wande quoted-
Quote:"The scientific theory of cells!" Is there any other kind of cell theory worthy of consideration? I know of none.
That Mr Gross knows of none is not an argument.
Neither is it of any interest to Floridians except that those of them who are up to speed might wonder what a scientific ignoramus is doing writing so-called scientific articles in their journal of the record and arrogantly preaching about matters he obviously knows nothing about.
Freud outlined in Civilization and its Discontents a thesis related to repression of instinctual urges causing disease.
Quote:Assumptions Freud Stuck With:
The premise that there was a mental apparatus within every individual-a mind. This mind was related in some ways to the brain and its physiology but was also in some ways separate from it and thus open to psychological study.
That a large part of the mind is hidden from our direct scrutiny.
That within the mind a form of psychological determinism acts so that it is possible to attribute observable events to some psychological cause.
Finally, Freud remained convinced that abnormal and normal lay on a continuum.
Wilhelm Reich took such a thesis into the biological realm to show that cellular malfunction is related to repression of instinctual urges, which is one of the functions of education in civilised societies. Especially in higher grade mixed classes in warm environments.
His books The Function of the Orgasm and Character Analysis present his theories. I won't go into those matters for obvious reasons.
The common use of sexual and scatological terms in ordinary discourse is a sufficient index of our instinctive rejection of repression and it has been demonstrated sociologically that this use increases in direct proportion as danger is sensed.
So there is a theory of cells related to psychology (psychosomatic--dread word for AIDs-ers) and as psychology is related to culture then there is a cultural theory of cells and their healthy functioning and as there are many cultures such theories are necessarily subjective.
Reich quotes Nicolai Hartmann with approval for having shown that procreation is a function of sexuality and not vice versa which I think a Darwinian would maintain. That obviously given the Adam and Eve story a grounding in modern science.
It is most unlikely that Mr Gross is not suffering under repressions of one sort or another. He would hardly be allowed into the public prints if that was not the case.
I think, before he starts rabbiting about cell theory presumably in the hope that nobody will question him on it, he might try dipping his toe into the water of the subject.
Otherwise he is caught in the same dilemma that he accuses Florida's anti-evolutionists of.
He is using the same trick as AIDs-ers do on here. He thinks that talking about cell theory, evolution theory and atomic theory implies that he understands them and is therefore qualified to propagandize about the education of millions of kids.
wande- what makes you think that these tin-pot journalists have anything to contribute to this debate. Mr Gross hasn't.
It is well known that a late age of consent has an effect on cells. But we accept such things, and I won't mention the others, for cultural reasons and Darwinism has no room for those.
This debate is being conducted by people who know nothing about these matters and are probably better off never knowing.
And you can easily see them turning their heads away from my twee posts like the sound Christians they are underneath that persona (character armour) of empiricism.
And they are twee, like Mr Gross's paper is twee, due to the TOS.
So we are unscientific as a matter of course when it comes to humans and humans are the only serious components of classrooms.
