Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
mars wrote: "What with the faith, redemption, and strength that it offers"Faith: Blind trust in something that has no evidence. Hope in faith is nothing more than never-ending trust that someone will make things better for us. This goes beyond hope to hopeless dependency.
Redemption: You cannot have hope in redemption without the initial despair that you are tainted, corrupt or evil without redemption. Therefore this is the opposite of hope.
Strength: This gives hope, but the murderous certainty it can inspire can deny hope to others. Ask anyone with relatives from 9/11.
mars wrote: "live without religion would be to live without hope. And that, would be the worse life imaginable.
Only if you only base your hope solely on the supernatural, the problem with this being that if your hope is based on the whim of god rather than good or bad fortune then you must feel you deserve everything bad that happens to you. What a horrific idea.
If the only hope in this life is that the next one will be better then how unendurable must this life be for you?
mars wrote: "Science and development is good and all, but whilst it can light up a room - it can not light up a person's heart. Only religion can do that. "
Tell that to someone who has a child rescued from a terrible illness by medical science, or had their beloved saved by the science and skill of a surgeon. Tell that to a western world where food is now so cheap and plentiful that obesity is the primary problem, and where education, hope for self betterment and time for leisure and self-development is all greater than any epoch in known history. Tell that to an old person, preserved to an age twice as long as ever known, able to see their grandchildren and great grandchildren grow, and able to survive harsh winters in warmth and comfort.
Compare that to a life of no technology and comfort where the only "hope" is that abject service to god in this life will buy you the "bliss" of an eternity of never ending abject servitude to an unelected despotic Overlord.
Funny definition of hope.
Paul wrote: "Naked surf girls - beat religion any day!"Like
Maria wrote: "My Dad always used to say jeez-o-flip and it seemed fitting.... :) I don't, however, use it in normal conversation......"It does sound like a vaguely sacrilegious game.
Gary wrote: "Maria wrote: "My Dad always used to say jeez-o-flip and it seemed fitting.... :) I don't, however, use it in normal conversation......"It does sound like a vaguely sacrilegious game."
Does sound like a board game.
Travis wrote: "Does sound like a board game."Actually I was more thinking an Olympic sport similar to pole vaulting with cr.......
Ahem, not meaning to be deliberately offensive...
Gary wrote: "In the face of new evidence scientists will change their opinion, in the face of one article in the Daily Mail which has extensive links to conservative politics and hence to various oil magnates I would not expect a huge U turn immediately."
Yeah .... That's why I said ... if the information was accurate.
Interesting info on the tree rings and only reflecting summer temps.
I must say, though, if we did find evidence that disproved current theory, on something like global warming, which has had so much press, etc..., I see it being very, very hard for people, including scientists, to say, "Oops. My bad." (Ha, ha! For once, instead of envisioning Sean Bean, I'm seeing scientists saying, "Oops. My bad.")
I've always felt ... not sure if this is in line with what Travis said or not, that people have been a bit off in making an argument for global warming as they've done.
Hold on.
In that .... When I've heard science teachers, etc... talk about it, it's been related in terms of ... people are causing global warming and polar bears are dying. Oh, my!
That gives an opening to people who don't believe in the science. But, the planet has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling, even before the Industrial Revolution.
I've always thought, not having much to do with science but with common sense, that the point was this ....
There has, indeed, always been warming and cooling, global warming, industry or no. The point ... there hasn't been global warming in conjunction with industry. Could that tip the balance? How might that change things?
Having said that, I've got to say, with all of the time and energy and press and capital that have gone into this, I'm thinking it would be a bitter pill to swallow, if evidence was found to disprove current opinions and thoughts on the matter. But, hey, maybe not. I will definitely be watching, though, to see ... if current scientific evidence on something really big is disproved ... watching to see how people react. Will it really be as clear and clinical as ... evidence is evidence?
Regarding surfing naked, I've not seen it done and don't feel, as a result, that I can comment. ;)
Yeah .... That's why I said ... if the information was accurate.
Interesting info on the tree rings and only reflecting summer temps.
I must say, though, if we did find evidence that disproved current theory, on something like global warming, which has had so much press, etc..., I see it being very, very hard for people, including scientists, to say, "Oops. My bad." (Ha, ha! For once, instead of envisioning Sean Bean, I'm seeing scientists saying, "Oops. My bad.")
I've always felt ... not sure if this is in line with what Travis said or not, that people have been a bit off in making an argument for global warming as they've done.
Hold on.
In that .... When I've heard science teachers, etc... talk about it, it's been related in terms of ... people are causing global warming and polar bears are dying. Oh, my!
That gives an opening to people who don't believe in the science. But, the planet has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling, even before the Industrial Revolution.
I've always thought, not having much to do with science but with common sense, that the point was this ....
There has, indeed, always been warming and cooling, global warming, industry or no. The point ... there hasn't been global warming in conjunction with industry. Could that tip the balance? How might that change things?
Having said that, I've got to say, with all of the time and energy and press and capital that have gone into this, I'm thinking it would be a bitter pill to swallow, if evidence was found to disprove current opinions and thoughts on the matter. But, hey, maybe not. I will definitely be watching, though, to see ... if current scientific evidence on something really big is disproved ... watching to see how people react. Will it really be as clear and clinical as ... evidence is evidence?
Regarding surfing naked, I've not seen it done and don't feel, as a result, that I can comment. ;)
Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "Does sound like a board game."
Actually I was more thinking an Olympic sport similar to pole vaulting with cr.......
Ahem, not meaning to be deliberately offensive..."
Weren't the first Olympians naked? Why do I feel I learned that in middle school?
Saw a fascinating article on sex and the Olympics recently, whether they were totally naked or not, I don't know. Supposedly, they passed out something like 70,000 condoms at the last Olympics and ran out within days or something like that. (Not sure if that's the right number. Sometimes I exaggerate with numbers ... 5 million and one tends to be my go-to number.)
I have no judgment to make ... other than to say ... :o
Not the math person ... but I wonder ... how many Olympians are there and how ....
Well, I'll leave that math word problem to someone else.
