61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 07:59 pm
@Anomie,
The topic of this thread is
Quote:
Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution.
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The truth reliability of epistemology does not entail normative obligations.

That is a naturalistic fallacy, you are appealing to emotion.

Can I assume that you believe in objective moral values?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The topic of this thread is
Quote:
Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution.



When did this start mattering?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:22 pm
@reasoning logic,
If you had paid any attention, you would know I was responding to a another poster, not you.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Spendius will be back tomorrow. 2 Cents
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:41 pm
@Anomie,
Quote:
For clarification, is it scientifically valid to practice scientific methodology?

If a pizza were not round would it still be a pie?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:44 pm
@Anomie,
Quote:
we all agree on a normative definition of rationality, or usefulness, empirically satisfying occhams razor.
occams razor doesnt routinely fit in science (unless you are talking about teh rules of crystallography where space packing is done in sets of tetrahedra). There may a be a solution to a problem that is elegant and simple, that does not mean its right. We all love to seek out the barest essence of a principle but barest essences dont mean doodly.
PS your constant use of "normative" may be a personal quirk but in this case , its an incorrect term.
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:55 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
If a pizza were not round would it still be a pie?

Your relativism is inconsistent.

My answer: It was never a pie.
Quote:

occams razor doesnt fit in science. There may a be a solution to a problem that is elegant and simple, that does not mean its right. We all love to seek out the barest essence of a principle but barest essences dont mean doodly.


I stated empirically it satisfies occhams razor, however empiricalism remains circular, I am only decreasing assumptioms, such as the supernatural.

Also, I acknowledge that occhoms razor is not scientifically valid, that was my normative arguement.

Examples:
usefulness
rational
occhams razor

Also, do you remember our previous arguement?

Your refutation has been acknowledged.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 05:08 am
@Anomie,
Quote:
is it scientifically valid to practice scientific methodology?



Quote:
Your substitute MY relativism is inconsistent.


Youve underscored my point, thank you.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 07:02 am
@farmerman,
In case you missed my attempts at speaking a little on the snidely side
Quote:
is it scientifically valid to practice scientific methodology


Is the same question asked

"Is it valid for an artist to use the color wheel or a musician the tonic scale? "
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 08:50 am
@farmerman,
Of course it is valid for an artist to use the color wheel or a musician the tonic scale. But it isn't valid for either to insist that their work determines how society is organised. Just so, it is scientifically valid to practice scientific methodology.

But only in the lab. Unless, of course, the scientific methodologist thinks of society as a lab as we well know all you totalitarians do.

The insistence that SM has precedence over elected representatives is what this is all about. And I see the point. Science has worked such fantastic wonders for us, at a certain level at least, the carnal one mainly as is easily seen from a study of adverts, the "stick rattling in a bucket" approach, that it, Science, feels that we owe it and should allow it to run things. And it is indignant that we don't. Or it is its public face that is either indignant or pretending to be like an actress in a Soap often does. Soaps would be nowhere without a high level of indignation.

Teaching evolution is merely one of the crowbars to prise the door open. Another one is penetration of media with hour long ads for Science interrupted regularly with ads for other stuff. That sort of thing, and I've seen a lot of it, nearly took me in. And I've read Catch 22. The carnality being tickled is the waves of pleasure the organism feels on being Abled to Think itself clever enough to be understanding the mush about galaxies and quarks, and black holes and string theory, and a seemingly endless Litany the priesthood of Science chants before your uncomprehending gaze usually accompanied by forceful gesticulations as ridiculous as they are random, unlike those seen in a decent High Mass, and nuanced facial distortions not all that dissimilar to those deployed by hospital visitors of the professional type. Quantum mechanics a perennial favourite. Physics being Top Dog. Natch.

And I am open minded enough to allow that full-blown scientific methodology may very well be the only sensible way forward. I'm not trying to rule it out at all. I'm trying to slow it down enough so it doesn't come in while I'm still here.

