Critical Thinking, reductionism, epistemology RI megathread

[psynapz]

This faith is known as animism, and is practiced throughout the United States to a small degree. Do you think this should be taught on an equal footing with intelligent design and evolution?

Absolutely, tho I'm not sure if comparative religious studies should be a standard part of academic curriculum when the majority of high schoolers these days are entering college functionally illiterate. However I doubt this is much of a problem among seminary frosh, as they're apparently more into reading.

How about Celtic polytheism?

Without any doubt. I want to know about anything the Romans traveled halfway up the world to eradicate.

Tree worship?

Are you kidding? That's where oxygen comes from.

Witchcraft?

Crowley.

Satanism?

Ask Levenda. Or Sun Tzu.

Alien implantation?

There ought to be a 101 course on this at every uni if not a senior-level class for high schoolers, but I would make that part of one semester of a much broader curriculum to cover the wide world of forteana, as an engaging and thought-provoking means to exercise their nascent little discernment muscles.

Panspermia?

I got that in junior high. I also practiced it a lot at that time, though I think these were unrelated.

Fairies?

Certainly, and not just the girls either. Boys should learn about both fairies and menstruation. And childbirth in detail. And babies should be brought in after being fed beans, corn and raisins. Sponsored by Huggies ("Enjoy the Ride"). That ought to scare them straight, at least about fairies.

I would like to return to the open, unfettered astonishment of my childhood existence, before I learned all the limitations of my understanding. But I'm not afraid to look directly at the limitations which would be thrust upon me, and understand the politics of the who and why of any of them.

This is a piece of brilliance from our fishy punching bag, but please don't let me distract everyone from singling him out for being utterly piss-drunk on power if he makes any points with which you disagree...

[Canadian_watcher]

What do you think about the way academics are being treated when they mention, make reference to, or otherwise dip their toes in any way into intelligent design?

Did you investigate any of the claims made by the film in this regard as to their veracity, or did you simply watch the film and nod your head approvingly?

I have begun to.. I'm only one woman and I've got a business to run. Still, are you saying that these people weren't actually dismissed and blacklisted, or are you implying that the academy was correct to extricate them from their midst based on concrete science?

If we are going to examine epistemology as the understanding of the limits of the possibilities of knowledge, one of the first things we must be able to do is learn how to in some way separate information which is harmful from that which can take us to the next step in our understanding.

I'm very very interested in learning about this 'harmful information' you speak of.

Intelligent Design is a right wing attempt to sneak Christian theology into the elementary school classrooom syllabus.

paranoia

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.

You are demonstrating such a limited sense of history it makes me sad.

And I suppose you have all knowledge of history, somehow you got this from what.. ? From what exactly, because I'd like to know if there is a secret to learning everything in between being a parent, a partner and a full time worker at (presumably) a non-history of everything researching job.

Literally hundreds of millions of people throughout the world fervently believe that ghosts inhabit all inanimate objects, such as rocks, pencils, doorknobs, rivers and storms. This faith is known as animism, and is practiced throughout the United States to a small degree. Do you think this should be taught on an equal footing with intelligent design and evolution? How about Celtic polytheism? Tree worship? Witchcraft? Satanism? Alien implantation? Panspermia? Fairies?

bring it on. they teach our kids that 'dumb' people go in to trades, don't they? I'd rather get rid of that multi-leveled bias than stories about fairies or living rocks or whatever it is you think could so damage the futures of our children.

How we decide exactly what areas of inquiry are interesting or important to look into is mitigated by our own beliefs and traditions.

YES! that's right!

My religion states rather plainly that the universe was created in six days by an anthropomorphic deity who made the first man by modeling him from the dust of the ground and breathing life into his nostrils. But I have made a point of embracing any number of other aspects from other religions and scientific theories in order that I might walk down the street with a greater awareness of my surroundings, my world and myself. On some days electro-chemistry is my deity, on others it may be the solar orb. But each of these is, for better or worse (worse, I should think), comparatively thrust against the creation story I was taught as a child.

I would like to return to the open, unfettered astonishment of my childhood existence, before I learned all the limitations of my understanding. But I'm not afraid to look directly at the limitations which would be thrust upon me, and understand the politics of the who and why of any of them.