If we had ___ Olympians and ___ condoms and ___ days, ...
Do x and y figure into that?
Actually I was more thinking an Olympic sport similar to pole vaulting with cr.......
Ahem, not meaning to be deliberately offensive..."
Weren't the first Olympians naked? Why do I feel I learned that in middle school?
Saw a fascinating article on sex and the Olympics recently, whether they were totally naked or not, I don't know. Supposedly, they passed out something like 70,000 condoms at the last Olympics and ran out within days or something like that. (Not sure if that's the right number. Sometimes I exaggerate with numbers ... 5 million and one tends to be my go-to number.)
I have no judgment to make ... other than to say ... :o
Not the math person ... but I wonder ... how many Olympians are there and how ....
Well, I'll leave that math word problem to someone else.
If we had ___ Olympians and ___ condoms and ___ days, ...
Do x and y figure into that?
Ah! Just googled the Daily Mail ... It seemed, Gary, that you didn't offer it much credence. It said it's a conservative news outfit. Not being from the UK, I was unaware. Which are liberal, which are conservative, which just do their jobs and actually report the news without ... cherry-picking ... articles to match their views? As an aside, that's the kind of cherry-picking that I take issue with. Good to know about the Mail.
The daily mail, variously known as the daily fail, and the daily hate.Have fun with this:
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
and this:
http://charlieharvey.org.uk/daily_mai...
QUESTION: Has anyone tallied the comments here to see what the distribution is between science and religion? That might be an interesting stat.
It would be physically impossible to live in a world without science... We kind of need those laws of physics... Plus, I believe it is possible to be kind to others, to respect and to love others, and to have faith and hope without religion.
Maria wrote: "Jeez-o-flip - I went away on a weeks vacation and OMG, what a fiasco. Wow - there's been a lot of discussion that quite frankly I don't have the patience to read. Gary, Hazel, Shannon, Cerebus, O..."
No
No
Whitebeard wrote: "QUESTION: Has anyone tallied the comments here to see what the distribution is between science and religion? That might be an interesting stat."Gary, that's your next project... :) Just kidding!
Aimee wrote: "It would be physically impossible to live in a world without science... We kind of need those laws of physics... Plus, I believe it is possible to be kind to others, to respect and to love others, ..."Agreed it would be impossible and I think given our time over we would engage in scietific pursuits again.
But even if we didn't the laws of physics ect wouldn't vanish, they aren't science, they are however, studied BY science.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick,
Shannon wrote: "I must say, though, if we did find evidence that disproved current theory, on something like global warming,..., I see it being very, very hard for people, including scientists, to say, 'Oops. My bad.'"That's true, scientists are people too, but we are not just talking about a handful of scientists with a single hypothesis. The problem with Climate Change is that it is by its nature a very complex subject.
Shannon wrote: "In that .... When I've heard science teachers, etc... talk about it, it's been related in terms of ... people are causing global warming and polar bears are dying. Oh, my!"
And the atom has electrons circling like a tiny solar system, in our sun 4 protons are fused into helium releasing energy and molecules look like balls on springs.
All those images are so simplified that to a trained scientist they would seem childish, but the point is they get the core of the idea across to someone who hasn't had the time, skill or inclination to pursue the same kind of training.
Shannon wrote: "That gives an opening to people who don't believe in the science."
Which is arrogant assumption at best. Scientists go through years of training and have a clear method of scrutinising each others work. A method that is actually quite democratic as a there is as much incentive to produce ground breaking papers that overturn old hypotheses as there is to write papers that support them. Either one can make a name for a scientist, the only problem is when a scientist fails to be rigorous enough and gets a reputation for publishing bias, incomplete or worse - fraudulent papers.
Scientific consensus is based on the wealth of these different papers, not one enshrined idea. To change this consensus you research and write papers that encourage others to check your work or to perform their own work building on yours. If you are right eventually the weight of evidence will tip in your favour.
Then some (and I use the term advisedly) moron comes along and does the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears, pulling their tongue and humming real loud, by claiming that one paper, one experiment or one opinion makes everyone else dead wrong.
Note that it is much easier for a new hypothesis to be accepted if the new hypothesis explains the results of the old hypothesis. Just like Einstein's equations get practically the same answer as Newtons as long as velocity is slow compared to the speed of light.
Shannon wrote: "But, the planet has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling, even before the Industrial Revolution."
Yes it does. In fact the Earth has been almost entirely covered in ice at many points and also completely without ice-caps at others. The observed trend in the research in the article was that the Earth was cooling ever since the rapid heating that ended the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago.
None of this makes atmospheric warming by man's emission of CO2 by combustion any less likely or any less dangerous.
We know that CO2 traps heat, we know that CH4 traps heat with 23 times more efficiency. We can look at Venus which is almost the same size planet as us and which should be just in the "Goldilocks zone" of being cool enough for liquid water, yet because of 96% CO2 atmosphere it's surface temperature is hotter than even Mercury, average 735K (Europeans 460C, Americans 860F)
We put 30 Billion tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere just by burning fossil fuels (and making cement). Meanwhile the concentration of atmospheric methane has doubled in the last century and now has hit concentrations that have not be seen in the last half million years.
If human made Climate Change is not happening we actually would need to explain why these atmospheric gases are not doing what we know they should be doing.
Shannon wrote: "The point ... there hasn't been global warming in conjunction with industry. Could that tip the balance? How might that change things?"
Actually it seems now that the world should have been slowly cooling or even into a glaciation by now. The problem isn't that natural cycles may complicate the issue, the problem is that human activity is changing the climate in decades instead of millennia.
Shannon wrote: "I'm thinking it would be a bitter pill to swallow, if evidence was found to disprove current opinions and thoughts on the matter."
Sure, but that itself imagines science as a large priesthood of authoritarian professors. This just isn't true. New scientists are graduating every year and each one would love to make a name for themselves by successfully overturning old ideas, but at the same point want to make sure that if they do their ideas will stand up to scrutiny.
