Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

aidan wrote:

Shira - I was not indignant at the idea someone might tell me how to think about my child's life and when I might begin doing so with any conceptualization of it as a 'life'. I don't get indignant that other people have different ideas than I do. I fully expect that they will.

I assumed it was indignation since you immediately followed up that sentiment by calling it patronizing, just after calling it intensely personal and something you would never accept. Perhaps I read too much between the lines Wink

.

aidan wrote:

The other thing I was wondering is why there is this intense focus on Spendius' drinking.
Unless he's driving - whose business is it but his?

I only mention it as a humorous way of addressing the numerous rants he throws at me that are very, very hard to figure out. I believe I started by asking about PCP Wink

.

aidan wrote:

That's the kind of thing that bugs me about living in the US - and speaks eloquently to the fact that contrary to Spendius' belief that things could change so that we could have meaningful exchange of opinion and ideas with freedom and equanimity in the public schools it will never happen.

Wait, the thing that bothers you about living in the US is a lack of consideration for one's privacy? How long have you been out of the UK?

aidan wrote:

Because even adults in America are incapable of allowing others their beliefs, opinions, and behaviors without feeling the need to measure, weigh, compare, contrast and finally pass judgment.

This can be summed up as, "they are opinionated". Most of the people I know don't go any farther than making up their minds and treat people they disagree with just fine, thanks. Perhaps you live in one of the rather conservative or WASPish areas.

aidan wrote:

I would never advocate biblically based creationist teaching. But I do think it'd be interesting to have classes on comparative religion - just comparing the various historical and cultural perspectives - etc. But there is never simple reporting of anything not factually based here. It always comes with editorializing. And I think that's unfortunate, because it hinders and hampers debate and discussion.

Yes, and our teaching situation is dire, in my opinion. On the other hand, I think adding a comparative religion class to this dynamic is a very bad idea - the underlying problems need to be solved first. Like teachers who think it's just fine it insert their personal religious beliefs into class material.

aidan wrote:

We have to stick to a standardized curriculum because so few people are capable of creatively, yet objectively going outside of any prescribed boundaries.

Well, not entirely... curriculums can be set by corrupted and/or incompetent state boards and their directors and then by possibly equally corrupt/incompetent local school boards. And this was before the "No Child Left Behind" act, which adds another degree of standardization on top which has nothing to do with a teacher's creativity and everything to do with basic concepts of performance. People were originally happy because at least there was some focus on the schools, but it's nowhere near ideal.

aidan wrote:

When Spendius compared the pub on Thursday night to the pub you'd have on Friday night - he was talking about the type of crowd you'd get - not building an actual pub. That's what Shira is misunderstanding. And I think that this cultural divide is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes in.

It isn't a hard divide to gap as there are standard versions of english. If he's more intent on impressing everyone with random cultural references and his supposed literary wit than clearly communicating his ideas, I think we see the problem, eh?

aidan wrote:

I think Spendius wants to talk about the pub as a subtopic of evolution in maybe it's more social indicators and revealing truths as they are played out in the pub. I think he wants to talk about male/female interactions beyond those of fruit flies (are those sexless- do I remember THAT much at least from highschool biology)? Laughing

Drosophila have distinct sexes. Whichever way spendius wants to talk about the pub, it is anything but clear.

aidan wrote:

So what seem like sort of roundabout and out of nowhere non-sequiturs (and somewhat incomprehensible) might be his attempt at steering the conversation somewhere else.

I'm sure they're attempts at that as well as attempting to make points with roundabout language. Emphasis on attempts.

aidan wrote:

The question I STILL have is - does anyone else want to see the conversation go in another direction? I think most of you guys still seem into the science and physics of the whole thing.

I have no significant preferences, obviously Wink

.

0 Replies

Mr Shirakawasuna said not one word in his post No.3257192 that made any sense to me.

He is fond of the assertion isn't he? I'm not convinced he knows any other way.

I'm very naive. I can't understant evolution theory. My feelings are hurt. c.i. and the "general gist" (that's you lot) agree with him. I don't write well. I feel the need to get defensive. I can't do punctuation. I've misinterpreted somebody. I'm granted permission to ignore things and move on. I know less about science that Mr Shirakawasuna does. I'm wrong but he's not interested in explaining why "right now" and I wouldn't believe him if he did. I've to go to college and get some books.

And he's "only being honest".

0 Replies

spendi, "Evolution" is a very simple concept; it means life form changes based on the environment.

0 Replies

Thanks c.i.

I'll bear it in mind.

0 Replies

I think we can assume from aidan's response that the music was Christian music.

Could it be that the music inspires the adventurous spirit and that Christian architecture inspired the music.

A character in Shakespear/e reaches up to grasp the moon.

