barracuda wrote:are we at the point now where "intelligent design" is being promoted and supported on Rigorous Intuition?
searcher08 wrote:why it would be an issue to discuss things like that, here of all places?
Discuss is of course different than promote/support, but like wintler I have no problem with id being discussed/promoted/supported...whatever. Let's hear it.
I'm not entirely closed minded about it, although for me the designers are more likely the aliens living in the hollow moon and their intentions were not benevolent.
The first hurdle for me wrt id is that were so fucking badly designed. Why would that be?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Shouldn't we here focus primarily on discussing any and only ideas which are dangerous to the global fascist control systems, or meta-discussion thereof for the purpose of reaching consensus (or prompting the mods/Jeff to refine boundaries) on what constitutes anti-fascist ideas worth discussing (as sort of a TED of antifascism), and consider all else to be a disruptive waste of our precious and ever-dwindling time, be that ever intentional or otherwise?
“blunting the idealism of youth is a national security project” - Hugh Manatee Wins
Canadian_watcher wrote:[and luckily that time has passed.
Not in Kansas it hasn't. But really, are we at the point now where "intelligent design" is being promoted and supported on Rigorous Intuition?
You didn't notice? We passed that point some time ago.
That ID advocacy will be defended as 'open enquiry', but will consist of a daily torrent of rightwing gobbledegook that noone will be allowed to criticise, unless they can weather a barrage of abusive offtopic posts. Remember how much climate change denial stuff there used to be? There is a pattern here folks..
I'm not in any way trying to stop discussion of ID, i say bring it on, and we'll see how it goes. But i will say 'i told you so' if/when the now familiar pattern recurs.
ID does not equal creationism, for starters. It's very different. Scientists and scholars are being fired and blacklisted for even MENTIONING it.. in America and in so-called free and civilized countries. Evolution is still just a theory, too. Sure, changes happen over time and as far as I know ID researchers take no issue with that. But who/what put the first little zot of life into anything? Don't you want to find out?
very few who want to research such stuff are in any kind of trouble over it, if they are it's probably because they've done poor science. Beyond that, many of it's practitioners don't have good science at heart, rather they're all about advancing a political issue. The scientific basis for ID is nearly sitting at ZERO. It is used as a stalking horse for creationism, and talk of teaching such objectively baseless crap in science class is disgusting. If you really want to know, go to uni and get a degree, you'll find a vast array of reasons to "believe" in evolution; but no final answer yet on how life originated. In fact, what life means is still somewhat up for debate.
but for purposes of this thread the issue is I think, not relevant and needlessly polarizing
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
justdrew wrote: very few who want to research such stuff are in any kind of trouble over it, if they are it's probably because they've done poor science.
you are mistaken about those assumptions.
justdrew wrote: Beyond that, many of it's practitioners don't have good science at heart, rather they're all about advancing a political issue. The scientific basis for ID is nearly sitting at ZERO. It is used as a stalking horse for creationism, and talk of teaching such objectively baseless crap in science class is disgusting.
and these.
justdrew wrote: If you really want to know, go to uni and get a degree,
I did that. Now you'll ask me "what in?" and I'll tell you, and you'll say that I didn't actually learn anything useful. Call it intuition.
justdrew wrote:you'll find a vast array of reasons to "believe" in evolution; but no final answer yet on how life originated. In fact, what life means is still somewhat up for debate.
I do believe in the evolutionary process. Yes, quite true. How can we find the solution to that debate if parts of the quest for knowledge are being ridiculed and punished.
Does it not make you a little suspicious, at least, that TPTB want to stop ID from being debated in institutions for higher learning? It makes me more curious about ID than ever! TPTB have never had my best interests at heart so I can safely guess that they don't on this issue, either.
justdrew wrote:but for purposes of this thread the issue is I think, not relevant and needlessly polarizing
well, it doesn't have to be.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
psynapz wrote:Shouldn't we here focus primarily on discussing any and only ideas which are dangerous to the global fascist control systems, or meta-discussion thereof for the purpose of reaching consensus (or prompting the mods/Jeff to refine boundaries) on what constitutes anti-fascist ideas worth discussing (as sort of a TED of antifascism), and consider all else to be a disruptive waste of our precious and ever-dwindling time, be that ever intentional or otherwise?
