Democracies and Mutual Respect

All these pages, and it hasn't sunk in with you, POM, that this thread's intent was not to discuss schools and school children, has it not?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Temperature trends appear to be warming slightly for some regions.

Depends how you define "slightly". (Not many glaciers where you are living, okie?)

okie wrote:

Therefore, I think teaching little kids that we know for 100% sure that mankind is drastically warming the earth because of fossil fuels is not accurately teaching what we know.

I basically agree with most of your post, actually. However, teaching little kids that it is entirely possible that mankind is drastically warming the earth because of fossil fuels is definitely an option...

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

All these pages, and it hasn't sunk in with you, POM, that this thread's intent was not to discuss schools and school children, has it not?

ooh.... I wanted to discuss little school children, though.

No.

Seriously. This thread has been off-topiced (he!). I'm sorry and I'll shut up. For now.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
Okie wrote: Global warming is now taught as 100% sure by some of being man caused, but another example of just theory, and the subject is not well understood at all.

Okie -- When I was in college, the most prominent of the right wingers had a catch phrase: You've been duped by the Communists!

Well, you've been duped by the Capitolists! The bush administration wants you to believe that global warming isn't real.

BTW, what sort of science education do you have?

Did I say that global warming is definitely not real? Temperature trends appear to be warming slightly for some regions. It is unclear what the causes are, whether mankind is partially the cause, or if whatever the trends are that they are simply part of a cycle. Geological evidence clearly shows cyclical change throughout the history of the earth. Many scientists do not agree about this subject, and they all purport to utilize scientific evidence to support their views. Unfortunately, this subject is politically charged, and seldom is science accurately judged when politics enters the picture. Therefore, I think teaching little kids that we know for 100% sure that mankind is drastically warming the earth because of fossil fuels is not accurately teaching what we know. The different theories about what is going on should be presented as theories, not fact. I am in favor of accuracy, not politically skewed indoctrination.

The degree was geology.

HOPE YOU WATCHED 60 MINUTES LAST NIGHT.

0 Replies

Well, there's a whole lot of healthy mutual respect here <eyeroll>.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Well, there's a whole lot of healthy mutual respect here <eyeroll>.

Thats what I was thinking. Perhaps this forum demonstrates the problem as it occurs in other places in society, as the schools? Can we disagree without displaying contempt and hatred?

0 Replies

I dunno.

0 Replies

But wasn't that your whole point with this thread LittleK? If I am wrong please correct me. I took the thesis to be that only when people can respect a different point of view, whether or not they agree with it, can democratic principles work.

Hatred, disrespect, enmity, intolerance, etc. are no different whether leveled against the Left or the Right. The teacher who indoctrinates his/her students in a particular point of view may very well be teaching a different form of hatred even as s/he despises another. The politican who calls for the destruction of an opponent rather than enter into constructive debate does the same. Ideological groups who demonize those who think differently rarely accomplish much other than violence and unrest.

Respect does not mean to agree or give lip service. But it dang sure can mean to not interfere with those different from ourselves with those different ones are infringing on nobody's legal, constitutional, or unalienable rights.

When only one point of view is allowed, we no longer have a democratic republic.

0 Replies

To me, mutual respect means that people with opposing opinions enter into discussions/debates in a thoughtful manner. I am all for differences of opinion. What I don't like is bashing, insulting, etc the opponent. Once that type of behavior starts, neither side is listening to the other. So, what's the point?

I guess part of the problem is that we don't all follow the same rules of debate. I'm not poking at any one group, we all do it.

0 Replies

actually, not all of us do it.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

To me, mutual respect means that people with opposing opinions enter into discussions/debates in a thoughtful manner. I am all for differences of opinion. What I don't like is bashing, insulting, etc the opponent. Once that type of behavior starts, neither side is listening to the other. So, what's the point?

I guess part of the problem is that we don't all follow the same rules of debate. I'm not poking at any one group, we all do it.

Actually not all of us do it.

Well my point was that if only one point of view is permissable to be discussed, it doesn't matter how thoughtful the manner of discussion is conducted. Any who hold a different opinion or who are needing sufficient information to develop an informed opinion will be disrespected. This is evenmoreso true if one party presumes to dictate what one point of view will be permissable.