I'm beginning to think that Mr Shirakawasuna is an education professional and everybody knows what I think about them. And Mr Shirakawasuna's posts are doing nothing to change my mind.

0 Replies

Quote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
aidan wrote:
Shira - I was not indignant at the idea someone might tell me how to think about my child's life and when I might begin doing so with any conceptualization of it as a 'life'. I don't get indignant that other people have different ideas than I do. I fully expect that they will.

I assumed it was indignation since you immediately followed up that sentiment by calling it patronizing, just after calling it intensely personal and something you would never accept. Perhaps I read too much between the lines .

Yeah probably - but it's not your fault. It's just the way I initially come off with people - kind of dimwitted so at first they're really patronizing until they realize that there might be a little more going on upstairs (in my brain) than they first thought.
The point is - I'm used to people- especially men- being patronizing to me so it no longer elicits indignation. It's more of a sort of amused 'oh here we go again' dynamic.

Quote:
aidan wrote:
That's the kind of thing that bugs me about living in the US - and speaks eloquently to the fact that contrary to Spendius' belief that things could change so that we could have meaningful exchange of opinion and ideas with freedom and equanimity in the public schools it will never happen.

Wait, the thing that bothers you about living in the US is a lack of consideration for one's privacy? How long have you been out of the UK?

Ten months - but I'm going back in about six weeks. I'm not talking about a lack of privacy so much as a difference in the way people communicate ideas and actually LISTEN to the communication of ideas.

Although I will tell you- I do get pretty freaked out by the lengths people will go to to find out information about other people.
If I don't know something about someone - I ask them. If they don't want to tell me - that's the end of that as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
aidan wrote:
Because even adults in America are incapable of allowing others their beliefs, opinions, and behaviors without feeling the need to measure, weigh, compare, contrast and finally pass judgment.

This can be summed up as, "they are opinionated". Most of the people I know don't go any farther than making up their minds and treat people they disagree with just fine, thanks. Perhaps you live in one of the rather conservative or WASPish areas.

Well yeah - I'm basically a WASP so I guess I've always lived in fairly WASPish surroundings. But I don't think that's it.
I've noticed it more since I've been communicating on the internet and I think that's because people are willing to go further in terms of their methods and the language that they use to disagree than they would face to face.
But yeah - in America- I had one woman harangue me for about twenty minutes about why I've decided not to have a tv. She couldn't STAND that I don't have a tv- I think she thought that because I don't have a tv that means that I think negative thoughts about her because she does. There's just an extra layer of defensiveness here that I genuinely did not find to be present when I communicated different ideas or beliefs in the UK.
But that may have been because I was an outsider there and somewhat of a novelty. People were definitely more willing to listen and learn about differences and not so quick to assume what those differences implied or meant beyond the fact that they were different. It wasn't automatically right or wrong to be different - that's my point.

Quote:
aidan wrote:
I would never advocate biblically based creationist teaching. But I do think it'd be interesting to have classes on comparative religion - just comparing the various historical and cultural perspectives - etc. But there is never simple reporting of anything not factually based here. It always comes with editorializing. And I think that's unfortunate, because it hinders and hampers debate and discussion.

Yes, and our teaching situation is dire, in my opinion. On the other hand, I think adding a comparative religion class to this dynamic is a very bad idea - the underlying problems need to be solved first. Like teachers who think it's just fine it insert their personal religious beliefs into class material.

Yes, or their belief in the absence of God. I think it's just best to say in a classroom full of children- 'Everyone has his or her own personal belief system. We live in America. That's allowed to happen here.'

But I agree with you, the teaching situation is indeed dire - and growing moreso every day.

Quote:
aidan wrote:
We have to stick to a standardized curriculum because so few people are capable of creatively, yet objectively going outside of any prescribed boundaries.

Well, not entirely... curriculums can be set by corrupted and/or incompetent state boards and their directors and then by possibly equally corrupt/incompetent local school boards. And this was before the "No Child Left Behind" act, which adds another degree of standardization on top which has nothing to do with a teacher's creativity and everything to do with basic concepts of performance. People were originally happy because at least there was some focus on the schools, but it's nowhere near ideal.

But so much depends at ground zero - the teacher you have in the classroom and his or her interpretation of the curriculum whether standardized or not. Some teachers have the insight and courage to make ammendments and improvements. Others don't. And as teaching becomes more and more devalued as a profession - the people who are being attracted are less and less likely to have the personal qualities or skills to do that.
Pretty soon, lessons will have to be scripted.

Quote:
aidan wrote:
I think Spendius wants to talk about the pub as a subtopic of evolution in maybe it's more social indicators and revealing truths as they are played out in the pub. I think he wants to talk about male/female interactions beyond those of fruit flies (are those sexless- do I remember THAT much at least from highschool biology)? Laughing

Drosophila have distinct sexes. Whichever way spendius wants to talk about the pub, it is anything but clear.

