|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Texan Republicans oppose education & thinking that challenges "fixed beliefs"
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
2012 Texan Republican election manifesto has been published. Under 'Educating our Children' subsection 'Knowledge-Based Education' (p.12) it reads:
quote:
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabelling of Outcome-Based Education which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
2012 Texan GOP manifesto here.
What do we make of this?
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
The problem is that there is an assumption that "critical thinking" is, in practice, not as objective as it sounds. Children's impressionable minds can be led in a certain way by asking leading questions, in order to achieve a certain outcome, namely, challenging their belief in God. But "critical thinking" is a serious challenge to atheism. One reason why I am not an atheist is precisely because I regard this viewpoint as deeply irrational.
Now I am all for children being encouraged to engage in "critical thinking" if ALL viewpoints are vigorously challenged. Unfortunately that is unlikely to be the case, considering the blase assumption that "science" is the key to the discovery of truth (it is not), and that "science" is opposed to religion (nothing could be further from the truth).
So what kind of "critical thinking" are we talking about?
And do we think that encouraging children to engage in Cartesian doubt is good for their psychological well being?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Critical thinking is surely the ability to be critical about one's own thinking, to be aware of one's own cultural bias, and to make allowance for that when attempting to form our own views. I can't see that as a bad thing.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what kind of "critical thinking" are we talking about?
Not entirely sure, but in the same section but in a preceding sub-section we find this text:
quote:
Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.
Which seems to represent critical thinking.
Does the 'knowledge based education' section undermine or directly clash with the 'Controversial Theories' section? It seems to do so.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
2012 Texan GOP manifesto here.
What do we make of this?
I admit some admiration for anyone who contrived to get paid for writing all that.
Those Texans do do things in a big way. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Well here's wikipedias current as of this post definition.
quote:
Critical thinking is thinking that questions assumptions.[citation needed] It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false
What do people think?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
How we define "critical thinking" depends on the tools we use, and these tools are fashioned by the epistemological theory we subscribe to. So, for some people, empiricism guides critical thinking, whereas others take a more rationalist approach.
How do we define "evidence"? Must "evidence" always be empirically testable, or can conclusions which are simply logically coherent count as evidence, even in the absence of empirical testing?
These are profound questions, which - with all due respect to children - are not going to be resolved in the classrooms of primary or secondary grade pupils. Therefore, it is inevitable that children's "critical thinking" will be guided by the assumptions of their teachers. And what if some teachers have an agenda?
So I can certainly understand the concern of those who are critical of the "critical thinking" agenda. It is not a foregone conclusion that such questioning of this educational method constitutes "opposition to thinking".
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Well here's wikipedias current as of this post definition.
quote:
Critical thinking is thinking that questions assumptions.[citation needed] It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false
What do people think?
A lot of what is taught in schools as critical thinking is, in fact, very one-sided. Moreover, it should not be taught as a separate subject, as it is in many cases. It should be part of instruction in history, science, etc. Good instruction in critical thinking should teach one to pick holes in arguments.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
1 Thessalonians 5:21.
But the curriculum should introduce students to critical thinking in an age-appropriate manner:
1 Corinthians 13:11.
[ 28. June 2012, 12:26: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And what if some teachers have an agenda?
And in the case of religion we come yet again to the age old dispute where most atheists would say that atheism is the "neutral" position and most christians arguing that atheism is a belief.
As far as the OP goes I'm asuming here that this is mostly about having creationism taught in schools?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
In our local schools and colleges Critical Thinking is an AS level that students can take as one of a number of extension courses in their second year of 6th form. Typically students will take 4 subjects to AS level and then drop one and take the other 3 to A2 level. Critical Thinking plugs the gap in the timetable.
My daughter did 4AS levels including Philosophy and wanted to continue them all. She was allowed to as it was considered that Philosophy would teach her the same skills as Critical Thinking and it would be good to have 4 A2 qualifications.
Therefore I have come to regard CT as Philosphy Lite. Are there overlaps?
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
testbear
Shipmate
# 4602
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
In our local schools and colleges Critical Thinking is an AS level that students can take as one of a number of extension courses in their second year of 6th form. Typically students will take 4 subjects to AS level and then drop one and take the other 3 to A2 level. Critical Thinking plugs the gap in the timetable.