To me, it is appropriate to illustrate this with real life illustrations. It is generally difficult to discuss what is without some of what isn't coming into it. But this may not be what you had in mind with the thread at all.

Perhaps you could offer some of your thoughts on the subject as an illustration of how you think the discussion should go and/or what you think mutual respect is.

0 Replies

Respect for different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions should have the same weight when contrasted with each other.

Intelligent design has little scientific standing in comparison to evolution.

Should Wicca have the same weight as Christianity in discussions about Baptists' religious beliefs?

Facts can lead to different opinions. It is when facts are denied or unsupported that derision occurs in debate. Personal experience can lead you to decide what is and isn't right in the world but don't expect it to convince other people. It is nothing but the story of the blind men and the elephant if you rely only on your personal experience.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Respect for different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions should have the same weight when contrasted with each other.

Intelligent design has little scientific standing in comparison to evolution.

Should Wicca have the same weight as Christianity in discussions about Baptists' religious beliefs?

Facts can lead to different opinions. It is when facts are denied or unsupported that derision occurs in debate. Personal experience can lead you to decide what is and isn't right in the world but don't expect it to convince other people. It is nothing but the story of the blind men and the elephant if you rely only on your personal experience.

I think it would depend on the context. In an objective Bible study or theology class, intelligent design would absolutely have as much, if not more, relevance than would evolution; but a respectful instructor would not attempt to teach a class that evolution was irrelevent. In science class, evolution can be taught scientifically and should definitely be given more weight than intelligent design; however, a respectful instructor would not presume to dismiss ID as irrelevent, but would simply explain that it was not pertinent to the science curriculum.

This would apply to many many issues and subjects. When there is mutual respect, one can argue the merits of his/her belief or opinion without feeling a need to disrespect the person who holds a different belief or opinion.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Respect for different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions should have the same weight when contrasted with each other.

Intelligent design has little scientific standing in comparison to evolution.

Should Wicca have the same weight as Christianity in discussions about Baptists' religious beliefs?

Facts can lead to different opinions. It is when facts are denied or unsupported that derision occurs in debate. Personal experience can lead you to decide what is and isn't right in the world but don't expect it to convince other people. It is nothing but the story of the blind men and the elephant if you rely only on your personal experience.

Hi Parados. I think Foxfyre made a real good point last post.

Parados, you are an example of a liberal viewpoint I think, based on my personal experience and impressions from debating you before. You probably think I am a good example of an ill informed conservative mindset that refuses to accept new evidence? Thats your privilege. I don't think you are correct, but anyway I do appreciate your thoughtful debate, sometimes with sarcasm, but you restrain yourself from name calling and gutter language. I do not perceive you as a hateful person. Thanks.

Parados, I would submit to you that you are not crediting personal experience as highly as you should. One time when working for a corporation, a reporter came out and did a story on the operation we had. When I read the article, I shook my head at all the inaccuracies and basicly not a well written representation of what was going on there. This confirmed my suspicions that news stories, books, and things like that may consist of a few facts, but are intermixed with plenty of what I would call personal impressions, which are secondhand, and could be regarded as "hearsay."

So in regard to personal experience, I know what happened when I was a child, I know where I've been, I know whats going on in this town now, and I get solid firsthand evidence of what is going on with the schools around here, and I know what friends and acquaintances think. I do not know what is going on in New York unless I trust the news, which I happen to take with a grain of salt. Yes, it provides information that may give a hint about what is going on.

Some of our scientific community is plagued with what I would call "junk science." Scientific thought tends to have trends and tangents, until such time that more sound evidence debunks current theory. Parados, I think you need to be reminded that theories and facts are not the same thing.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe science is quite valid as far as it goes, but I do not see it as replacing religious faith anytime soon. We will simply never understand it all. We are not capable of it. One of the guaranteed freedoms in this country is the freedom to worship, so I do not see the schools as a proper venue to intentionally attempt to debunk people's religious beliefs. As far as evolution is concerned, why not admit we do not know for sure where or how man was formed. Present all possibilities from a scientific viewpoint and a religious viewpoint and don't dwell on the subject. And by the way, the two do not need to necessarily conflict.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

parados wrote:
Respect for different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions should have the same weight when contrasted with each other.