Thankks for reminding me -(how did my little laughing guy get turned into the word- laughing?)

Quote:
aidan wrote:
The question I STILL have is - does anyone else want to see the conversation go in another direction? I think most of you guys still seem into the science and physics of the whole thing.

I have no significant preferences, obviously .

Good to know.

Spendius - I don't think the music was Christian- as I said- I think it was from a hollywood screenplay.

One of my students brought up the very subject you did the other day - about living in cities 'cheek by jowel' and what effect that might be having on the evolution of belief systems. It was uncanny- I hadn't said anything about any of this - and this is what he started talking about out of the blue.

You don't like education professionals?

0 Replies

Not much. I prefer enthusiastic amateurs.

What did you tell the kid who brought up the possible effects of limitation of space coefficients, not found in evolution, on mental states?

It is an interesting question as the polarisation of the sides on here may well be linked to it. Other things too.

It is a major theme in Spengler.

I would keep my eye on that rascal if I was you if it really was out of the blue. Did you not ask him what prompted him to say that?

0 Replies

I kid you not - it was out of the blue.

I asked him to tell me how he believed it has affected him and his fellow city-dwellers. I figured he could tell me more about it than I could tell him as I've only ever lived in the middle of any major sized city for about 1/15 of my entire life span.

But yes - space (or the lack of it) as well as vistas (or the lack of them) interior or exterior would definitely impact outlook.

It's finally stopped raining...hurray.

-

0 Replies

Philip Weiss quotes a person who wishes to remain anonymous: "Don't get me divorced", he is supposed to have pleaded, as saying-

Quote:

There is no more unnatural principle of social organisation than sexual exclusivity.

It is no good me saying it as I have been for many a long year because I'm a chump and therefore this truism could be deflected by the cottage industry which has grown up around this topic, Dover being a small part of it, on the sound logic that chumps are always wrong and especially when a bit tipsy.

The evidence for its truth is continually breaking out, sometimes quite dramatically as with Gary Hart, despite certain restraints, which vary in effectiveness and are at their weakest in highly urban areas and at their strongest in rural traditional settings.

And Darwin's theory adds weight to it despite the turtle doves.

Has evolution hard-wired us men at least, and maybe women, for sexual diversity and economic and prestige considerations are clouding the issue. And if evolution has so hard-wired us it was for our perfection as a species rather than as a respectable neighbour and hence a biological fact rather than an economic or psychological one.

So if AIDsers cannot find an answer to the problem of the "safest place" because they are Pro-Choicers can they find an answer to this when they are sweetly married to an insurance clerk and questioned by a student in evolution lessons, organised strictly scientifically of course, why they are going against the message of evolution a second time and both times are of great importance.

And your sweet little happily married pro-choice biology teacher is adrift on a sea of wobbly jelly and the Fundies have their feet on solid evolutionary foundations. She's a walking, talking countermander of evolution science and she's teaching it with the pure scientific truth as her one and only guide.

0 Replies

spendi, As you well know, the humans species has many faults (and sins) that far exceeds those of any animal on this planet. I don't expect perfection from anyone, and as part of the human kingdom, nothing surprises me in how humans behave; from cannibalism to the most generous of individuals that would part with their last morsel of food and/or wealth.

Most of us fall in that space between the two extremes - I would hope.

Intelligence is over-rated; I have met many with mental disabilities who are better humans.

0 Replies

Social organization via sexual nonexclusivity?

Well first you'd have to find the happily married biology teacher, but if you did, I'd guess that she might introduce the concept of social, emotional and behavioral conditioning upon an organism at that point.

She might allude to the fact that while it is natural and yes, almost expected for a man to 'spill his seed' somewhat indiscriminately- hardwiring or no- women have been conditioned for thousands of years to behave differently literally via rigidly enforced mores of behavior in almost every culture, as well as,figuratively and metaphorically throughout history via almost the entire western literary canon and prevailing literary 'conceits'.

0 Replies

Science has reared its head at last.

c.i.-- I have never met an intelligent person who wasn't a complete apsehole. It goes to their head being designated intelligent.

The very last thing you should do if you think somebody is intelligent is tell them that they are. And particularly if they share some DNA with you.

It gets out of hand if you do that. Everybody else follows suit, on account of how easy it is, and before you know it everybody has a high IQ.

0 Replies

Except the immigrants of course who are needed to carry out the essential tasks that people who are highly intelligent cannot possibly be expected to do.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

[blah blah comparing yourself to Proust]

The general idea is to bury the sense in such a way that only those who love the play of language ever get to glimpse it. I'm not bothered about the rest.