Couldn't agree more. I believe that a lack of academic freedom and censorship are fascist tools and that the discussion of that is extremely pertinent to what we are all interested in at RI.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
psynapz wrote:Shouldn't we here focus primarily on discussing any and only ideas which are dangerous to the global fascist control systems, or meta-discussion thereof for the purpose of reaching consensus (or prompting the mods/Jeff to refine boundaries) on what constitutes anti-fascist ideas worth discussing (as sort of a TED of antifascism), and consider all else to be a disruptive waste of our precious and ever-dwindling time, be that ever intentional or otherwise?
sounds like a good focus, but I wouldn't make it exclusive.
Anyway, fascism is a subtype of authoritarianism isn't it? We know a large percent of the population seems to be hardwired to support authoritarianism, in it's absence they try to set it up on their own, it's their primary way of understanding and interacting with the world, either being the big dog or looking for the big dog to follow.
The big questions might be, how much of it is genetic/inherent brain tendency, and how much of it is learned from a young age? Are there ways to train people away from authoritarianism? Some degree of authoritarian organizing principles may be needed for any complex large scale society, are there ways to distinguish between acceptable control structures and harmful authoritarianism?
psynapz wrote:Shouldn't we here focus primarily on discussing any and only ideas which are dangerous to the global fascist control systems, or meta-discussion thereof for the purpose of reaching consensus (or prompting the mods/Jeff to refine boundaries) on what constitutes anti-fascist ideas worth discussing (as sort of a TED of antifascism), and consider all else to be a disruptive waste of our precious and ever-dwindling time, be that ever intentional or otherwise?
no one knows who wrote:When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
... but I believe it to be true.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Canadian_watcher wrote:[and luckily that time has passed.
Not in Kansas it hasn't. But really, are we at the point now where "intelligent design" is being promoted and supported on Rigorous Intuition?
You didn't notice? We passed that point some time ago.
That ID advocacy will be defended as 'open enquiry', but will consist of a daily torrent of rightwing gobbledegook that noone will be allowed to criticise, unless they can weather a barrage of abusive offtopic posts. Remember how much climate change denial stuff there used to be? There is a pattern here folks..
I'm not in any way trying to stop discussion of ID, i say bring it on, and we'll see how it goes. But i will say 'i told you so' if/when the now familiar pattern recurs.
Close but no cigar
I dont like subject Y, especially as there is a "Scientific Consensus" that Y is true Someone says they want to discuss Y You go Meta - and claim discussion of Y is used by the Evil Forces and that We the True Believers of X will be subject to a barrage of off topic posts. You then say "Of course I myself am in no way tryng to stop discussion" However, I shall be proved right and tell you so.
What does this pattern do?
Well it is quite simple IMHO - it acts as a very useful diversion from the subject of the thread and gets the Orthodoxy Worshipper off the hook of having to look at the thinking framework they use, as the conversation gets bogged down in Manufactured Contention.
psynapz wrote:Shouldn't we here focus primarily on discussing any and only ideas which are dangerous to the global fascist control systems, or meta-discussion thereof for the purpose of reaching consensus (or prompting the mods/Jeff to refine boundaries) on what constitutes anti-fascist ideas worth discussing (as sort of a TED of antifascism), and consider all else to be a disruptive waste of our precious and ever-dwindling time, be that ever intentional or otherwise?
no one knows who wrote:When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
... but I believe it to be true.
I'm saddened that that saying and that the people who have indeed been led by some religious leaders into supporting tyranny have soured you to an aspect of life & inquiry. Don't let them win.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
C_w, are you adding creationism to your faith? You keep coming this way and Jesus is gonna get you.
brainpanhandler wrote:
barracuda wrote:are we at the point now where "intelligent design" is being promoted and supported on Rigorous Intuition?
searcher08 wrote:why it would be an issue to discuss things like that, here of all places?
Discuss is of course different than promote/support, but like wintler I have no problem with id being discussed/promoted/supported...whatever. Let's hear it.
I'm not entirely closed minded about it, although for me the designers are more likely the aliens living in the hollow moon and their intentions were not benevolent.
Don't be silly. If the moon was hollow there could be no life on earth. If anything's hollow, the earth is. But it isn't, either.
The first hurdle for me wrt id is that were so fucking badly designed. Why would that be?
justdrew wrote:very few who want to research such stuff are in any kind of trouble over it, if they are it's probably because they've done poor science. Beyond that, many of it's practitioners don't have good science at heart, rather they're all about advancing a political issue. The scientific basis for ID is nearly sitting at ZERO.
That's because it's basically a philosophical position. There's a fair bit of evidence that the current orthodoxy regarding human development is wrong, for "ID", not so much. Any observable natural phenomenon can be philosophically interpreted as a proxy for the almighty.