My daughter did 4AS levels including Philosophy and wanted to continue them all. She was allowed to as it was considered that Philosophy would teach her the same skills as Critical Thinking and it would be good to have 4 A2 qualifications.
Therefore I have come to regard CT as Philosphy Lite. Are there overlaps?
A significant module of my first year undergraduate degree in Philosophy was on Critical Thinking, Logic and Fallacies. This focused purely on what constituted a valid argument, a sound argument and a variety of common (and not-so-common) logical arguments that appear valid at first glance but are logically fundamentally flawed. So, maybe not "Philosophy Lite", more like "Philosophy: Ground Rules".
How you choose to apply those ground rules, of course, is down to you...and it's the application of these ground rules by various thinkers to various questions that results in the diversity of philosophical positions displayed throughout the subject.
--------------------
"If you really believe what you say you believe / you wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak"
Posts: 127 | From: a town where you can't smell a thing | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And what if some teachers have an agenda?
And in the case of religion we come yet again to the age old dispute where most atheists would say that atheism is the "neutral" position and most christians arguing that atheism is a belief.
As far as the OP goes I'm asuming here that this is mostly about having creationism taught in schools?
Actually, it's more than that. The phrase "Higher Order Thinking Skills" is a clue that the target is something called
"Bloom's Taxonomy," which forms the basis of much work on school and university curricula. The "higher order thinking skills" are analysis, synthesis, and evaluation/creation. (The very top level of the taxonomy has undergone revision several times.)
"Critical thinking" is needed if students are to analyze and synthesize effectively. A student engaging in critical thinking is aware of the background and context of claims and statements in source and textbook material, and is able to detect possible bias and attempts at manipulation in sources.
In its full form, critical thinking is the ability to balance competing sources of information and make good decisions under conditions of less than perfect information. In short, fully developed critical thinking is more or less synonymous with good judgment or "practical wisdom," Aristotle's phronesis. Like all the Aristotelian virtues, it is a disposition, a character trait, that is developed slowly over years of training and education.
For some reason the American right wing has been taking up against Bloom's Taxonomy for quite a while now. I really don't understand why, though I do have some very dark thoughts about it all.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
I had a friend send this to me and as a teacher in Texas, I was amused.
Especially since I just did a complete renewal of my Gifted and Talented Training which included a review of Texas Educational Law. By law, I am required to teach G/T students (and others) higher level thinking skills (aka Bloom).
What is specifically is against is a program called HOTS which suggests that if a student is behind in the basics, what they need is to learn higher order thinking skills, instead of being retaught the basic skills they don't have. I have no idea about the program so I'll leave that one alone.
Outcome Based Education (OBE) is another program that is floated around that puts each individual student on their own learning pace. Teachers themselves usually stop that because they just can't do the work needed to keep up. However, with more and more education being put on computers, it becomes more possible. In poking around, apparently there is one school district interested in starting a program like that and wants to apply for money from the federal government to try it out. Something the state government is against. (You know Obama - bad, Perry - good)
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Outcome Based Education (OBE) is another program that is floated around that puts each individual student on their own learning pace. Teachers themselves usually stop that because they just can't do the work needed to keep up. However, with more and more education being put on computers, it becomes more possible. In poking around, apparently there is one school district interested in starting a program like that and wants to apply for money from the federal government to try it out. Something the state government is against. (You know Obama - bad, Perry - good)
Thanks for this. I recognize it now.
Bill Gates has been touting a computerized version lately for college courses:
quote:
Gates said that colleges should also adopt adaptive learning technologies, which can track student progress and tailor course material for individual students, to make college more manageable for a diverse set of learners. He said many of these initiatives remain in the pilot stage, and institutions are still figuring out how to use them. The Gates Foundation recently announced several grants it will award, including one to a new online college that will incorporate adaptive learning techniques into its teaching.
I too am fairly jaded with this kind of thing. Some such initiative-that-will-solve-all-problems seems to come around every few years. It spawns a few highly publicized boutique programs that have spectacular results. But it's labor-intensive, it doesn't scale up, and after it wastes time, money, and teacher effort that all could have been much better used, it's quietly abandoned -- until the next time.
This latest version would sell a lot of Microsoft product, though, and Bill Gates does have Arne Duncan's ear.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As far as the OP goes I'm asuming here that this is mostly about having creationism taught in schools?