People assume that scientists stick dogmatically to one idea, but in my experience the collective noun for scientists is an 'argument'. The difference is that scientists expect each other to justify their claims and demonstrate their validity, so when a non-scientist makes a unfounded claim it is seldom taken seriously.
Shannon wrote: "Weren't the first Olympians naked? Why do I feel I learned that in middle school?"
All evidence was they were, most likely because the climate was warm, nudity wasn't taboo like in other cultures and it was the only way that athletes could compete without risk of different clothing slowing them down.
Somehow I think our societies hangups about nudity, traceable literally to Genesis, probably is the source of many of our cultures sexual dysfunctions and problems.
Shannon wrote: "Supposedly, they passed out something like 70,000 condoms at the last Olympics and ran out within days or something like that."
I think that may have been to the attending spectators too, which makes for a lot less per person. Either way, seems sensible in an environment where a lot of people from different places all go to one place, that is a recipe for spreading of disease and a little bit of prevention saves more lives than can be counted.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "The point ... there hasn't been global warming in conjunction with industry. Could that tip the balance? How might that change things?"
Actually it seems now that the world should have been slowly cooling or even into a glaciation by now. The problem isn't that natural cycles may complicate the issue, the problem is that human activity is changing the climate in decades instead of millennia."
Ummm.... Isn't that what I said? It's definitely what I meant. There have always been natural cycles ... human activity can tip the balance.
So, why haven't scientists presented it that way? They haven't. Not within my circle or within my hearing or reading.
It's been the simplistic and, as you said, childlike, man is causing global warming, ice is melting, polar bears are going to die and it's all because of our carbon footprint.
Then, someone says ... but there has always been global warming ... the ice age, not the ice age, the "little" ice age, etc....
(And, why is that an arrogant assumption? It's sort of/kind of just the truth.)
And, I'm aware of a student who voiced such a question once ... a student in a science class. Budding young mind.
Then, the scientists or science-minded, in my experience, say, "You're so ignorant." Something along those lines. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.
Which actually happened to this student. Then, the student called the teacher ignorant for calling him ignorant. The student was given a detention.
Bravo! Not.
And, when the parent called to complain and said, "You know, my son was right. There has always been global warming ... warming and ice ages," the parent was laughed off as being an ignorant and conservative yahoo and the teacher wasn't dealt with. Way to ignore an issue! Awesome!
Well, hell. Which is more ignorant? Which is more arrogant?
Why not at least attempt to frame the thing in a more accurate way and a way that actually makes common sense? You just did. How easy was that?
There has always been global warming, cycles of cooling and warming, yes. We know that. It's proven through evidence. What we don't know is how our carbon emissions will impact our natural cycles? That's scary. We know, in the past, we've gone through natural cycles that have had a huge and sometimes negative impact on humanity ... without industry. That industry could truly tip the balance into something nightmarish. Given that, it's vital that we make changes in industry and our daily lives.
Why hasn't that been the talking point? It's the truth. Truly, why hasn't that been the warning and the call? Why has it just been ... carbon emissions are bad and kill baby polar bears and you need to stop or bad things will happen and if you say ... but there have always been cycles of warming and cooling ... instead of saying ... but man might tip the balance ... we're just going to say you're ignorant and consumers of right-wing conservative garbage. Nananbooboo.
I mean, seriously?
Now, regarding the condoms ... global warming and condoms ... no, it wasn't the spectators. I looked it up after posting ... horrified that I might have exaggerated the number. At the Vancouver games, they handed out 100,000 condoms to the athletes, coaches and someone else ... with the athletes ... not spectators. At that point, I envisioned that coach from the '80's, Russian I believe, who worked with the gymnasts. His face popped into my head. I started to see him being given free condoms, which led me to imagine him, of all people, having sex, which led me to scream, "MY EYES!" I shuddered several times and logged out of my computer. Yes, I started thinking ... Sean Bean, Sean Bean, to try to get over the experience.
Now, I can't remember. I think there were 7,000 or 10,000 Olympians, far more than I realized!
Now, do I support safe sex? Heck, yes! I just find it somewhat odd. That's all. First, I'm pretty sure they can afford their own condoms. Would all of those condoms be better used elsewhere? Oh. Perhaps I should rephrase. Would it be best to give away free condoms to people who can't afford them and might, therefore, have unprotected sex ... not because they're idiots or too drunk to think straight but because they truly can't afford them? I think ... heck, yeah. But, hey, that's just me. Or, I know. Maybe, the money could be used on other things? Instead of taking all of that money to buy all of those condoms, they could have bought food and donated it to the food bank in that city. Wow! Imagine that. Huh.... All in all, I'm pretty sure Michael Phelps could spring for his own condoms. ;)
Actually it seems now that the world should have been slowly cooling or even into a glaciation by now. The problem isn't that natural cycles may complicate the issue, the problem is that human activity is changing the climate in decades instead of millennia."
Ummm.... Isn't that what I said? It's definitely what I meant. There have always been natural cycles ... human activity can tip the balance.
So, why haven't scientists presented it that way? They haven't. Not within my circle or within my hearing or reading.
It's been the simplistic and, as you said, childlike, man is causing global warming, ice is melting, polar bears are going to die and it's all because of our carbon footprint.
Then, someone says ... but there has always been global warming ... the ice age, not the ice age, the "little" ice age, etc....
(And, why is that an arrogant assumption? It's sort of/kind of just the truth.)
And, I'm aware of a student who voiced such a question once ... a student in a science class. Budding young mind.
Then, the scientists or science-minded, in my experience, say, "You're so ignorant." Something along those lines. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.
Which actually happened to this student. Then, the student called the teacher ignorant for calling him ignorant. The student was given a detention.
Bravo! Not.
And, when the parent called to complain and said, "You know, my son was right. There has always been global warming ... warming and ice ages," the parent was laughed off as being an ignorant and conservative yahoo and the teacher wasn't dealt with. Way to ignore an issue! Awesome!
Well, hell. Which is more ignorant? Which is more arrogant?
Why not at least attempt to frame the thing in a more accurate way and a way that actually makes common sense? You just did. How easy was that?