[blah blah Romans]

I suppose that's all we need to know, isn't it? It's attempts at literary masturbation and nothing more.

Oh, and then there's this.

spendius wrote:

Science is really the manifestation of the playful curiosity without any aim. A HOBBY-HORSE as Sterne calls it. A scientist doesn't give a damn what the kids are taught. That's career stuff.

I'm going to ask that you stop speaking about scientists, since you clearly are talking out of your ass concerning them. Scientists have been some of the nicest (and busiest to boot) people I've met.

spendius wrote:

And by giving that your attention the real scientists you have, and you'll have your share, are discouraged and you end up with committees and meetings and the handful who do the big things are lost to you. Or most of them. Science is being institutionalised and that's a conservative action even if carried out by people who assert they are liberals.

Excellent job editorializing such that no one knows exactly what you're saying but we can all tell it's about badmouthing modern science.

spendius wrote:

You have to find my post about the "safest place" incomprehensible. It may not be as necessary to others as to you to do so.

You very clearly don't get it. Like I've said, test it out. Take that bit about the pub you wrote when you were (apparently) talking about abiogenesis and organic molecules. Show it to people. See if they understand it. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but a thread on Intelligent Design is not writing a novella.

spendius wrote:

That's in the history books. Could an AIDser with a keen interest in history have told the tale as efficiently and stylishly as that and fastened it in the memory so that it is never eradicated. It all ended up as rubble didn't it so the other details are of no importance. The main thing lived on.

Could an AIDser think up the joke in the first sentence?

Could you be any more condescending? I know a couple excellent writers who are also scientists and are both familiar with the greats and have done their share of artistic prose. And that's just people I personally know.

I haven't seen you defend your use of that word yet, either. I think you know that it's despicable.

spendius wrote:

The idea aidan is to convey that my posts are the incoherent mutterings of a drunken sot and thus unworthy of consideration.

Actually, I have no idea what your drinking habits are. I only mentioned drinking because many of your posts simply look like the writings of a very drunk person. I believe I originally poked fun by noting you must've been on PCP to be saying some of the things you did Wink

. Not just because the writing was bad, no, but because the ideas were haphazardly thrown together such that they did not make a competent whole.

It has absolutely nothing to do with fallacious ad hominem. If you don't believe us that your ramblings are incoherent, just test it out on others. Even aidan, who thought they could figure some of them out and that it was just a cultural barrier, missed a number of them.

spendius wrote:

I also suspect a reformed alcoholic or two fighting off temptations.

The hilarious thing, of course, is that your own rationalizations for this are themselves ad hominem. Those people must have problems with drinking, otherwise they wouldn't be saying those things.

spendius wrote:

And it is an aspect of this matter that AIDsers go to great lengths to avoid. They even declare that my posts are incomprehensible when they read perfectly clearly to me. It ought to have been obvious when I did the Footballer's Wives posts.

Congratulations on understanding what you yourself write. If you didn't do at least that much you would indeed be bordering on lunacy. That doesn't mean anyone else can figure it out, of course.

I'm not going to any lengths to avoid anything. You quite simply suck at writing and I'm sorry that it apparently hurts your feelings. Try this, for once: try to write clearly and straightforwardly for the next 10 posts. If you have a point to make, refuse the urge to editorialize like your heroes.

spendius wrote:

ID is composed of religion and science. Anti-ID is composed of just science. I do not see how it would not be totalitarian. And thousands of responses by AIDsers have inchoate totalitarianism character lacking only power to be the Big Fist.

This is a big pile of fail, to put it kindly. ID is full of people who lie to pretend that they are practicing only science, not pseudoscientific support for religious ideals. Apparently you haven't paid attention to them.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

As far as I'm concerned ros can hardly read and write.

People in glass houses sink ships. Err, wait....

spendius wrote:

The idea that he is educated about basic scientific theories, judging by his posts, is laughable and constitutes huddling together by AIDsers for comfort using mutual stroking.

He's presented far more evidence for understanding what truly is basic scientific ideas than you have. Glass houses...

Note that this isn't an insult, either. Noting that someone is ignorant about something only comments on the knowledge they have, not their intelligence. I am ignorant about many things, but I also know when I possess enough knowledge to correct someone else.

spendius wrote:

Saying that not all religious people are as ignorant as me is a meaningless sentence.

How so? I know many religious people who understand science quite well and have no problems with it whatsoever. Note that if you actually understand ID and subscribe to it, you absolutely do have a problem with science. Have you read the Wedge document?

spendius wrote:

If the "energy/inorganic whatnot" didn't POOF life into existence how did life get started?