Intelligent design has little scientific standing in comparison to evolution.

Should Wicca have the same weight as Christianity in discussions about Baptists' religious beliefs?

Facts can lead to different opinions. It is when facts are denied or unsupported that derision occurs in debate. Personal experience can lead you to decide what is and isn't right in the world but don't expect it to convince other people. It is nothing but the story of the blind men and the elephant if you rely only on your personal experience.

I think it would depend on the context.

Read my sentence again. It gives the context.

Quote:

This would apply to many many issues and subjects. When there is mutual respect, one can argue the merits of his/her belief or opinion without feeling a need to disrespect the person who holds a different belief or opinion.

When someone refuses to understand or respect the context of a discussion why should they be given respect? They obviously aren't interested in giving respect. ebrown said it pretty well in his anecdote.

0 Replies

okie,

Are you familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant?

You are giving personal experience more credit than it is worth. Yes, it has a place but it has to be tempered with other facts. Just because I jumped off a 12' roof and didn't injure myself doesn't mean I can do it again nor does it mean everyone else will be able to do it. If you are relying on one source for your information then you have a problem, whether that source is a written source or your own personal actions. Just because you go to a school once every year doesn't mean you know what is going on in that school anymore than a journalist that spends a day in your place of work knows the reality of your workplace.

Scientific theory fits the known facts. New things can be discovered but science doesn't deal with facts not yet known. It can only deal with the present facts. A theory fits those facts in that it explains the observed facts and can predict future observations. You need to understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. When it comes to science, journalists tend to simplify theories which can make it look like junk science. Go look at the actual science before you judge it. "Junk science" is what the government has been putting out lately. They ignore facts that are inconvenient to their pet theory and play up unrelated items as cause and effect.

Religion has no place in science anymore than religion has a place in math. Would you allow a math argument that 5/5000 = 12 ?
(5 loaves divided amongst 5000 people leaves 12 left over which proves that 2+2 can not equal 4.)

No scientist ever stated they would "know it all". I think any scientist will tell you that every answer raises 10 more questions and always will.

0 Replies

Yes, I've heard the story of the blind man and the elephant. I think some current scientific theories actually fit that illustration as well, just as personal perception does. I think we need to consider all possibilities that may fit the facts that we do know. As one that has studied geology, I would liken some scientific theories to that of someone knowing 10 pieces of a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle, and then that person purporting to tell us what the picture looks like in every detail. I think its foolishness to be honest. But to a scientist, that is all they have, and yes, the 10 pieces are facts, but they often make grand claims about things they have no clue about.

A recent Newsweek summarized the study of the history of man, with recent findings on the human genome, tracing the relationships around the world, and taking it back hundreds of thousands of years. A few facts, yes, but mostly grand speculations made from those facts.

I will agree with your last statement. I would liken knowledge and science as a circle, and as the circle gets larger, the perimeter exposes an ever larger circle of the unknown.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think it would depend on the context. In an objective Bible study or theology class, intelligent design would absolutely have as much, if not more, relevance than would evolution; but a respectful instructor would not attempt to teach a class that evolution was irrelevent. In science class, evolution can be taught scientifically and should definitely be given more weight than intelligent design; however, a respectful instructor would not presume to dismiss ID as irrelevent, but would simply explain that it was not pertinent to the science curriculum.

This would apply to many many issues and subjects. When there is mutual respect, one can argue the merits of his/her belief or opinion without feeling a need to disrespect the person who holds a different belief or opinion.

In the first place, it is almost impossible to discuss this topic with you, because if someone tells you your opinion is uninformed or idiotic, you claim that is a personal attack, although the remark was made about your expressed opinion, and not your person. In the second place, from the day you arrived, when asked why anyone here should put more credence in your point of view, you repsonded that you are well-educated and well-informed, which the clear implication that you were addressing those who are not well-educated and not well-informed. In the third place, subsequent experience gives no reason to accept as credible your contention that you are well-educated or well-informed. You have advanced ludicrous theses without a shred of evidence for them, such as the one you've attempted to use to dominate this thread, to the effect that "liberals" have undue influence in education.