It is used as a stalking horse for creationism, and talk of teaching such objectively baseless crap in science class is disgusting.
Yeah, science classes need to be aimed at the important stuff: melting ice, using bunsen burners, dinosaurs and the physical impossibility of all your dreams.
If you really want to know, go to uni and get a degree, you'll find a vast array of reasons to "believe" in evolution;
Yeah, I'll get right on to that after I get my qualification and graduate as an Operating Thetan. "Science", so called, isn't the first cult on my list, I'm afraid.
Of course pretty much no-one disbelieves evolution per se: "that survivors survive", as Fort put it. It's a tautology.
but no final answer yet on how life originated. In fact, what life means is still somewhat up for debate.
What life means is another philosophical question. People keep mixing up science and philosophy. Even if we knew the physical details of the origin of life on earth (my money's on panspermia), if would have no deeper meaning in and of itself.
but for purposes of this thread the issue is I think, not relevant and needlessly polarizing
Seems like a likely nexus for debate of the issue of epistemology to me. Got to be something "polarised", or there's no area for contention and debate, which is necessary for the clarifying process of dialectic.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
Canadian_watcher wrote:[and luckily that time has passed.
Not in Kansas it hasn't. But really, are we at the point now where "intelligent design" is being promoted and supported on Rigorous Intuition?
You didn't notice? We passed that point some time ago.
That ID advocacy will be defended as 'open enquiry', but will consist of a daily torrent of rightwing gobbledegook that noone will be allowed to criticise, unless they can weather a barrage of abusive offtopic posts. Remember how much climate change denial stuff there used to be? There is a pattern here folks..
I'm not in any way trying to stop discussion of ID, i say bring it on, and we'll see how it goes. But i will say 'i told you so' if/when the now familiar pattern recurs.
This guy must have been hanging around similar circles:
Before this polemic begins in earnest, perhaps it will be best to sketch out a definition of the concept that concerns us. By 'New Age' I mean to refer to any world-view that:
1. is decidedly postmodern, in that it picks and chooses from vastly older traditions those features it finds useful;
2. is sloppily multiculturalist, in that it levels out and denies legitimate distinctions between the traditions from which it borrows;
3. is individualistic, in that it takes spirituality to be a 'quest', and sees the ultimate end of this quest as self-fulfillment (however much it may borrow from traditions that emphasize self-overcoming or dissolution of the ego, even at times insisting that it shares this goal);
4. is nostalgic, in that it maintains that with the rise of modernity, humanity experienced the loss of a distinctly 'spiritual' disposition, in contrast with the rational disposition;
5. in large part as a consequence of its suspicion of rationality, is also uncritical as a matter of principle;
6. portrays itself as apolitical, or, better, as tapping into a reality so profound that any explanation of it in terms of the social, economic, and historical plights of its adherents can be safely dismissed as irrelevant.
justdrew wrote: very few who want to research such stuff are in any kind of trouble over it, if they are it's probably because they've done poor science.
you are mistaken about those assumptions.
justdrew wrote: Beyond that, many of it's practitioners don't have good science at heart, rather they're all about advancing a political issue. The scientific basis for ID is nearly sitting at ZERO. It is used as a stalking horse for creationism, and talk of teaching such objectively baseless crap in science class is disgusting.
and these.
justdrew wrote: If you really want to know, go to uni and get a degree,
I did that. Now you'll ask me "what in?" and I'll tell you, and you'll say that I didn't actually learn anything useful. Call it intuition.
justdrew wrote:you'll find a vast array of reasons to "believe" in evolution; but no final answer yet on how life originated. In fact, what life means is still somewhat up for debate.
I do believe in the evolutionary process. Yes, quite true. How can we find the solution to that debate if parts of the quest for knowledge are being ridiculed and punished.
Does it not make you a little suspicious, at least, that TPTB want to stop ID from being debated in institutions for higher learning? It makes me more curious about ID than ever! TPTB have never had my best interests at heart so I can safely guess that they don't on this issue, either.
justdrew wrote:but for purposes of this thread the issue is I think, not relevant and needlessly polarizing
well, it doesn't have to be.
I think it should go in a separate thread, the OP doesn't say anything about Teleology. scientists get in trouble all the time for researching questionable unorthodox issues. see cold fusion (low energy nuclear reactions) and some scientists are even wacky and produce material seemingly "real" to us laymen, that is total nonsense to someone who really knows the material. While I support wide latitude for research of all types, there is limited funding available and it shouldn't be squandered. No one's stopping these people from working on their ID research on their own dime.