[/quote]

well then, we're coming at this from similar perspectives really.

[Canadian_watcher]

C'mon, tantrum. Tantrum, tantrum, tantrum.

That was stupid of me, now the ignorant thug'll behave herself and post heart-smilies and shit.

I love you.
You won't believe me, because I've been rude in retaliation to your rudeness. I'll admit that the video of some little guy being punched repeatedly entitled "Stay Down" that you posted at a point in a thread where you felt I was sufficiently swarmed by opponents made me really, really dislike you.
But in actual fact I love you because if I didn't, I'd have to hate myself.

And I rather like me!

[Wombaticus Rex]

That being said, let's have your best question.

Already made that contribution back when the topic of this thread was the topic of this thread. Those were the days, huh?

Why are humans so predisposed to argue about explanations instead of just evidence? Intelligent Design doesn't add anything to the conversation, it's just another orthodoxy, every bit as arrogant as the Dawkins bible, The Ancestor's Tale/. I'm much more curious about actual role, nature and life cycle of Introns than I am in a discussion about what that "means."

Complaints about censorship are pretty common with the idiot crowd. It's unfortunate that We Humble Seekers share so many attributes with the bottom 50% of the IQ curve, innit? Leads to so many un-necessary arguments.

Why isn't Lee Smolin called a "pseudo-scientist" or "Christian" for his brutal takedown of string theory? You can read what honest scientific criticism looks like here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.0 ... heory.html

Why doesn't Lee Smolin have to invoke the Holocaust to make his point about physics? Is the Holocaust as relevant to physics as it so to...evolutionary biology?

Why are we so easily convinced? Why doesn't it ever get easier to stop falling for increasingly sophisticated bullshit? Is it relevant to THIS THREAD that written communication so quickly devolves into confrontations? From deep space, does the "Big Picture" of the internet look like this?



On a related note, what do you think of Smolin's statement on the Anthropic Principle? I found it to be a fascinating thought experiment, at least:

"Anthropic Principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science."

[norton ash]

[Canadian_watcher]

That being said, let's have your best question.

Already made that contribution back when the topic of this thread was the topic of this thread. Those were the days, huh?

Why are humans so predisposed to argue about explanations instead of just evidence? Intelligent Design doesn't add anything to the conversation, it's just another orthodoxy, every bit as arrogant as the Dawkins bible, The Ancestor's Tale/. I'm much more curious about actual role, nature and life cycle of Introns than I am in a discussion about what that "means."

Complaints about censorship are pretty common with the idiot crowd. It's unfortunate that We Humble Seekers share so many attributes with the bottom 50% of the IQ curve, innit? Leads to so many un-necessary arguments.

Why isn't Lee Smolin called a "pseudo-scientist" or "Christian" for his brutal takedown of string theory? You can read what honest scientific criticism looks like here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.0 ... heory.html

Why doesn't Lee Smolin have to invoke the Holocaust to make his point about physics? Is the Holocaust as relevant to physics as it so to...evolutionary biology?

Why are we so easily convinced? Why doesn't it ever get easier to stop falling for increasingly sophisticated bullshit? Is it relevant to THIS THREAD that written communication so quickly devolves into confrontations? From deep space, does the "Big Picture" of the internet look like this?



On a related note, what do you think of Smolin's statement on the Anthropic Principle? I found it to be a fascinating thought experiment, at least:

"Anthropic Principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science."

very meaty, thank you.

I'd like a little time. This will require my thinking cap (and dictionary, again. thank you Prof. A. Schlosser of first year "Introduction to Interdisciplinary Fine Art" for insisting that we not skip over ANY big words even if we believe we can discern their meaning from the context)

I'll meet you later at the place by the thing where we went that time.

[Searcher08]

What do you think about the censorship of certain lines of inquiry in academia, to the point that the mere mention of ID has seen people fired?

It would help if you were more specific about which case(s) you are referring to...

The case of Richard Sternberg to me seems to indicate that going against Orthodoxy around evolution can cause... issues.

he's a bible thumping clown, who cares what he says about anything?