Most research and theory today postulates a catalyzed system that led to sustainable, self-replicating molecules. I won't go into the details right now for three reasons: 1) it's off-topic, 2) it's very complicated and I don't understand all of it either, although I do get the basic chemical ideas, and 3) it would feed into the notion that it is somehow my onus to show the lack of necessity for some kind of designer, when that is clearly not the case. The evidence points to life on earth starting at a point in the distant past and we have frankly come a long way to understanding some possible pathways (although finding anything definitive may be impossible). That's it and that's close to the entirety of my opinion on the matter.

spendius wrote:

Don't the planetary probes search for signs of "organics"? I only used "POOF" because AIDsers use it.

If you're talking about organic molecules, to an extent yes - planetary probes often do a huge range of experiments, though. It is known from astronomical observations that organic molecules exist throughout our galaxy and our solar system, although most are likely simple organic molecules like methane.

And "POOF" works when rational, educated people use it to describe wielding a 'God' as an answer. It successfully describes the thought process that goes into the explanation so far as I can tell. When one asks how such a designer did it, the only answer seems to be allusions to general designer things and "it just happened".
In fact, the most reasonable or "sophisticated" theistic explanations tend to say God did it through what we discover in science, including abiogenesis, but they're not creationist/ID types.

It really doesn't work for naturalistic explanations, as they tend to be mechanistic and are often descriptive over millennia, not to mention explicitly tentative and humble (no "poof" there). Note that I don't say that the RNA world hypothesis is necessarily true or has huge amounts of evidence for it being the case, but that it's an interesting exploration of the plausibility of abiogenesis in general.

spendius wrote:

Is it their personal preserve? Nucleosynthesis is just another word. If it's one that gives the girls on the front row an attack of the wide-eyed wonderment at the speaker's command of language it okay by me.

Shall we dumb it down for you, spendius? I certainly don't use these words just to sound smart, they are simply established nomenclature within science for referring to very specific ideas. I use them for clarity.

spendius wrote:

There would be real excitement if they found any sign of organic life anywhere off the earth I think.

As opposed to inorganic Wink

?

We find in meteorites small formations that look suspiciously life-like, which certainly counts as "any sign of organic life anywhere off the earth". It's nowhere near conclusive, but meh. The presence of life off of earth isn't particularly necessary for any of the ideas I hold to.

spendius wrote:

Perhaps fm will explain the difference between inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry for you. Nuclear power is the first tapping of the former by humans but it could not be done without the organics. If it could we have a perpetual motion machine.

And why should he be explaining the difference to me, exactly? I've provided no evidence that I don't understand the difference - in many ways it is a bit arbitrary. Ask some tenured biochemistry professors (and stay the heck away from Behe Wink

).

There's nothing about nuclear reactions (like fission/fusion) that seems to require organic molecules, nor would that imply anything like a perpetual motion machine, so I have no idea where you're going with that. Perhaps you've learned what nucleosynthesis is and know that the reactions within the sun produce the building blocks of organic molecules? In that case, know that correlation is not causation.

spendius wrote:

When I mentioned the pub it was just one example out of millions of one of the developments which it would be difficult to imagine inorganic materials ever coming up with or even any other religion apart from the Christian one.

I refer you again to the argument from personal incredulity. The synthesis of urea shows how your lack of imagination doesn't determine the reality of the situation, just to mention a single case of organics produced from inorganics. It is often an overblown historical point (a lot of science history is, irritatingly), but it certainly shows how the distinction between organic and inorganic is somewhat arbitrary (but useful).

I have no idea what you're talking about concerning Christianity here. Apparently you think it explains the origin of organic molecules? Perhaps you could show me the mathematical models contained in the Bible.

spendius wrote:

Yes-I see these things as results of Christian culture. And am grateful for them. Sport is a much better example but I was being a bit playful. Your writing is characterised by an absence of that style.

I don't hold pretensions about my prose and don't try to impress others with it. At least it's usually clear and when not, easily corrected. I still don't get the Christian reference.

spendius wrote:

It's to do with the pleasure/pain principle don't you know? Will it be all work and no play when you silly phuckers take over. Just look at fm's avvie. It's enough to get the lions to run off with their tails between their legs and yelping pitifully. Take a good look. Physiognomically I mean. Uniforms. Authority. Knees Up Mother Brown I don't think.

Might I note again that your imagination doesn't determine reality? Having a reasonable understanding of parts of the world does not make one boring or hate fun Wink

. In fact, the most fun people I know aren't religious at all. I wonder where you get your biases concerning this "authority" idea of yours...

Psst, aidan, it looks like I'm on of those "phuckers" now Wink

. It also seems that I managed to get the pub reference right and you completely* missed it, so welcome to the club! (*Here's your asbestos jacket and flamethrower)

spendius wrote:

I thought we all knew how long it had taken life to create my pub. And that couldn't be created efficiently without the economics of scale from having 70,000 pubs and I don't know how many clubs. It was a long time anyway. And it was very (power of N) slow at doing it. It was only when Christians got to work that things got moving and we have hardly got started. My pub is a fantastic object. And I've been in better ones. Seeing it as a wonder of the world is a microcosmic way of seeing the wonder of Western Christianity. And the rest of the world is aching for it.