Largely, though "climate change is a giant conspiracy" is an up-and-comer in the area of jiggering curricula.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
What I find most disturbing about this policy is the end of the quote:
quote:
We oppose the teaching... [that has] the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Which seems to say that the children of Texas should not be educated in ideas or thinking skills that would lead them to challenge their inherited faith or undermine the beliefs and ideas their parents teach them.
It sounds very Orwellian - that the State of Texas should act as the thought police, ensuring the conservative consensus is not challenged by the free exploration of thought or ideology.
It's frightening that a modern western state should feel so threatened by freedom of thought or belief that it should have such a policy.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
What I find most disturbing about this policy is the end of the quote:
quote:
We oppose the teaching... [that has] the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Which seems to say that the children of Texas should not be educated in ideas or thinking skills that would lead them to challenge their inherited faith or undermine the beliefs and ideas their parents teach them.
Good teachers will also undermine their own authority, in the sense that they won;t tell the students that whatever the teacher tells them is alway right (nor taht whatever the textbook says is always right), they will encourage them to check sources, and they would praise a student who finds evidence or a good argument that contradicts something the teacher or the textbook said, rather than telling them to shut up and do as they are told.
You can't do that without also at least implying tht parents might also be wrong.
Going by that criterion my primary school and the first years of my secondary school had a mixture of good and bad teachers, but the sixth form (roughly equivalent to US senior high school yers) and university had only good teachers. But then I was only studying science at that level, and teaching science neccessarily involves teaching that kind of evidence-based reflective or self-critical thinking. It is as much about questions like Why do we believe this to be true? How reliable is our knowledge? Hoiw likely is it that we might be wrong? How did we come to know it? Can we use those same methods to learn things we don't already know? as it is about the content of what is known.
Maybe that's one reason conservatives don't like science. You can't do science without being able to challenge authority.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
What Ken said.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lev
It sounds very Orwellian - that the State of Texas should act as the thought police, ensuring the conservative consensus is not challenged by the free exploration of thought or ideology.
It's frightening that a modern western state should feel so threatened by freedom of thought or belief that it should have such a policy.
Yes, it is frightening, but it's not just the religious conservatives who are trying to stifle critical thinking. There seems to be a paranoia on the part of some to allow students to consider a perfectly logical theory about the origin of life, namely the idea that there is a causal connection between intelligence and complexity (which is hardly anti-thought, is it?!).
Perhaps if the liberal intelligentsia were to practise what they preach, then you might find that conservatives would be a bit more reasonable.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
OK. So critical thinking is banned if children come to the "wrong" conclusion.
The spirit of 1984, not 1776, methinks.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
The distinction Santos makes is where the teaching crosses the threshold between science and theology. Is it appropriate to teach theology in a science class?
Unless intelligent design theory has a scientific basis, I struggle to see how you can reasonably include it in a science curriculum.
PS: I love your signature, EtymologicalEvangelical!
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
All the scientific method can say is "we don't know" when it concerns events that are, by their very nature, unobservable, being locked in the distant past. However, science does allow for inference based on observed data. For example, the SETI project is based on the view that we can receive information which is of a certain nature by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings (in this case, alien life), without, of course, having direct observational evidence of such beings. This shows that the inference of intelligent agency is definitely part of the scientific method.
So while the inference of the God of a certain religion may lie outside the scientific method (though not outside the function of logic), it does not follow that the idea of "an intelligent creator" should have the same restricted status.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lev
[b]Yes, it is frightening, but it's not just the religious conservatives who are trying to stifle critical thinking. There seems to be a paranoia on the part of some to allow students to consider a perfectly logical theory about the origin of life, namely the idea that there is a causal connection between intelligence and complexity (which is hardly anti-thought, is it?!).
Perhaps if the liberal intelligentsia were to practise what they preach, then you might find that conservatives would be a bit more reasonable.
Oh bullshit. There is nothing scientific about intelligent design "theory." It's nothing but cherry-picked facts designed to make children distrust scientists and protect Christian fundamentalism.
Students are "allowed" to ponder whatever ideas they please. There's a time and place to TEACH intelligent design, and it's not at government schools during biology.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All the scientific method can say is "we don't know" when it concerns events that are, by their very nature, unobservable, being locked in the distant past. However, science does allow for inference based on observed data. For example, the SETI project is based on the view that we can receive information which is of a certain nature by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings (in this case, alien life), without, of course, having direct observational evidence of such beings.