Hmmm - he is Roman Catholic AFAIK, and as a former one, we didnt thump Bibles, as we were too busy feeling guilty

Sternberg isnt even an advocate for Intelligent Design - his position is that there are major issues with aspects of evolutionary biology.

read the damn wiki page about him. he's on the board of a "young earth" foundation looking to "prove" the bible creation story.

Err... I just HAD read the 'damn wiki' page about him.

In the same year, he also joined the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, a young earth creationist "creation science" attempt to identify and classify the created kinds mentioned in scripture.[2] He has stated that he is an outside critic and remained skeptical of their young earth beliefs

[barracuda]

...are you saying that these people weren't actually dismissed and blacklisted, or are you implying that the academy was correct to extricate them from their midst based on concrete science?

I am saying that the movie you watched was a presentation of a series of lies, and constitutes far-right Christian fundie propaganda.

I'm very very interested in learning about this 'harmful information' you speak of.

That's interesting. At times you don't seem to be. I'd like to watch you demonstrate such an interest in a definite manner.

Intelligent Design is a right wing attempt to sneak Christian theology into the elementary school classrooom syllabus.

paranoia

Of all venues in the world to attempt to discredit a statement by labeling it "paranoid", you chose this one? Good luck with that. Have you looked into the history of intelligent design at all? Have you investigated what is happening in the Kansas public school system? Again, no sense of history being displayed here.

And I suppose you have all knowledge of history, somehow you got this from what.. ? From what exactly, because I'd like to know if there is a secret to learning everything in between being a parent, a partner and a full time worker at (presumably) a non-history of everything researching job.

What are you attempting to prove with your little diatribe here? That you are too busy to have investigated the statements and propaganda which you so adamantly express in your time here? Or do you think it is fun or interesting to anyone at all who might be reading this to paint me as some kind of a "know-it-all" in the context of a thread the subject of which is the actual limitations of human understanding of the world?

The history of the struggle to remove Judeo-Christian religious teachings from childhood education is not some hidden tome of occult knowledge available only to atheist initiates. It is a series of well-known court cases fought by individuals who insisted upon their rights in the face of oppression by the state.

bring it on. they teach our kids that 'dumb' people go in to trades, don't they? I'd rather get rid of that multi-leveled bias than stories about fairies or living rocks or whatever it is you think could so damage the futures of our children.

Sure, we could teach them all those things. It would be fine, if exceedingly time consuming, and might cut into their studies about how to actually read, which I consider vastly more important. But that's not what Intelligent design is in any way about. It is about indoctrination into Judeo-Christianity and coercion into the Republican vote-bloc.

Regarding "dumb people go into trades" - what the heck are you blathering on about?

well then, we're coming at this from similar perspectives really.

Perhaps. But the perspective from which we approach the issue is such a small part of what transpires after we leave that place that it hardly seem relevant to even make mention of it. I find your championing of Intelligent Design to be dangerous, as I find the so-called theory to be a channel for facism, and for the destruction of the very progress against the small amount of freedom of thought which was hard-won by people who were tired of being told what they had to believe in the first place.

"...consider that thou dost not even understand whether men are doing wrong or not, for many things are done with a certain reference to circumstances. And in short, a man must learn a great deal to enable him to pass a correct judgement on another man's acts."

[Canadian_watcher]

...are you saying that these people weren't actually dismissed and blacklisted, or are you implying that the academy was correct to extricate them from their midst based on concrete science?

I am saying that the movie you watched was a presentation of a series of lies, and constitutes far-right Christian fundie propaganda.

lack of evidence. Am I to take your assertion as fact based on your upstanding citizenship?

I'm very very interested in learning about this 'harmful information' you speak of.

That's interesting. At times you don't seem to be. I'd like to watch you demonstrate such an interest in a definite manner.

And you don't seem to be willing to state what the dangerous knowledge is. As to your third statement.. what?

Intelligent Design is a right wing attempt to sneak Christian theology into the elementary school classrooom syllabus.

paranoia

Of all venues in the world to attempt to discredit a statement by labeling it "paranoid", you chose this one? Good luck with that. Have you looked into the history of intelligent design at all? Have you investigated what is happening in the Kansas public school system? Again, no sense of history being displayed here.

Yes. Thank you. Yes. NO, but that's one school disctrict's political motives and not truth. Bah.