In your examples above are the height of absurdity. A theory of evolution has absolutely no place in a bobble study course, because the bobble is supremely ignorant of science in general, and of a theory of evolution in particular. "Intelligent design" has absolutely no demonstrable basis in science, and therefore, does not deserve even a mention in a science course. Are those examples evidence for us of the extent to which you are well-educated and well-informed?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Yes, I've heard the story of the blind man and the elephant. I think some current scientific theories actually fit that illustration as well, just as personal perception does. I think we need to consider all possibilities that may fit the facts that we do know. As one that has studied geology, I would liken some scientific theories to that of someone knowing 10 pieces of a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle, and then that person purporting to tell us what the picture looks like in every detail. I think its foolishness to be honest. But to a scientist, that is all they have, and yes, the 10 pieces are facts, but they often make grand claims about things they have no clue about.

There is the difference between hypothesis and theory. A theory has been tested to the point that there are no "grand claims". Please provide a concrete example of the "theory" in science that is promoted with "grand claims."

Quote:

A recent Newsweek summarized the study of the history of man, with recent findings on the human genome, tracing the relationships around the world, and taking it back hundreds of thousands of years. A few facts, yes, but mostly grand speculations made from those facts.

Being a student of geology, do you think that the movement of tectonic plates is nothing but grand speculation? Or is it possible to figure out their previous position based on present observations and calculations? This is how science works. They take facts and make speculations, hypothesis, then test based on observations until it gets to the point that there can be little question when it becomes theory and finally law. Populist journalism tends to take certain aspects of science that are interesting and blow them out of proportion.

Quote:

I will agree with your last statement. I would liken knowledge and science as a circle, and as the circle gets larger, the perimeter exposes an ever larger circle of the unknown.

great analogy.

As the circle gets larger though it doesn't become a donut. Newton's gravitational theories don't disappear because of the present work in quantum physics.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

There is the difference between hypothesis and theory. A theory has been tested to the point that there are no "grand claims". Please provide a concrete example of the "theory" in science that is promoted with "grand claims."

You are correct there is a difference, although perhaps there is sort of a gradational area as a few facts tend to start supporting a hypothesis until it becomes a theory. One of my examples is the extinction of dinosaurs. This example is probably a hypothesis but I think I've seen it written up as a theory in different places, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some K-12 teachers might be teaching this as the most likely scenario. It involves an asteroid striking the Yucatan. This is one of a long line of ideas on the subject. My favorite theory, correction -- hypothesis, was in Larson's Far Side cartoon where he had dinosaurs walking around smoking cigarettes, and he titled the cartoon, "The real reason why dinosaurs went extinct." Seriously, my thought is that dinosaurs going extinct would have required no major catastrophe, that today we see species going extinct, and the geologic record shows this to be commonplace. Practically anything can go extinct over a few million years, given the natural progression of adaptation and competition, along with climate changes.

Quote:

Being a student of geology, do you think that the movement of tectonic plates is nothing but grand speculation? Or is it possible to figure out their previous position based on present observations and calculations? This is how science works. They take facts and make speculations, hypothesis, then test based on observations until it gets to the point that there can be little question when it becomes theory and finally law. Populist journalism tends to take certain aspects of science that are interesting and blow them out of proportion.

Tectonic plates make sense, and I generally believe the theory, and movements can be physically measured along fault lines now, but I think if you use the theory to draw a conclusion that a certain plate was in a certain position x number million years ago, then the details may become more murky and very speculative.

Geology is a great example of a science that incorporates much speculation, because much of it relates to projecting what happened in the past by observing the present. One large problem as I see it is that our life spans are so short that perhaps we are not able to observe some of the more extreme phenomena that may happen only every few hundreds, thousands, or more years.

I should admit that I have not really practiced geology for a number of years. I read a journal or two still, but if I went to college again, I doubt the courses would even be very close to the same as when I was there.

0 Replies

Democracies and Mutual Respect

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know