Hold on just a second! Aren't most astronomical observations, including the ones made by SETI, "locked in the distant past"? Observing a galaxy 2.5 million light years away means seeing it as it existed 2.5 million years ago.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Aren't most astronomical observations, including the ones made by SETI, "locked in the distant past"? Observing a galaxy 2.5 million light years away means seeing it as it existed 2.5 million years ago.
So you believe that we can have direct observational evidence of the origin of life? Which is what I was actually talking about.
As for SETI - I was making a point about the inference of intelligent agency being part of the scientific method. Are we seriously to believe that this project is based on a nonsense, because it is a foregone conclusion that we could never infer the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence unless we observed that intelligence directly? So why bother trying to scour the heavens for signals of such life?
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingdale
Oh bullshit...
Another one who doesn't believe in critical thinking. If you did, you would make the effort to put a coherent argument instead of resorting to an emotional outburst.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
However, science does allow for inference based on observed data. For example, the SETI project is based on the view that we can receive information which is of a certain nature by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings (in this case, alien life), without, of course, having direct observational evidence of such beings. This shows that the inference of intelligent agency is definitely part of the scientific method.
I think the SETI example is a little muddled, as it's a project that is looking for signs of intelligent alien life, rather than used as a basis for teaching children a theory that alien life does exist*.
I'm not sure how you can argue because we're looking for intelligent alien life, that means we can teach a theory that intelligent alien life does exist in a science class.
A better example would be to show how many exo planets have been discovered, demonstrate how the theories of planetary formation appear to be confirmed by these discoveries and use statistical models to show the likelihood of how many stars in the observable universe are likely to have planets.
You could then make an educated estimate of how many planets are likely to be in orbits which have habitable conditions for life. Beyond that, we cannot say for certain that life, or intelligent life for that matter, does exist outside our solar system.
Personally, I believe intelligent alien life does exist. I also believe that God exists and was involved in the process of creating the universe and life on this planet.
However, I'm not keen to teach that in a science class as the God bit is theological and the alien life bit is my own guess based on statistics I've seen.
*: However, in 1977 a signal was picked up by SETI which hasn't yet been explained. The strongest theory is that it was in fact a signal sent from a star system that we received, but as yet we haven't been able to prove this is so due to not being able to pick up the signal again. More here.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingdale
Oh bullshit...
Another one who doesn't believe in critical thinking. If you did, you would make the effort to put a coherent argument instead of resorting to an emotional outburst.
Are you incapable of responding to the rest of my post that you clipped out? Is that why you clipped it?
[ 28. June 2012, 17:27: Message edited by: Mockingale ]
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingdale
Oh bullshit...
Another one who doesn't believe in critical thinking. If you did, you would make the effort to put a coherent argument instead of resorting to an emotional outburst.
Are you incapable of responding to the rest of my post that you clipped out? Is that why you clipped it?
I think EtymologicalEvangelical is justified in ignoring the rest of your views if you use such derogatory language over his.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All the scientific method can say is "we don't know" when it concerns events that are, by their very nature, unobservable, being locked in the distant past.
Have you heard of this crazy thing kids are doing these days called "geology"?
quote:
For example, the SETI project is based on the view that we can receive information which is of a certain nature by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings ... So while the inference of the God of a certain religion may lie outside the scientific method (though not outside the function of logic), it does not follow that the idea of "an intelligent creator" should have the same restricted status.
Fine. A chimpanzee throwing feces at me from behind a rock is also an intelligent agent. Obviously, *something* tossed that crap at me even though I didn't see it. Oh, but by the time I feel it, it's already happened and I can't possibly know anything about something that happened in the past. And this definition of an "intelligent creator" is so broad that it can include both God and a crow snapping a twig in half. I think I need to critically lie down now. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingdale
Oh bullshit...
Another one who doesn't believe in critical thinking. If you did, you would make the effort to put a coherent argument instead of resorting to an emotional outburst.
Are you incapable of responding to the rest of my post that you clipped out? Is that why you clipped it?
I think EtymologicalEvangelical is justified in ignoring the rest of your views if you use such derogatory language over his.
He didn't ignore it. He was dishonest.