And I suppose you have all knowledge of history, somehow you got this from what.. ? From what exactly, because I'd like to know if there is a secret to learning everything in between being a parent, a partner and a full time worker at (presumably) a non-history of everything researching job.

What are you attempting to prove with your little diatribe here?

I'm attempting to ellucidate the fact that you don't have a corner on the 'history of everything' market.

That you are too busy to have investigated the statements and propaganda which you so adamantly express in your time here? Or do you think it is fun or interesting to anyone at all who might be reading this to paint me as some kind of a "know-it-all" in the context of a thread the subject of which is the actual limitations of human understanding of the world?

no. who knows. youstillhaven'tansweredthequestion.

The history of the struggle to remove Judeo-Christian religious teachings from childhood education is not some hidden tome of occult knowledge available only to atheist initiates. It is a series of well-know court cases fought by individuals who insisted upon their rights in the face of oppression by the state.

objection, irrelevant. Good that there were court cases. (I mean.. stupid, but good) and Court judgment often mean nothing whatsoever as it pertains to TRUTH. You have to admit that at least. There's that oppression word. FTR - NOT introduced by me.

Sure, we could teach them all those things. It would be fine, if exceedingly time consuming, and might cut into their studies about how to actually read, which I consider vastly more important. But that's not what Intelligent design is in any way about. It is about indoctrination into Judeo-Christianity and coercion into the Republican vote-bloc.

you think it's fine? well then why'd you ask me in the first place? I thought that you were trying to make the point that teaching intelligent design (IN UNIVERSITY, mind you, I never brought up high school, but whatever.) was akin to teaching about animated rocks and that is was a bad idea. Now you think it is a fine idea? Bah, my kid learned to read in kindergarten or maybe before , I dunno.. parents can do it for their kids as well as schools. How many hours a day do you think it really takes for a little one to learn to read? But I digress....which you did too - right back in to a little bit of fear there.

Let me exemplify why yours is an unfounded fear. I like the idea of learning more about ID. I am not a Judeo-Christian (or anything that you can pin down, horrors!) and I would certainly not consider myself a Republican were I a US citizen. So..... why do I have to get lumped in with them? (really.. I'd like an answer to that one.)

Regarding "dumb people go into trades" - what the heck are you blathering on about?

yeah that's what they teach. if you aren't paying attention to high school kids, then you can be forgiven for not knowing this.

well then, we're coming at this from similar perspectives really.

Perhaps. But the perspective from which we approach the issue is such a small part of what transpires after we leave that place that it hardly seem relevant to even make mantion of it. I find your championing of Intelligent Design to be dangerous, as I find the so-called theory to be a channel for facism, and for the destruction of the very progress against the small amount of freedom of thought which was hard-won by people who were tired of being told what they had to believe in the first place.

I am literally BEGGING you to listen to yourself.

"...consider that thou dost not even understand whether men are doing wrong or not, for many things are done with a certain reference to circumstances. And in short, a man must learn a great deal to enable him to pass a correct judgement on another man's acts."

[/quote]

here, too.

[barracuda]

It's amazing how you can write a post that long without putting forth a single crumb of interesting thought, ideas or polemic. It's a talent, I guess.

[Canadian_watcher]

aww, that's a shame.

I thought you were up to it.

[Searcher08]

Here is a quote from a website about 'dangerous ideas'

The woman concerned is Carolyn Porco, who has been a guest speaker at TAM (the Holy Week of Skeptics).

The Greatest Story Ever Told

The confrontation between science and formal religion will come to an end when the role played by science in the lives of all people is the same played by religion today.

And just what is that?

At the heart of every scientific inquiry is a deep spiritual quest — to grasp, to know, to feel connected through an understanding of the secrets of the natural world, to have a sense of one's part in the greater whole. It is this inchoate desire for connection to something greater and immortal, the need for elucidation of the meaning of the 'self', that motivates the religious to belief in a higher 'intelligence'. It is the allure of a bigger agency — outside the self but also involving, protecting, and celebrating the purpose of the self — that is the great attractor. Every culture has religion. It undoubtedly satisfies a manifest human need.

