publish and draw and film what they want to. What if the 'idiot crowd' went about screaming that they loved chocolate? would you have to hate chocolate? And who are these idiots, anyway? What do they have to do with us?

Idiots often equate "censorship" with "nobody wants to hear about this" or "nobody is taking me seriously." Prison Planet isn't censored, but Alex Jones froths about it every 30 days like clockwork. Nobody's censoring the Westboro Baptist Church, but Christ almighty, they can't stop talking about it. Likewise, Intelligent Design isn't getting censored anywhere and is in fact an extremely well-funded and professionally run PR campaign -- but hot damn, ID advocates sure do talk about censorship a lot.

And good question, CW -- what does chocolate have to do with this?

quite right. More than that, really. Teach all sides!

I'm not a fan of Rockefeller-designed social conditioning centers, but here's the reason educators are so emotional and fucking exhausted with the charade of Intelligent Design "debate" -- because they're having a hard enough time teach them one "side" ... you know, actual science.

This brings up an important question about the utility of school. Should we be teaching kids the Christian Scientist version of Why People Get Sick, simply because it exists? Should we be teaching people the David Irving version of the Holocaust right after the official version -- or right before it?

Speaking of teaching all sides -- why isn't Henry Makow's research exposing the NWO origins and hateful plans of Feminism being taught in school? Why is he being censored like that?

WR, this is similar to what uber-skeptic Astronomy Professor Brian Cox was saying, that because we have science and reason and they are the best way we have for navigating the world, maybe we should look on our media (BBC in particular) by this yardstick and not put money into programmes that fail to pass evidence based standards.

The problem with that is the assumption that 'evidence based' is value free and can be determined as such. There seems to be a big gap between the good intent
and the orthodoxy enhancing and variety reducing implimentation and to me that seems to be to be a fast track to a scientific dictatorship of the Brave New World flavour.

[barracuda]

Ahh, okay here's my ante:

Great, now let's see you teach both sides.

The Discovery Institute website you linked to advocates teaching Intelligent Design in high schools as a part of their program of supporting and promoting conservative Christianity. Is that who you really want to support?

Now we've been "discussing" whether or not our children should be taught Republican conservative Christian propaganda in public schools for some eight-odd pages. Well done.

[norton ash]

Ahh, okay here's my ante:

http://www.ncseexposed.org/

I'll see that ante and raise you lots of Dominionist right-wing money for the Discovery Institute. With a small global-warming-denial tip to the dealer.

Money
According to an investigation by The New York Times, the Discovery Institute (who claims to not be motivated or founded on the basis of religion) has been primarily funded by right-wing religious groups.

$750,000 donated by The Ahmanson Foundation. Executor Howard Ahmanson once said his goal is "total integration of biblical law into our lives."

The MacLellan Foundation, a group who commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture" and gives grants to organizations "committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ," donated $450,000.

In 1998, Howard F. Ahmason's conservative philanthropy, Fieldstead & Company, granted the Discovery Institute $300,000 per year for five years. In 1999 the Stewardship Foundation increased its grant to $200,000 per year for five years. According to its website, the Stewardship Foundation was established "to contribute to the propagation of the Christian Gospel by evangelical and missionary work."

The Times identified most of the other twenty-two foundations supporting the Discovery Institute financially are politically conservative.

Reason magazine reported the Discovery Institute acknowledge that the Ahmanson family donated $1.5 million to the Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy" and have pledged $2.8 million to support the Discovery Institute.[2] More funding has been given to individual members of the Discovery Institute to promote attacking evolution.

Global warming denial
In line with the extreme wingnuttery that usually accompanies creationism, the Disco 'Tute has also endorsed Global Warming denial.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

The Discovery Institute is about as non-partisan as Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes or FOX news.

Talk about a dance with the devil.

[Canadian_watcher]

Ahh, okay here's my ante:

Great, now let's see you teach both sides.

The Discovery Institute website you linked to advocates teaching Intelligent Design in high schools as a part of their program of supporting and promoting conservative Chistianity. Is that who you really want to support?

but you fail to see that your side has an agenda, too. everyone has an agenda, 'cuda. If we get to disqualify the work of people with agendas then we might as well start hollowing out some caves for shelter.

Now we've been "discussing" whether or not our children should be taught Republican conservative Christian propaganda in public schools for some eight-odd pages. Well done.

That's because some people keep confusing inquiry into of the origins of life with a Right Wing Christian Agenda

[norton ash]

That's because some people keep confusing inquiry into of the origins of life with a Right Wing Christian Agenda

Then stop confusing us by citing their rubbish websites, maybe.

[barracuda]

Ahh, okay here's my ante:

Great, now let's see you teach both sides.

The Discovery Institute website you linked to advocates teaching Intelligent Design in high schools as a part of their program of supporting and promoting conservative Chistianity. Is that who you really want to support?

but you fail to see that your side has an agenda, too. everyone has an agenda, 'cuda. If we get to disqualify the work of people with agendas then we might as well start hollowing out some caves for shelter.

The agenda on "my side" (whatever that means, didn't know I had one) is about understanding the world. The agenda of the Discovery Institute is spreading right-wing Republican poison. Yes, they are disqualified for me, sorry. But it's nice to finally see which "side" you have chosen to support. I understand your position much better now.

So far on this thread you've supported and promoted Ben Stein, a Nixon speechwriter, and Bruce Chapman, a Reagan appointee.

[Canadian_watcher]

Here's how it goes for some people, and I'm literally amazed that they can't see it, or even let themselves try to examine it:

1. I have ultimate faith in science and scientists.
2. Darwinian Theory is unquestionable because all scientists say so.
3. To remain a scientist of good reputation a scientist must advocate statements 1 and 2.
4. If a scientist does not advocate statements 1 and 2 they are no longer scientists of good reputation and therefore statements 1 and 2 remain true*.

*Here's where my problem with 'true' comes in.