Uh... are you really using your pub as a pinnacle of Christianity? It doesn't seem you've actually replied to my last point about it, which was really mostly hinting that you needed clarification. I'm not sure if I got it or see what it has to do with the original reference. I'm guessing it's another argument from personal incredulity.

spendius wrote:

There's nothing stupider to me than a Muslim who has managed to get here staying a Muslim and what's even stupider is making a big deal out of it.

Ah, so you're a religious bigot. Got it. I've noticed that this kind of bigotry usually goes hand-in-hand with personal insecurities.

spendius wrote:

I have no idea whether "hydrogen reactions can produce light". Or the other way round. I asked you where light came from. Have you forgotten already? I think saying it was POOFED is as good an explanation as any I've seen so far.

I already gave you one way in which you can kick some light out of some molecules. I'm sorry if you didn't understand the reference, but if you ask an incredulous question about a technical topic you better expect a techincal answer. I believe I noted that you probably weren't interested anyways so the fact that you just ignored my response isn't surprising.

Here's a more simple response: light is a natural phenomena from physical interactions which possesses both wave-like and particle-like qualities (like most other particles). It "comes from" those physical interactions. I suppose you want an answer similar to theistic answers, but I'm sorry you're not going to get one: those types of answers are both nonanswers and usually unwarranted. I don't possess that kind of arrogance.

I suspect you'll be using this as an argument from ignorance: if I don't explain this to your satisfaction, your answer is better by default.

spendius wrote:

When the electron pops off it is popping off some stored energy. It isn't the ultimate source of it.

Then you are talking about the origin of all the physical interactions we witness, in which case I obviously don't know. This line of questionig resolves into the points addressed by the cosmological argument for which no theistic answer is warranted and for which there is no apparent answer. Even if string theory were fully vindicated, explaining the origins of these types of energy, one could always ask where the underlying parts came from, etc.

I'll recommend that you look up the term "argument from ignorance" before responding.

spendius wrote:

And to say that you're "not sure" whether I'm interested in this stuff is not only a bit wishy-washy, non-committal I mean, pointless drivel in two words, but also very silly. I know you're not interested in this stuff. I know what you are interested in.

It's not wishy-washy nor is it silly, as it can be tough to judge one's intentions on the interwebs. Then again, you just vindicated my point with your lack of caring about how one can pop a photon off of a molecule. You didn't just brush it aside, but completely ignored it Very Happy

.

aidan wrote:

Spendius are you still talking to Mr. Shirakawasuko? If you know what he's interested in - I wish you'd tell me. It seems he's only interested in arguing.

I'm interested in debate and argument, sure. That is much of the point of this thread, after all - exploring an idea which has proponents and opponents and (ideally) constituted in rational argumentation. I don't just argue to be a gadfly, though. I argue to learn and teach, both of which are valuable. It may not seem obvious how this works when some of the people I converse with likely have not intention of changing their opinions and have likely built up rationalizations to deal with this type of thing, but the gains which are peripheral can also be valuable. Starting with the selfish one, it helps me organize my own thoughts and explore things I might be confused about or have no immediate answer to, whether or not the other person ever tells me anything I haven't heard before. In terms of helping others, what I called "teaching", I don't actually have to convince them of my opinions for it to seem valuable in the selfless sense - everyone has to start somewhere and often the path to trying to be more objective in one's learning and opinions begins with cognitive dissonance.

With your experience as a teacher, my methods may seem foreign to you as you are used to dealing with pupils, but here is the difference I would guess at: I treat the people I speak with on these forums as equals in their entirety and have expectations for those equals, including an attempted minimum of arrogance and a lack of sophistry (intentional or otherwise). While in an extremely civil debate or a classroom one pretends to respect absolutely terrible arguments, I find that it seems to pander to ignorance and actually lets people mislead themselves rather than directly stating honest opinions and working at some kind of synthesis. I find the latter to be more respectful, to be honest, although more challenging intellectually. Or, like Christopher Hitchens says, civility is overrated.

So, again the point is to learn and teach through argument. I suppose there might be some vain (and untentional) notions of making wrong people stop being so wrong in there, but I try to avoid that Wink

. Even if I sound harsh, it's only in the context of debate - I'll gladly buy you or anyone else a beer if you're in town or talk about less disputed issues in another thread.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Mr Shirakawasuna said not one word in his post No.3257192 that made any sense to me.