There has always been global warming, cycles of cooling and warming, yes. We know that. It's proven through evidence. What we don't know is how our carbon emissions will impact our natural cycles? That's scary. We know, in the past, we've gone through natural cycles that have had a huge and sometimes negative impact on humanity ... without industry. That industry could truly tip the balance into something nightmarish. Given that, it's vital that we make changes in industry and our daily lives.
Why hasn't that been the talking point? It's the truth. Truly, why hasn't that been the warning and the call? Why has it just been ... carbon emissions are bad and kill baby polar bears and you need to stop or bad things will happen and if you say ... but there have always been cycles of warming and cooling ... instead of saying ... but man might tip the balance ... we're just going to say you're ignorant and consumers of right-wing conservative garbage. Nananbooboo.
I mean, seriously?
Now, regarding the condoms ... global warming and condoms ... no, it wasn't the spectators. I looked it up after posting ... horrified that I might have exaggerated the number. At the Vancouver games, they handed out 100,000 condoms to the athletes, coaches and someone else ... with the athletes ... not spectators. At that point, I envisioned that coach from the '80's, Russian I believe, who worked with the gymnasts. His face popped into my head. I started to see him being given free condoms, which led me to imagine him, of all people, having sex, which led me to scream, "MY EYES!" I shuddered several times and logged out of my computer. Yes, I started thinking ... Sean Bean, Sean Bean, to try to get over the experience.
Now, I can't remember. I think there were 7,000 or 10,000 Olympians, far more than I realized!
Now, do I support safe sex? Heck, yes! I just find it somewhat odd. That's all. First, I'm pretty sure they can afford their own condoms. Would all of those condoms be better used elsewhere? Oh. Perhaps I should rephrase. Would it be best to give away free condoms to people who can't afford them and might, therefore, have unprotected sex ... not because they're idiots or too drunk to think straight but because they truly can't afford them? I think ... heck, yeah. But, hey, that's just me. Or, I know. Maybe, the money could be used on other things? Instead of taking all of that money to buy all of those condoms, they could have bought food and donated it to the food bank in that city. Wow! Imagine that. Huh.... All in all, I'm pretty sure Michael Phelps could spring for his own condoms. ;)
Shannon wrote: "Isn't that what I said? It's definitely what I meant. There have always been natural cycles ... human activity can tip the balance." 'Tipping the balance' in the same way that drawing a gun and shooting down the opposing team can tip the balance of a football match.
As I said change in decades instead of millennia.
Shannon wrote: "So, why haven't scientists presented it that way? They haven't. Not within my circle or within my hearing or reading."
Communication of science with the public is always problematic. The reason that people do not get the story about the natural warming and cooling cycles is that this then gets jumped on by lobbyists who try to downplay human activity by claiming it is just one of hundreds of factors, which is true but misleading.
The same is true when people talk about epigenetics and non-Darwinian selection, immediately people with creationist agendas try to present slight nuances of scientific opinion or debate as major flaws in established theory so they can then claim victory for pseudo-science. People studying the field know the difference, but the layperson can be accidentally or deliberately misled.
Ever heard about the "Bumblebees can't fly according to physics, but they do anyway because no one has told them they can't" myth? This comes from the fact that if you try to model a bee like an aircraft the equations do not work. This doesn't mean science cannot explain how a bee can fly, but at the scale of a bee different factors apply.
Yet many a layperson has made that claim, often to try to take science and scientists down a peg or two.
Shannon wrote: "It's been the simplistic and, as you said, childlike, man is causing global warming, ice is melting, polar bears are going to die and it's all because of our carbon footprint."
That is broadly "true" according to the scientific consensus. However, the nuances are incredibly complex and a more accurate explanation may actually convey less information to a person without the requisite knowledge. For example some models show that "global warming" can cause localised cooling in places. Which is why scientists prefer the term "Climate Change" as that stops rednecks guffawing in winter at sudden chills and snowfalls, or people in the UK claiming that our 40 days and 40 nights of rain means it is actually cooler.
Shannon wrote: "Then, someone says ... but there has always been global warming ... the ice age, not the ice age, the "little" ice age, etc...."
The problem with "but there has always been (x)" is that it is an excuse to be apathetic about a problem. Imagine if medical science had of taken the attitude "well there has always been (polio/smallpox/etc.) so why bother researching a vaccine?"
Also current (pre-industrial) climate models suggest that at the end of each glaciation there is a rapid global heating (of the order of centuries) followed by a gradual cooling (of the order of tens of thousands of years) so that statement was actually inaccurate. The warming since the start of the industrial age has most likely overwhelmed and reversed a natural period of cooling.
Shannon wrote: "I'm aware of a student who voiced such a question once"
Well that really comes down to the teacher, not science, and do you know the exact wording and attitude the 'question' was asked in? I have had many a run in with climate change skeptics who voice the similar sort of question scornfully, often quoting minority papers or papers out of context to try to give the erroneous impression that humans have little or no influence compared to the natural cycles.
Shannon wrote: "the parent was laughed off as being an ignorant and conservative yahoo and the teacher wasn't dealt with. Way to ignore an issue! Awesome!"
Again without knowing the specifics of what they said it is hard to comment. Yet can you imagine if someone made a comment when talking about the Holocaust 'didn't lots of people on both sides die in the war'? Their comment is technically correct but when used in the context of the discussion of deliberate genocide it is at best an irrelevant detail, at worst it sounds like what a lot of Holocaust denialists say.
Shannon wrote: "Why not at least attempt to frame the thing in a more accurate way and a way that actually makes common sense? You just did. How easy was that?"
The problem is with complex questions "common sense" and "accuracy" are often opposed. For example unseasonable cold weather, floods and rapid glaciation can all actually be symptoms of a warming atmosphere, which seems to defy 'common sense' but doesn't deny the complexities of mathematics in a chaotic system.
The other problem is when someone like me makes a simplistic explanation like the one above, two things can happen. First is that the bit that sounds counter-intuitive then gets presented as an out of context fact (Gary said that there would be glaciation soon, therefore he denies that there is Global Warming), the Second is that one simplification is later inaccurate, or shown to be wrong and the deniers latch onto that an say "Gary said that there would be more cold snaps and now we know there has been less, therefore the whole theory is wrong."