But the same spiritual fulfillment and connection can be found in the revelations of science. From energy to matter, from fundamental particles to DNA, from microbes to Homo sapiens, from the singularity of the Big Bang to the immensity of the universe .... ours is the greatest story ever told. We scientists have the drama, the plot, the icons, the spectacles, the 'miracles', the magnificence, and even the special effects. We inspire awe. We evoke wonder.

And we don't have one god, we have many of them. We find gods in the nucleus of every atom, in the structure of space/time, in the counter-intuitive mechanisms of electromagneticsm. What richness! What consummate beauty!

We even exalt the `self'. Our script requires a broadening of the usual definition, but we too offer hope for everlasting existence. The `self' that is the particular, networked set of connections of the matter comprising our mortal bodies will one day die, of course. But the `self' that is the sum of each separate individual condensate in us of energy-turned-matter is already ancient and will live forever. Each fundamental particle may one day return to energy, or from there revert back to matter. But in one form or another, it will not cease. In this sense, we and all around us are eternal, immortal, and profoundly connected. We don't have one soul; we have trillions upon trillions of them.

These are reasons enough for jubilation ... for riotous, unrestrained, exuberant merry-making.

So what are we missing?

Ceremony.

We lack ceremony. We lack ritual. We lack the initiation of baptism, the brotherhood of communal worship.

We have no loving ministers, guiding and teaching the flocks in the ways of the 'gods'. We have no fervent missionaries, no loyal apostles. And we lack the all-inclusive ecumenical embrace, the extended invitation to the unwashed masses. Alienation does not warm the heart; communion does.

But what if? What if we appropriated the craft, the artistry, the methods of formal religion to get the message across? Imagine 'Einstein's Witnesses' going door to door or TV evangelists passionately espousing the beauty of evolution.

Imagine a Church of Latter Day Scientists where believers could gather. Imagine congregations raising their voices in tribute to gravity, the force that binds us all to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, and the Sun to the Milky Way. Or others rejoicing in the nuclear force that makes possible the sunlight of our star and the starlight of distant suns. And can't you just hear the hymns sung to the antiquity of the universe, its abiding laws, and the heaven above that 'we' will all one day inhabit, together, commingled, spread out like a nebula against a diamond sky?

One day, the sites we hold most sacred just might be the astronomical observatories, the particle accelerators, the university research installations, and other laboratories where the high priests of science — the biologists, the physicists, the astronomers, the chemists — engage in the noble pursuit of uncovering the workings of nature herself. And today's museums, expositional halls, and planetaria may then become tomorrow's houses of worship, where these revealed truths, and the wonder of our interconnectedness with the cosmos, are glorified in song by the devout and the soulful.

"Hallelujah!", they will sing. "May the force be with you!"

Welcome to the Orthodox Church of Scientism

Anyone who thinks this process isnt already happening needs to re-boot their brain.

[justdrew]

He has stated that he is an outside critic and remained skeptical of their young earth beliefs

err, hrmmm, well yes, er... uh... ok, sorry 'bout that, but I still think he's nuts to even be associating with them.

---

"Anyone who thinks this process isnt already happening needs to re-boot their brain."

I have argued with people about "is science a new religion" for decades. It is not. The above suggestion is ridiculous, "ritual" is not the main thing sought by religious adherents. No religion will ever do any engineering and no engineer (which is the profession many people mean when they say scientist) is ever going to offer people the easy answers most of them look for from their religions.

[barracuda]

Anyone who thinks this process isnt already happening needs to re-boot their brain.

Dude. The entire world is aflame in a series of brutal and murderous wars which revolve in one form or another around differences of opinion regarding religious beliefs, and you're worried about the looming shadow of scientific orthodoxy?

[Canadian_watcher]

Anyone who thinks this process isnt already happening needs to re-boot their brain.

Dude. The entire world is aflame in a series of brutal and murderous wars which revolve in one form or another around differences of opinion regarding religious beliefs, and you're worried about the looming shadow of scientific orthodoxy?

Is that right?
I thought Iraq was about the oil and Afghanistan was about revenge? (and the oil pipeline)
I forget what the religious impetus for the first two world wars was... unless you count the Darwinist-Atheist Nazism vs the Jews (but also the handicapped and gay)