How did you react when you first learned of the Scopes Trial

blacksmithn wrote-

Quote:

But I prefer that my own children learn actual science from a teacher and not fairytale mumbo-jumbo dressed up to vaguely resemble science from a preacher.

I'm rather inclined to think that if a science teacher took you at your word you would be down at the school gates in no time flat asking what the hell was going on.Your confusion is to do with the difference between "actual science" and the "actual science which you approve of".

Is it of any significance what you prefer when it comes to preparing children to be useful citizens in 2050 when you haven't the faintest idea what social and economic conditions will be like at that time.

One thing is sure though;it is that if those conditions are full-blown scientism it won't be anything like it is now.

Neither of your alternatives are real for the average person.They are simply abstract concepts;products of your own mind and in competition with the products of other parent's minds.Education as a talking shop for parents.
It isn't as if the whole population are going to become scientists and it is not the case that young people are not capable of sorting out mumbo-jumbo for themselves.They don't live in classrooms.

0 Replies

One might suspect that Spenid contends that scriptural literalism constitutes "science" of which Blacksmithn is alleged not to approve.

0 Replies

One might expect that someone who makes an inordinate fuss about his username being correct would at least take the trouble to reciprocate.

But that's the totalitarian (scientific hubris) mindset I suppose.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

One might suspect that Spenid contends that scriptural literalism constitutes "science" of which Blacksmithn is alleged not to approve.

You may suspect what you wish but don't allow yourself the luxury,akin to a featherbed,of thinking such suspicion constitutes empirical evidence.

0 Replies

In that case, what do you contend constitutes science of which Blacksmithn could be alleged to approve and that of which he may be alleged not to approve? Futher, how would any of that relate to creationism or "intelligent design," unless you contend that those constitute "science?"

0 Replies

So, spendius thinks it's okay to teach mumbo-jumbo and let the kids sort it out on their own?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

blacksmithn wrote-

Quote:
But I prefer that my own children learn actual science from a teacher and not fairytale mumbo-jumbo dressed up to vaguely resemble science from a preacher.

I'm rather inclined to think that if a science teacher took you at your word you would be down at the school gates in no time flat asking what the hell was going on.Your confusion is to do with the difference between "actual science" and the "actual science which you approve of".

I'm rather inclined to think that you don't have the faintest idea of what science is. According the Webster, one of the definitions of science is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena." Although to be fair, it's also defined as "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding." I'm comfortable with either definition and secure in the fact that either one precludes whatever brand of pap you're peddling.

Is it of any significance what you prefer when it comes to preparing children to be useful citizens in 2050 when you haven't the faintest idea what social and economic conditions will be like at that time.

By that spurious logic, we shouldn't educate children at all because who can say what sort of world they'll be facing in 2050.

One thing is sure though;it is that if those conditions are full-blown scientism it won't be anything like it is now.

I have no idea what you mean by the term "full-blown scientism." Please explain.

Neither of your alternatives are real for the average person.They are simply abstract concepts;products of your own mind and in competition with the products of other parent's minds.Education as a talking shop for parents.
It isn't as if the whole population are going to become scientists and it is not the case that young people are not capable of sorting out mumbo-jumbo for themselves.They don't live in classrooms.

Well, you've created quite a conundrum here. If neither alternative is "real" for the average person (and I have no idea how you've reached this remarkable conclusion) what are you getting so wrought up about? I never posited that the entire population become scientists, only that they be taught actual science--i.e., the scientific method of investigating natural phenomena and knowledge obtained via exercise of the scientific method-- and not some version of Biblical claptrap. If you're uncomfortable with that, send your kids to church, where they can be inculcated with whatever brand of religious nonsense you prefer. But please don't send your children to school expecting the educational standards to be lowered to incorporate their faith-based (as opposed to fact based) beliefs.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

In that case, what do you contend constitutes science of which Blacksmithn could be alleged to approve and that of which he may be alleged not to approve?

Come come dear boy.Your Sunday school socialisation is peeking out with that one. This is a forum with censorship rules of which I approve.
Are you not aware that there is a whole raft of science which 15-18 year olds are mightily interested in,not to say fascinated with,which cuts directly and unavoidably into evolution theory and produces a room full of very red faces in a PTA meeting.And Mr Darwin was quite aware of it.

0 Replies

I am not your "dear boy." I have never in my life attended a Sunday school session. There is no violation of the Terms of Service in what i have posted.