There is no substitute for actually understanding the science rather than looking for common sense results.
Shannon wrote: "We know, in the past, we've gone through natural cycles that have had a huge and sometimes negative impact on humanity ... without industry. "
What we know is natural variation in atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 hasn't been this high, this quickly in half a million years, so the 'natural variation' part of the equation is only relevant as it may mask previous effects. With this much change this quick, it is not necessarily helpful to compare it to more gradual eras. Only massive sustained volcanism such as the end of the Cretaceous has a chance of producing anywhere similar effects, and that is so long ago that we cannot yet determine with certainty whether volcanism or the KT impact killed off more of the Dinosaurs.
Shannon wrote: "instead of saying ... but man might tip the balance ... we're just going to say you're ignorant and consumers of right-wing conservative garbage."
Because "man might tip the balance" is highly misleading in context. It sounds like man's effects are a small part of a whole load of natural processes, rather than man's effects look set to swamp any other natural process, and that continues year after year.
Shannon wrote: "Now, do I support safe sex? Heck, yes! I just find it somewhat odd. That's all. First, I'm pretty sure they can afford their own condoms. Would all of those condoms be better used elsewhere?"
Perhaps, but elsewhere there are strong lobbying groups (mostly Catholic) trying to suppress them.
Shannon wrote: " Oh. Perhaps I should rephrase. Would it be best to give away free condoms to people who can't afford them and might, therefore, have unprotected sex ... not because they're idiots or too drunk to think straight but because they truly can't afford them? "
That's thinking like an economist rather than a epidemiologist. You see one prevention deployed at a place where thousands of people from hundreds of countries are meeting may prevent far more infections than ten thousand preventions deployed elsewhere.
Yes people may be able to afford them anyway, and there are other things that may have been bought instead that would alleviate more immediate suffering, however infections are geometric progressions. An athlete may have a brief affair and in the moment of passion doesn't shell out a buck for a condom, they then get infected with something return home and they infect others, who infect others etc. Eventually for want of $1 you may have 10,000 people all still spreading a disease.
Studies show that availability of contraceptives make little difference to human fidelity, promiscuity and sexual behaviour (pretty much if we're going to do it, then we're going to do it), but studies do show that making contraception easily available dramatically increases the likelihood of it being employed which means less chance of disease and unwanted pregnancy.
So without appreciation of the maths and biology your points are all correct, yet you will likely come to the wrong conclusion. This is a similar issue as to the one above.
Gary wrote: "So without appreciation of the maths and biology your points are all correct, yet you will likely come to the wrong conclusion. This is a similar issue as to the one above. "
Color me ignorant then ....
Color me ignorant then ....
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I'm aware of a student who voiced such a question once"
Well that really comes down to the teacher, not science, and do you know the exact wording and attitude the 'question' was asked in? I have had many a run in with climate change skeptics who voice the similar sort of question scornfully, often quoting minority papers or papers out of context to try to give the erroneous impression that humans have little or no influence compared to the natural cycles."
Something has been grating on me and, since it involves a child, I'm going to address it.
Gary, you've told us you're a scientist and you've told us you work in a school or schools. May I assume you're a science teacher? I ask for a particular reason.
Are schools in the UK and America that different? I can't speak for all American schools, just the ones in my area. I can speak to best practice as discussed and studied here. We don't condone calling students names, especially 12 year olds. Does it happen? Yes. In the above instance, the administrators turned a blind eye to it. However, it is not best practice.
Are educators in the UK truly allowed to call students names and/or call them ignorant ... depending on their tone and attitude? I'm shocked by that and request clarification.
Regarding this particular student, I don't believe he used tone, other than confusion ... at first. He was totally and completely taken with history. It was his favorite and best subject. He even spent his free time reading about history. So, he knew all sorts of things about history, including times of warming and cooling. When the teacher said global warming was caused by humans and our carbon footprint, the boy was confused. He questioned the teacher. But, there were all sorts of times throughout history when we experienced warming and cooling. He talked of the boulders in our fields, dropped by receding ice sheets. He talked about recently learning about the warming in Europe during the Middle Ages and the little ice age. The teacher restated her position. The boy restated his. The teacher told him only ignorant people who watch FOX news would believe such a thing. The boy asked if the teacher was calling him ignorant. The teacher confirmed. The boy called the teacher ignorant, with attitude. The teacher gave him a detention.
In my mind, best practice would have been to say something like ... let's talk about that .... I'd ask the boy and the class about the different times of warming and cooling throughout the world's history. I'd chart it on the board. I'd ask them about whether or not humans existed during those times and in what numbers. I'd ask about their carbon footprints ... when did industry come into play ... Then, I'd address the impact that human industry could have on climate and discuss the risks. (Of course, as you said, I don't have an appreciation for the maths and biology ... I actually have dyscalculia, Gary, which makes the maths rather more difficult for me than the average person, but I do my best not to give up ... I'd likely come to the wrong conclusions regarding that impact and what those risks might be. So, I won't go into those.)
While math and science are a weakness, education is not. What I just discussed would be the appropriate tact to take. It would foster questioning and thought, things education should be about. Excitement, perhaps. Further research. It would open minds.
Instead, the same old argument came out ... sort of similar to the one you presented ... believe what I say, you're not able to understand the finer points of science, best, therefore, not to link it those points with common sense ... it doesn't matter that you know history and it's not making sense to you ... I'm not even going to address that ... no ... just believe me.
And, Gary, I'm using that word for a reason. As long as science teachers and the science-minded use that argument, they're not trying to educate and children and people aren't learning about the evidence and the facts of the situation. Children and people are just being asked to believe. If they don't, they're called ignorant.
Of course, I'm not sure if you made the above statement (in quotes) because you truly believe it's justified to call children ignorant depending on their attitude or if you were arguing my point simply to argue a point.
Feel free to clarify or not. But, I have to say, I don't think calling children or people, their questions, or their arguments arrogant (which is in itself fairly arrogant) and/or ignorant to be appropriate ... either as a means of discussion, for the purposes of education and understanding, or for reasons of morality.