Fine, EE. Replace "Bullshit" with "nonsense" and respond to the question, if you'd please. I'm sorry to offend your ancient church lady sensibilities.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Aren't most astronomical observations, including the ones made by SETI, "locked in the distant past"? Observing a galaxy 2.5 million light years away means seeing it as it existed 2.5 million years ago.
So you believe that we can have direct observational evidence of the origin of life? Which is what I was actually talking about.
I thought you were talking about the search for intelligence. That's not the same thing as life.
You do seem to have perfected the same paranoid notion that all of science (and perhaps learning generally) is a massive conspiracy by the "liberal intelligentsia" to suppress the real truth about [your particular] God that seems to be driving the platform drafting commttee of the Texas Republican party.
The problem with such theories is that they implicitly posit that the conspiracy knows the truth but deliberately chooses to suppress it for motives that are both nefarious and vague. So, what exactly is the "liberal intelligentsia" supposed to gain by the massive effort needed to maintain this fraud?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, what exactly is the "liberal intelligentsia" supposed to gain by the massive effort needed to maintain this fraud?
Isn't perfectly obvious? They're in league with Satan, the Freemasons, and companies that sell funny pictures of chimpanzees.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem with such theories is that they implicitly posit that the conspiracy knows the truth but deliberately chooses to suppress it for motives that are both nefarious and vague. So, what exactly is the "liberal intelligentsia" supposed to gain by the massive effort needed to maintain this fraud?
Dang, boy, yew don't know nuthin', do ya? Every right-thinkin' 'mercun knows that libruls are after our guns, our pick-ups, and our wimmin.
--Tom Clune
[Edited fur spellun]
[ 28. June 2012, 17:40: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
Whilst I disagree with EtymologicalEvangelical over his* views on education, his criticism of liberal intelligentsia is profoundly made with the disrespectful and condescending tone taken to mock his views on this.
*Apologies if I've wrongly assumed EtymologicalEvangelical is a male.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Whilst I disagree with EtymologicalEvangelical over his* views on education, his criticism of liberal intelligentsia is profoundly made with the disrespectful and condescending tone taken to mock his views on this.
*Apologies if I've wrongly assumed EtymologicalEvangelical is a male.
Rather than respond to a criticism, it whined about the word "bullshit." You don't act like a smug coward and then "win" because someone is mean to you.
What a world we live in where intelligence and knowledge can be considered derogatory traits.
[ 28. June 2012, 18:02: Message edited by: Mockingale ]
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Whilst I disagree with EtymologicalEvangelical over his* views on education, his criticism of liberal intelligentsia is profoundly made with the disrespectful and condescending tone taken to mock his views on this.
*Apologies if I've wrongly assumed EtymologicalEvangelical is a male.
Rather than respond to a criticism, it whined about the word "bullshit." You don't act like a smug coward and then "win" because someone is mean to you.
What a world we live in where intelligence and knowledge can be considered derogatory traits.
I think you're guilty of Argumentum ad hominem ("ancient church lady sensibilities", "smug coward", etc) and that is probably the main stumbling block from getting a response.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Whilst I disagree with EtymologicalEvangelical over his* views on education, his criticism of liberal intelligentsia is profoundly made with the disrespectful and condescending tone taken to mock his views on this.
*Apologies if I've wrongly assumed EtymologicalEvangelical is a male.
Rather than respond to a criticism, it whined about the word "bullshit." You don't act like a smug coward and then "win" because someone is mean to you.
What a world we live in where intelligence and knowledge can be considered derogatory traits.
I think you're guilty of Argumentum ad hominem ("ancient church lady sensibilities", "smug coward", etc) and that is probably the main stumbling block from getting a response.
I'm not going to argue with you. I don't know why you're defending it, but this is a waste of my time.
[ 28. June 2012, 18:34: Message edited by: Mockingale ]
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lev
I think the SETI example is a little muddled, as it's a project that is looking for signs of intelligent alien life, rather than used as a basis for teaching children a theory that alien life does exist*.
I'm not sure how you can argue because we're looking for intelligent alien life, that means we can teach a theory that intelligent alien life does exist in a science class.
No, my example is not muddled, because I was making a point about the scope of the scientific method. Does the scientific method allow for the inference of unobserved intelligent agency? The SETI project confirms that it does, because its premise is the possibility that we can detect information coming from the cosmos by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings - but without having direct observation of those beings.