It seems that the most obstinate people are always the ones lacking creativity in retorts. Apparently now that I've accurately described your posts as incoherent, you're going to play at mine being hard to understand Wink

.

spendius wrote:

He is fond of the assertion isn't he? I'm not convinced he knows any other way.

I'm very naive. I can't understant evolution theory. My feelings are hurt. c.i. and the "general gist" (that's you lot) agree with him. I don't write well. I feel the need to get defensive. I can't do punctuation. I've misinterpreted somebody.

So far I somewhat doubt you've thought over that list much. You don't seem to understand evolutionary theory. You do seem naïve. Your responses to my claims about the poorness of your writing do make it seem like your feelings were hurt. You do sound defensive. You do fail at putting in proper amounts of punctuation (it leads to rambling run-on sentences that don't tie ideas together in a rational fashion). You've regularly misinterprted me, despite my repeated corrections.

I've pointed all of these things out with specific instances as evidence.

spendius wrote:

I'm granted permission to ignore things and move on.

Uh... you messed up your pattern.

spendius wrote:

I know less about science that Mr Shirakawasuna does.

I'm pretty sure this is true, given that you weren't even familiar with nucleosynthesis, something I learned in the younger years of gradeschool. So far you've given me every indication of ignorance. I believe I've noted that this is not an insult, although you seem to be taking it that way.

spendius wrote:

I'm wrong but he's not interested in explaining why "right now" and I wouldn't believe him if he did. I've to go to college and get some books.

Correct, I am not going to teach you the basics of chemistry. It is frankly not my onus to do so. The entire point of all this is that you do not seem to recognize that you're completely unaware of the level of scientific understanding on these topics. When I don't understand something, rather than just poking holes I ask questions and do some research. I don't act like my (ignorant) position is the default.

spendius wrote:

And he's "only being honest".

True. You are inventing all kinds of things and spouting them off about why we might think you're ramblings are incoherent. As it turns out, they're just bad.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Yeah probably - but it's not your fault. It's just the way I initially come off with people - kind of dimwitted so at first they're really patronizing until they realize that there might be a little more going on upstairs (in my brain) than they first thought.

I assure you I didn't assume that at all. I would've said the same things to someone who had three PhDs and proven intelligence. I also take issue with the characterization of my ideas as patronizing, though. I simply advocated the way I think someone should consider these things, although I did mess up a bit on what I meant to say.

aidan wrote:

Ten months - but I'm going back in about six weeks. I'm not talking about a lack of privacy so much as a difference in the way people communicate ideas and actually LISTEN to the communication of ideas.

Although I will tell you- I do get pretty freaked out by the lengths people will go to to find out information about other people.
If I don't know something about someone - I ask them. If they don't want to tell me - that's the end of that as far as I'm concerned.

May I ask which part of the country you're in? It doesn't seem familiar to me.

aidan wrote:

Well yeah - I'm basically a WASP so I guess I've always lived in fairly WASPish surroundings. But I don't think that's it.
I've noticed it more since I've been communicating on the internet and I think that's because people are willing to go further in terms of their methods and the language that they use to disagree than they would face to face.

No, I'm essentially like this all the time, the only exception being when I'm at work (I have to deal with the general public). In the context of an argument, of course.

aidan wrote:

But yeah - in America- I had one woman harangue me for about twenty minutes about why I've decided not to have a tv. She couldn't STAND that I don't have a tv- I think she thought that because I don't have a tv that means that I think negative thoughts about her because she does.

Weird. One thing you might notice when comparing countries is how much more sensitive you are while in the foreign place. Things which are really pretty mundane and not all that different will seem much stranger. Buildings and the general landscape will be analyzed more as will mannerisms. Or at least, that's how it works/worked for me. When in another place there's a sense of adventure and intense observation.

aidan wrote:

But that may have been because I was an outsider there and somewhat of a novelty. People were definitely more willing to listen and learn about differences and not so quick to assume what those differences implied or meant beyond the fact that they were different. It wasn't automatically right or wrong to be different - that's my point.

Both where I'm from and where I am now, what you described as normal in the UK is about what you'd find. As with all places, though, there are different social networks and different kinds of people. Perhaps you're in a rather weird one Wink

. If it's in the context of public schools, I certainly remember there being a very, very weird culture with the teachers and administrators. Very strained. But America is a big place with lots of communities spread out in different pockets, so the expansion of my personal experiences to generalizations may be inaccurate.

aidan wrote:

Yes, or their belief in the absence of God. I think it's just best to say in a classroom full of children- 'Everyone has his or her own personal belief system. We live in America. That's allowed to happen here.'