Well that really comes down to the teacher, not science, and do you know the exact wording and attitude the 'question' was asked in? I have had many a run in with climate change skeptics who voice the similar sort of question scornfully, often quoting minority papers or papers out of context to try to give the erroneous impression that humans have little or no influence compared to the natural cycles."
Something has been grating on me and, since it involves a child, I'm going to address it.
Gary, you've told us you're a scientist and you've told us you work in a school or schools. May I assume you're a science teacher? I ask for a particular reason.
Are schools in the UK and America that different? I can't speak for all American schools, just the ones in my area. I can speak to best practice as discussed and studied here. We don't condone calling students names, especially 12 year olds. Does it happen? Yes. In the above instance, the administrators turned a blind eye to it. However, it is not best practice.
Are educators in the UK truly allowed to call students names and/or call them ignorant ... depending on their tone and attitude? I'm shocked by that and request clarification.
Regarding this particular student, I don't believe he used tone, other than confusion ... at first. He was totally and completely taken with history. It was his favorite and best subject. He even spent his free time reading about history. So, he knew all sorts of things about history, including times of warming and cooling. When the teacher said global warming was caused by humans and our carbon footprint, the boy was confused. He questioned the teacher. But, there were all sorts of times throughout history when we experienced warming and cooling. He talked of the boulders in our fields, dropped by receding ice sheets. He talked about recently learning about the warming in Europe during the Middle Ages and the little ice age. The teacher restated her position. The boy restated his. The teacher told him only ignorant people who watch FOX news would believe such a thing. The boy asked if the teacher was calling him ignorant. The teacher confirmed. The boy called the teacher ignorant, with attitude. The teacher gave him a detention.
In my mind, best practice would have been to say something like ... let's talk about that .... I'd ask the boy and the class about the different times of warming and cooling throughout the world's history. I'd chart it on the board. I'd ask them about whether or not humans existed during those times and in what numbers. I'd ask about their carbon footprints ... when did industry come into play ... Then, I'd address the impact that human industry could have on climate and discuss the risks. (Of course, as you said, I don't have an appreciation for the maths and biology ... I actually have dyscalculia, Gary, which makes the maths rather more difficult for me than the average person, but I do my best not to give up ... I'd likely come to the wrong conclusions regarding that impact and what those risks might be. So, I won't go into those.)
While math and science are a weakness, education is not. What I just discussed would be the appropriate tact to take. It would foster questioning and thought, things education should be about. Excitement, perhaps. Further research. It would open minds.
Instead, the same old argument came out ... sort of similar to the one you presented ... believe what I say, you're not able to understand the finer points of science, best, therefore, not to link it those points with common sense ... it doesn't matter that you know history and it's not making sense to you ... I'm not even going to address that ... no ... just believe me.
And, Gary, I'm using that word for a reason. As long as science teachers and the science-minded use that argument, they're not trying to educate and children and people aren't learning about the evidence and the facts of the situation. Children and people are just being asked to believe. If they don't, they're called ignorant.
Of course, I'm not sure if you made the above statement (in quotes) because you truly believe it's justified to call children ignorant depending on their attitude or if you were arguing my point simply to argue a point.
Feel free to clarify or not. But, I have to say, I don't think calling children or people, their questions, or their arguments arrogant (which is in itself fairly arrogant) and/or ignorant to be appropriate ... either as a means of discussion, for the purposes of education and understanding, or for reasons of morality.
I cannot live without science.
Was this thread about ANGELS AND DEMONS by Dan Brown, 2000? I'm beginning to not recognize it. Anyway, here's what Dan Brown said, “Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this: when we as a species abandon our trust in a power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faiths … all faiths … are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable. With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. The church consists of a brotherhood of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control.”My sense of it is that scientists, esp. those in quantum mechanics, cosmology, the sub-micro and the super-macro -- many of them -- get around to the issue of God. (As opposed to Religion, please note.)
But religion, esp. as practiced recently in the USA, is getting more and more anti-science.
So; if I need both, then it would seem to choose Science, and get God; whereas to choose Religion is not necessarily a good bet to get Science.
No, I'm not gonna' consider the Scholastics and Academics, back when all Science was subsumed under Philosophy which reported to Religion.
Ok, for my own edification, are you saying drop religion, and one day science will show us if there is a god or not?
In a world without religion..!!!! I think is the best made up lie in hystory!!
Hazel wrote: "Ok, for my own edification, are you saying drop religion, and one day science will show us if there is a god or not?"Sounds like he is one of the people willing to give up the organized worship of an imaginary friend, but wants to keep the imaginary friend.
Iris wrote: "In a world without religion..!!!! I think is the best made up lie in hystory!!"no, cake is the best made up lie in history, memetics say so ;P
is that so?? lol Hazel wrote: "Iris wrote: "In a world without religion..!!!! I think is the best made up lie in hystory!!"
no, cake is the best made up lie in history, memetics say so ;P"
Hazel wrote: "Iris wrote: "In a world without religion..!!!! I think is the best made up lie in hystory!!"no, cake is the best made up lie in history, memetics say so ;P"
What video game is that from? My son has been quoting it.
without religion, hands down!
Travis wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Iris wrote: "In a world without religion..!!!! I think is the best made up lie in hystory!!"no, cake is the best made up lie in history, memetics say so ;P"
What video game is that..."
Its Portal.
Rather apt in this thread, actually, when you look at the definition of the phrase on urban dictionary, where it claims "the cake is a lie" roughly translates to "your promised reward is merely a fictitious motivator", and this relates to how, during the game, GlaDOS, an artificially intelligent operating system and the game's passive-aggressive guide, uses the reward of cake as a motivating factor in an attempt to manipulate the player. All this cut and paste from a website, as I have never actually played portal...
what?? i don't understand anything.. what r you talking about??Hazel wrote: "Travis wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Iris wrote: "In a world without religion..!!!! I think is the best made up lie in hystory!!"
no, cake is the best made up lie in history, memetics say so ;P"
What vid..."