But one of the objections to intelligent design is the claim that it lies outside the scope of the scientific method, because we cannot observe this designer or his creative work in action. But we do not need to. We can infer the existence of such a designer from what we can observe.
Now I am fully aware that some may argue that the observed data does not necessarily imply a designer. But that is not the point. The point I am making is whether it is legitimate within the scope of the scientific method to make any such inference at all.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
EE, if you want to argue ID, take it to DH.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune
EE, if you want to argue ID, take it to DH.
Fair enough. I was actually arguing about the scope of the scientific method, which is part of "critical thinking".
Anyway, enough of this. I'm off to watch the footie...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Lev
I think the SETI example is a little muddled, as it's a project that is looking for signs of intelligent alien life, rather than used as a basis for teaching children a theory that alien life does exist*.
I'm not sure how you can argue because we're looking for intelligent alien life, that means we can teach a theory that intelligent alien life does exist in a science class.
No, my example is not muddled, because I was making a point about the scope of the scientific method. Does the scientific method allow for the inference of unobserved intelligent agency? The SETI project confirms that it does, because its premise is the possibility that we can detect information coming from the cosmos by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings - but without having direct observation of those beings.
But one of the objections to intelligent design is the claim that it lies outside the scope of the scientific method, because we cannot observe this designer or his creative work in action. But we do not need to. We can infer the existence of such a designer from what we can observe.
Now I am fully aware that some may argue that the observed data does not necessarily imply a designer. But that is not the point. The point I am making is whether it is legitimate within the scope of the scientific method to make any such inference at all.
SETI is not scientific in the sense that it is trying to explain or predict some natural phenomenon, any more that tuning a shortwave radio dial to find broadcasts from a direction on earth is scientific. We are primed to recognize patterns and can distinguish communication from another person from background or random noise.
"Intelligent design" is not related, and it's not science. It attempts to disprove or question a widely accepted scientific theory that has been corroborated by volumes of observed and peer-reviewed data by saying "Well, we can't explain every single mechanism of this phenomenon yet, so it must be God, because the eye is really complex and we don't yet have a consensus on how all of its features would have adapted."
That's no more valid as a scientific inquiry than if Newton had said "Well, I have no idea the exact mechanism of gravitational forces on a subatomic level, so it must be the result of direct divine agency, because I don't have a model for gravitational force and it seems providential that we'd have some force pulling us to the ground."
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
EE, if you want to argue ID, take it to DH.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Sorry, cross-posted. I'll stop.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But one of the objections to intelligent design is the claim that it lies outside the scope of the scientific method, because we cannot observe this designer or his creative work in action. But we do not need to. We can infer the existence of such a designer from what we can observe.
I've never heard anyone object to intelligent design in those terms. Such arguments are usually constructed by cdesign proponentsists as straw man objections. The main objection isn't that the purported Designer can't be observed, but rather that it isn't observed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Croesos, perhaps you think that a prohibition addressed to EE doesn't apply to you. It does. If you just can't help yourself, take your discussion of ID to the Dead Horses board. It is not allowed here.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
That's no more valid as a scientific inquiry than if Newton had said "Well, I have no idea the exact mechanism of gravitational forces on a subatomic level, so it must be the result of direct divine agency, because I don't have a model for gravitational force and it seems providential that we'd have some force pulling us to the ground."
Which is pretty much what he did say, for what it's worth.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
That's no more valid as a scientific inquiry than if Newton had said "Well, I have no idea the exact mechanism of gravitational forces on a subatomic level, so it must be the result of direct divine agency, because I don't have a model for gravitational force and it seems providential that we'd have some force pulling us to the ground."
Which is pretty much what he did say, for what it's worth.
Intelligent falling!
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
because I was making a point about the scope of the scientific method. Does the scientific method allow for the inference of unobserved intelligent agency?
The scientific method allows for making a theory and then trying to prove or disprove that theory. It does not suggest the teaching of that theory until it has been put to the test.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Or at least, it doesn't support "Let's all gather 'round this theory, it's so shiny and pretty and ties up all our grandiose loose ends with a lacework of evidence, and strikes another blow at the idea that an actual Divine Being might give a flyin' flip about us... And we'll sort of declare the theory is Fact."
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