The waves of pleasure are usually pretty low key stuff although crescendos are not unknown where the victim of the hysteria comes to actually believe, H.G. Wells being an example, I don't know about Dawkins, I haven't ruled him out having us on yet, that scientific methodology is the fount of all Wisdom and everything else is a load of anachronistic bullshit riddled with base superstition, hold-ups, mumbo-jumbo and bushwhackings. And the belief in the logical consequence of such a belief: namely that SM, up to speed and bright-eyed and bushy tailed with the frozen dew on the peak of its cap, is the only way forward and that anybody who objects is trying to drag us back to the Dark Ages or to even earlier periods when the mobile organic tube with a hole at each end was the latest step up the ladder of evolution and judging by my compost heap it has got no further.

I have met two in my time. Victims of this obsession. One was an embarrassment at family weddings both in the Church and at the piss-up. Everybody in Church was pointedly made aware that they were a bunch of deluded idiots when it was obvious what the transaction at the altar was all about and an official can transact such business with an e-mail.

At the piss-up his attempt to boogie was a standing joke. In the Hokey-Cokey it was any leg or arm although he would have had a few. Very well turned out though. London tailor I suppose. Tailors were among the classified advertisers in some scientific magazines. The ones they sell on railway bookstalls mainly. Purveyors of lumbago palliatives, Beecham's Pills and sundry other specialities of interest to scientific methodologists.

It seems obvious to me that SM has not spotted its other enemy. Media. What our Media does with the tools science provides it with could not be done by Science alone.

You didn't ask yourself--valid for what fm? What is valid? What you think is valid I suppose. Round and round you go defining your own excellence.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 11:31 am
@spendius,
spendi, Musicians and artists doesn't insist anything, but especially how society is organized; that's your lonesome imagination at work.

You wrote,
Quote:
"Just so, it is scientifically valid to practice scientific methodology."
is a nonsense statement, because it's repetitive.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 12:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I know.

But you so called SMs are insisting how society is organised. I am well aware that artists and musicians only suggest it.

Is English your second language?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 12:34 pm
@spendius,
English might be my second language after Japanese, but your English is a couple of centuries old.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 06:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
And none the worse for being so. Language is like the part of the iceberg that is underwater.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 07:42 pm
@spendius,
Most of us read your prose for amusement, and not for getting factual information. It's poetry without content.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:30 am
@farmerman,
Your relative is a semantical repercussion.

By definition, yes.

However, I am refuting the normative obligation.

Is a positive analysis of nutrition obligatory?

As, stated several individuals have been subjected to a naturalistic fallacy, you are appealing to objective moral values, you pressuposed 'right/wrong' and 'good/bad'.

You are not a thiest, therefore you have no obligation to a moral law giver.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 01:52 pm
@Anomie,
Quote:
However, I am refuting the normative obligation
how are you proposing to do that? PS, theres your overuse of "normative " again and again. Try for some variety in your pomposity



Quote:
Your relative is a semantical repercussion.
I have no idea what youre even getting at. Im sure that you could spend a bit more time to apply the english langiuage in a more direct (read less pompous) means of communication.

What you "BELIEVE" in is irrelevant to this discussion as youve seen how others who attempt to sidetrack the issue are treated . I propose that you may find the same happen to you if you dont begin trying to make some valid points or at least engage in a clearer manner.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 02:00 pm
@Anomie,
Quote:
Is a positive analysis of nutrition obligatory?

In a discussion of nutrition it is. Here , its just you making some vague references.

Quote:
As, stated several individuals have been subjected to a naturalistic fallacy, you are appealing to objective moral values, you pressuposed 'right/wrong' and 'good/bad'.
You must have me confused with someone else. My basis on naturalistic law is noit a fallacy and I make no appeals to right or wrong unless to refute someones attacks.

Im not spendi, hes the one stuck in Christian metaphor, not me.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 02:10 pm
@farmerman,
Not only that, but
Quote:
Anomie: Your relative is a semantical repercussion.
doesn't make any sense.

Anomie is an attacker, and believes he has superior knowledge about philosophy and other matters.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 07:17:03