"The cake is a lie" is a meme that originated in the video game Portal, hopefully, this makes my last post, which was in response to Travis, make sense. If not, don't worry, I'm just pissing around.
Shannon wrote: "Gary, you've told us you're a scientist and you've told us you work in a school or schools. May I assume you're a science teacher?" Actually I work for a computer management service. I doubt I'd have the patience to deal with kids in a lesson.
Shannon wrote: "Are schools in the UK and America that different?"
I can only really base any comparison there on how schools are presented in TV & Films.
There is one thing I would like to know though, is the term "freak" such a deadly epithet as it's presented in a lot of American films? I thought it was mainly because I was watching a lot of SF where there would be some character who was "special" who at some point gets called a "freak" or worries that they are a "freak", but then I noticed it in a lot more mundane programs. I also noticed that friends and comrades where always quick to insist that the person wasn't a freak.
Just interested because there seems to be something there that speaks about a marked difference in psyche.
Shannon wrote: "We don't condone calling students names, especially 12 year olds. Does it happen? Yes."
If anything in the UK the state schools are far too much the other way, teachers and staff seem to be far to constrained with how they deal with kids for my liking. Generally speaking teachers are not allowed to be negative to kids in any way, which in a deprived area means that some of them never get any boundaries at home or at school. In my opinion kids automatically push at boundaries, because that's how they define themselves and how they interact with the world. Now certainly kids shouldn't be abused or oppressed, but I feel there should be a consistent and strong boundary where a kid is told "no that's too far" by whatever punitive method would be effective.
Shannon wrote: "Are educators in the UK truly allowed to call students names and/or call them ignorant ... depending on their tone and attitude? I'm shocked by that and request clarification."
Unfortunately they are not, even when the child is actually acting in an ignorant and arrogant matter. Sometimes I feel that it is not a good preparation for life when a kid is brought up to believe that they can say anything they like and other people have to respect that opinion. Even if that opinion is thoughtless, arrogant or even bigoted and hateful.
I remember one schoolgirl who had a unique take on the creationist/evolution "controversy". She proudly stated that she believed that black people evolved from apes but white people were created directly by god!
I'm not sure what the best way of addressing that attitude in a child would be, but I am reasonably sure it should be addressed, and strongly. I am certain that I would not feel any need to respect her beliefs because they were beliefs.
Shannon wrote: "When the teacher said global warming was caused by humans and our carbon footprint, the boy was confused. He questioned the teacher."
Again without hearing the exact conversation I wouldn't like to judge teacher or student. I would say it is right to ask questions when you do not know, but I also know that some people use asking questions as a technique to undermine something they do not believe in.
From your description it does seem to be bordering on the loaded question logical fallacy.
Yes the student was right, but then so was the teacher. Contextually the teacher was talking about the current scientific concern about Climate Change, the student then asked a question which is a common counterpoint from Climate Change deniers. So this gives a spectrum of possibilities.
1. The Teacher was talking about Climate Change and the student deliberately tried to undermine the science lesson based on political ideology.
2. The teacher was talking about Climate Change and the student asked a fair question that the teacher misjudged as an attack.
3. The teacher wasn't familiar with the students points (whether stated with intent or genuine confusion) and over-reacted.
I am not saying the teacher was right to place the student in detention for asking questions, as questioning things is always a good idea, but without an independent witness to the discussion I'd hate to judge either.
Shannon wrote: "In my mind, best practice would have been to say something like ..."
The example you gave was fine, and indeed it would be nice to see such a thing, yet since the details are actually very complicated while the general results are simple, it would be hard to do such a discussion justice without a strong grounding in the subject matter. Without such a thing it would be easy to leave the wrong impression.
For example the same argument is often made for "reasonable" debate and discussion by creationists, but the sole purpose is not to encourage discussion but to try to sow doubt and give the false impression that the science is dubious rather than having masses of evidence.
Shannon wrote: "(Of course, as you said, I don't have an appreciation for the maths and biology ... I actually have dyscalculia, Gary, which makes the maths rather more difficult for me than the average person"
Well to be fair I am not sure how much of an issue dyscalculia would be as the mathematics I was referring too is not arithmetic or simple algebra but the highly involved mathematical modelling of complex systems that would require long training to be able to follow.
The underlying physics is easier. CO2 traps heat, CH4 traps heat twenty times more effectively, we pump billions of tons of each into the atmosphere leading to the highest concentrations in hundreds of thousands of years. So the real question would be how is Anthropogenic 'Global Warming' not happening? That trapped heat must go somewhere.
The complexity comes from the fact that the Climate is made up of myriads of complex systems from air currents to sea currents to biological processes to even geothermal expansion, so what we don't see is a nice consistent graph of heating. According to the mathematics what we are likely to see is increasing climatic instability as various systems absorb the excess energy and swing back and forth further and further from equilibrium. Storms, floods, droughts biological blooms, sudden devastation and other localised disruptions should generally increase in severity and frequency until the energy level jumps to a different equilibrium point, at which point extreme global changes will happen a lot more abruptly than commonly assumed.
Shannon wrote: "While math and science are a weakness, education is not. What I just discussed would be the appropriate tact to take. It would foster questioning and thought, things education should be about. Excitement, perhaps. Further research. It would open minds."
Ever heard the expression "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? The problem with the methodology you present is that this is often seized upon by charlatans, conspiracy theorists and other people with particular beliefs or agendas to then push a particular favoured idea. From creationists, to climate change deniers, holocaust deniers and various quacks selling snake oil, they present a complex subject as simple, while presenting ideas, questions or doubts in order to push a particular angle.
Dr Iain Stewart is fond of the phrase "lies to children". The idea being that to teach someone the truth about something, sometimes you have to simplify the details to impart the idea. For example kids are taught that everything is made up of little blobs called atoms (which is correct but misleading) then they are taught that atoms are actually tiny electrons whirling around a nucleus of protons and neutrons, which isn't really true, then physicists are taught about the strong nuclear force that "glues" the nucleas together and that the electron is actually a strange smeared out blur around the nucleus. Then particle physicists are shown that the blur of electrons is smeared out over everywhere, including inside the nucleus and 10,000LY away, "protons" and "neutrons" do not exist but are just labels for groups of quarks that oscillate back and forth between themselves and gluons which are effectively a quark and its antiquark linked together like a snapped string that transmits the nuclear force while photons flash into and out of existence all of the time to transmit the electroweak force.