What you allege "cuts into evolution theory" in no way either discredits the scientific basis for the theory, nor serves to enshrine religious dogma as socially necessary, the canard you constantly attempt to foist on these discussions. As usual, you veer off into your sniggering little-boy references to sex as though you were the supremely enlightened sophisticate--all the while demonstrating your failure to grasp either the scientitic or social implications of this controversy for the American polity. I suspect from reading Wolf's posts that you are equally clueless about the extent and the importance of the issue in your own polity.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote-

Quote:

I'm rather inclined to think that you don't have the faintest idea of what science is.

I'm not in the least inclined to think that you don't have the faintest idea what science is.

I know you haven't.

The Webster definition you so kindly provided is hardly satisfactory.

I much prefer the idea that science is the exercise of disinterested curiosity operating at or near the limits of the known. It hasn't,in the ideal type,the slightest interest in the uses to which any discoveries it makes are put to nor in gaining any private advantage from them.That is a matter for technologists and politicians to sort out.

If that is "pap" as you assert,for what it's worth,which is nothing,it is well known pap in real scientific circles.

To my

Quote:

Is it of any significance what you prefer when it comes to preparing children to be useful citizens in 2050 when you haven't the faintest idea what social and economic conditions will be like at that time.

Your response

Quote:

By that spurious logic, we shouldn't educate children at all because who can say what sort of world they'll be facing in 2050.

Is fatuous.The Goverment can say because they have thousands of experts studying every aspect of it in minute detail.Think tank stuff. It is their task to come to conclusions,not yours, based on reading the paper or watching some superficial entertainment on Discovery channel which is designed to flatter you into thinking you're nearly a scientist.And even the Government may get it wrong.

Quote:

I have no idea what you mean by the term "full-blown scientism." Please explain.

Brave New World.1984.Alphaville.Soylent Green.Spock in Star Trek.Dr Strangelove-there's wodges of it. N Korea might be on the way.The "mad scientist" is not a stereotype for nothing. Emotionless.Jargoned.Logical.Thinks human being are objects.

0 Replies

Your reply is nonsensical on it's face, which is hardly surprising given the mish-mash you've made of science and science fiction. Ridiculous. Monosyllabic. Unintelligible. Gibberish.

Which would explain your apparent, albeit cryptic, interest in denigrating actual science and the teaching thereof.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

I am not your "dear boy." I have never in my life attended a Sunday school session. There is no violation of the Terms of Service in what i have posted.

I think "dear boy" is a much more pleasant mode of address that your habitual methods.

The "Sunday school" was a euphemism.

And I don't give a damn whether you violate the Terms of Service or not.

Quote:

What you allege "cuts into evolution theory" in no way either discredits the scientific basis for the theory, nor serves to enshrine religious dogma as socially necessary,

Obviously.I made neither claim.All I said was that it would cause red faces at the PTA.I'll let you decide whether to cause that or cut your science to fit your sensitivities and those of others.

Quote:

As usual, you veer off into your sniggering little-boy references to sex as though you were the supremely enlightened sophisticate--

Whether your assertion is true or not I am,whilst probably not "supremely", an enlightened sophisticate on the matter.I am so enlightened that I seek no further to investigate.

Quote:

, the canard you constantly attempt to foist on these discussions.

How can it be a canard when it is at the root of the debate,unspoken as maybe,of the ID controvesy.If you don't understand that it isn't my problem.

As for volunteering Wolf onto your side enough said.If I am clueless I have every intention of remaining so.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Which would explain your apparent, albeit cryptic, interest in denigrating actual science and the teaching thereof.

That is an unfair comment. It implies that Spendius has any knowledge of actual science. It is my experience based on his "contributions," that he would not know actual science if it crept up and bit him in the ass.

0 Replies

Returning to the original question, I knew enough evolution to accept it as science by that time. Not knowing of Scopes, I read a biography of Clarence Darrow, finding in it a chapter devoted to the trial. The descriptions of the locals, the media and the principles made for high drama. I saw the fundamentalists as hopelessly locked in the middle ages. Darrow shredded Bryan like a head of cabbage. I knew the fundamentalists were not convinced by Darrow or anyone else that they had been wrong, but, like many others, assumed the schools at least were now unasailable. Nearly fifty years later, the same challenges, just slightly altered arguments.

0 Replies

Hi, Edgar!
My experience was a lot like yours.

Farmerman -- I watched Black Adder religiously when it aired in the Boston area. Loved it!

spendius -- I am a former editor and I am having a great deal of difficulty making sense of your writing.

0 Replies

Other editors have expressed a similar viewpoint which suggests to me that being an editor is a tiresome and somewhat painful,low level permanent I mean,business.

0 Replies

A rack with the wheel not turned a lot.Nothing fatal.

0 Replies

How did you react when you first learned of the Scopes Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know