I'd agree but I don't think it happens very often. Perhaps it's because there's fewer atheists than theists or maybe atheists tend to be more careful about that kind of thing (there's a bit of a stigma, you know), but I've never heard of such a thing outside of extremely reactionary, extremely conservative, extremely ignorant circles. For example, Gwen Pearson's experience at UT Permian. It's a bit hard to trust what anonymous students said about her when there was also routine harassment outside of class and even some assault. I'm not saying that's typical, just that the claims always seem a bit dubious and essentially never corroborated by more than one student.

aidan wrote:

But so much depends at ground zero - the teacher you have in the classroom and his or her interpretation of the curriculum whether standardized or not. Some teachers have the insight and courage to make ammendments and improvements. Others don't. And as teaching becomes more and more devalued as a profession - the people who are being attracted are less and less likely to have the personal qualities or skills to do that. Pretty soon, lessons will have to be scripted.

Not only that, but we have pretty bad teaching education and general style at the moment, in any case. It's a very old teaching method, completely uninfluenced by the last 50 years of research into how people learn. I'm talking about the classic lecture + homework and maybe, if you're lucky, some self-guided group work.

I would love to be a teacher. I wouldn't love making ~$35K/year for 10 years, working 60 hour weeks, and being jerked around by the standardization and sometimes poorly-constructed curricula, not to mention the hassle of dealing with administrators which may or may not be acceptable.

aidan wrote:

Thankks for reminding me -(how did my little laughing guy get turned into the word- laughing?)

Dunno, it's just what my copy + paste does Very Happy

. Maybe it's a linux/konqueror quirk? If you put : on either end it turns back into the smiley.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

[ramble ramble Gary Hart ramble ramble turtle doves ramble ramble]
So if AIDsers cannot find an answer to the problem of the "safest place" because they are Pro-Choicers can they find an answer to this when they are sweetly married to an insurance clerk and questioned by a student in evolution lessons, organised strictly scientifically of course, why they are going against the message of evolution a second time and both times are of great importance.

I think it's time that you learned about the naturalistic fallacy. It's a fallacy, you know. That means when you portray it as somehow consistent with a view that evolution is true, your argument is invalid. You said you read it and didn't like it, but apparently there's a disconnect between having an idea for the word and understanding the inconsistencies of using it.

spendius wrote:

And your sweet little happily married pro-choice biology teacher is adrift on a sea of wobbly jelly and the Fundies have their feet on solid evolutionary foundations. She's a walking, talking countermander of evolution science and she's teaching it with the pure scientific truth as her one and only guide.

See above.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Social organization via sexual nonexclusivity?

Well first you'd have to find the happily married biology teacher, but if you did, I'd guess that she might introduce the concept of social, emotional and behavioral conditioning upon an organism at that point.

She might allude to the fact that while it is natural and yes, almost expected for a man to 'spill his seed' somewhat indiscriminately- hardwiring or no- women have been conditioned for thousands of years to behave differently literally via rigidly enforced mores of behavior in almost every culture, as well as,figuratively and metaphorically throughout history via almost the entire western literary canon and prevailing literary 'conceits'.

Hey. You, too. Naturalistic fallacy. Lookit up Wink

.

0 Replies

Mr Shirakawasuna wrote-

Quote:

spendius wrote:
And by giving that your attention the real scientists you have, and you'll have your share, are discouraged and you end up with committees and meetings and the handful who do the big things are lost to you. Or most of them. Science is being institutionalised and that's a conservative action even if carried out by people who assert they are liberals.

Excellent job editorializing such that no one knows exactly what you're saying but we can all tell it's about badmouthing modern science.

It seems perfectly clear to me what it means. And your "no one" is the epitome of arrogant, self-reassuring complacency.

And it is what is happening in respect of those who claim to speak for science coming out of their secure compounds and preaching about political issues and using the credibility of science and partial arguments to push their own boat out either for cash or to draw attention to themselves. The fact that they do that may not prove that they have run out of scientific steam but it certainly suggests it.

Do you really think that the tobacco and alcohol problems are as simple as these people make them out to be. If you do you are no scientist. Both of them are incredibly complex problems when related to national interest. Even the argument about health costs that they use is patently false and that's simple to understand.

I'm not bad mouthing modern science at all. You can read Nature all year and not see a name that comes on TV spouting over-simplifications.

I'll badmouth the latter types but don't confuse that with badmouthing modern science. The vast bulk of modern scientists are getting on with their jobs and have my full support. In the political field you are supposed to get elected before you can start pushing people about. Science is disinterested. It can make abortion safe and efficient in practical terms there and then but when it starts on about what to do with the science it has taken off its scientific hat. Entirely. It is just another citizen then. The scientific cachet is thus abused and so is the public. That's badmouthing science for me.

Einstein was out of science when he wrote to President Truman. And ignored by a man who had glad-handed the people in the streets.

*I'm up and down like a bride's nightie today so I can only deal with the points raised a bit at a time.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know