Now imagine trying to teach someone what water is made of from quarks upwards without the framework and concepts built up through all those convenient but inaccurate models. Not only would it be a huge jump in conceptual framework, but also it would be so far outside of our own intuitions and assumptions that completely fallacious ideas would seem more logical and reasonable by comparison.
Shannon wrote: "Instead, the same old argument came out ... sort of similar to the one you presented ... believe what I say, you're not able to understand the finer points of science, best, therefore, not to link it those points with common sense"
The problem with 'common sense' is that it only works for common situations, and even then not only that.
'Common sense' would have you believe that the Earth is flat and the Sun, planets and stars float far above us, is that accurate? If you teach kids that actually the Earth is a spheroid and revolves around the sun, do you just tell them that or do you explain how gravity works and how we pull the Earth up toward us just as hard as the Earth pulls us down? Do you tell them that the Moon and Earth rotate around a common centre of Gravity that is within the Earth's surface, or do you tell them that the Moon travels around the Earth?
Shannon wrote: "And, Gary, I'm using that word for a reason. As long as science teachers and the science-minded use that argument, they're not trying to educate and children and people aren't learning about the evidence and the facts of the situation. Children and people are just being asked to believe. If they don't, they're called ignorant."
Yet as scientists know, there are no "facts" like non-scientists like to believe. Our common sense tells us that there are intrinsic 'truths' and 'facts' yet science shows us that all there is are models that best represent the truth, but if you forget the difference between a model and reality you can get into deep trouble. To a scientist a 'fact' is a concept that has by consensus reached a certain level of certitude arbitrarily held as sufficiently exacting. A 'law' is synonymous with 'theory' or truth, but always accepting that their may be a truth that is more accurate and more complete.
In the end it would be impossible to teach people anything unless they accept certain ideas. You may call this "belief" but I would call it "accepting a model". Now you may feel free to debate this model and ask questions, but ultimately you either need to consult expert opinion, or become an expert yourself. Neither of which is really a choice within the bounds of an average science lesson.
Shannon wrote: "you truly believe it's justified to call children ignorant depending on their attitude or if you were arguing my point simply to argue a point."
I don't disagree with you that calling someone ignorant for asking genuine questions is wrong, yet if someone is being ignorant it is my opinion that they should be called on their ignorance, both for the benefit of themselves and their fellows.
That is the problem in a class. A teacher is probably not an expert in many fields they teach, but they need to teach a complex idea to a group of people. Questions are fine, dissent is fine, but there is a difference between genuine questions and deliberately asking loaded questions for ideological reasons which may leave false impressions in the minds of fellow students.
Gary wrote: "Even if that opinion is thoughtless, arrogant or even bigoted and hateful.
I remember one schoolgirl who had a unique take on the creationist/evolution "controversy". She proudly stated that she believed that black people evolved from apes but white people were created directly by god!"
In my country, we have laws against bigoted and hateful speech. If a schoolgirl in my class said ... "black people evolved from apes but white people were created directly by god" ... I'd write her up for harassment. She'd be investigated. She'd be found guilty of harassment, be forced to take classes on harassment and who knows what else. I'd do that before I told her she was ignorant.
When it comes to adults calling children ignorant, I have one thing to say. Adults should behave as adults, not children. What about calling adults ignorant and whether or not children are being prepared for the world in schools where teachers aren't allowed to call them ignorant and such? There are ways of challenging thinking and showing that one questions a standpoint and doesn't respect what is being said without stooping to name-calling. There is a difference between respecting a person and respecting what the person is saying. In addition, even if I were dealing with the most hateful person on the planet, I would struggle not to allow that person and his/her hateful behavior to change who I am ... to elicit a response from me that stoops to a level I'm not willing to stoop to.
Regarding your question on whether or not "freak" is the worst insult hurled in American classrooms ....
In 15 years of teaching, I've rarely heard it mentioned. I don't believe I've ever heard it mentioned and seen someone take offense ... but am struggling with remembering it used. In my experience, the "worst" insult depends on the child. For some, they'd rather die than be called gay. Others will go absolutely crazy if they're targeted for their race. A few years ago, we had boys scoring girls for their breast-size, before we found out and dealt with it. Some of the girls were devastated for being found wanting in that area. So, in truth, it really depends. "Freak" isn't it. Here, at least. If I had to come up with just one for you, the worst insult used in schools ... to my knowledge ... I'd say it would be to be called gay. But, again, that's a gross generalization and doesn't really accurately reflect reality.
Regarding the rest of your post .... I find some of it highly ironic.
I remember one schoolgirl who had a unique take on the creationist/evolution "controversy". She proudly stated that she believed that black people evolved from apes but white people were created directly by god!"
In my country, we have laws against bigoted and hateful speech. If a schoolgirl in my class said ... "black people evolved from apes but white people were created directly by god" ... I'd write her up for harassment. She'd be investigated. She'd be found guilty of harassment, be forced to take classes on harassment and who knows what else. I'd do that before I told her she was ignorant.
When it comes to adults calling children ignorant, I have one thing to say. Adults should behave as adults, not children. What about calling adults ignorant and whether or not children are being prepared for the world in schools where teachers aren't allowed to call them ignorant and such? There are ways of challenging thinking and showing that one questions a standpoint and doesn't respect what is being said without stooping to name-calling. There is a difference between respecting a person and respecting what the person is saying. In addition, even if I were dealing with the most hateful person on the planet, I would struggle not to allow that person and his/her hateful behavior to change who I am ... to elicit a response from me that stoops to a level I'm not willing to stoop to.
Regarding your question on whether or not "freak" is the worst insult hurled in American classrooms ....
In 15 years of teaching, I've rarely heard it mentioned. I don't believe I've ever heard it mentioned and seen someone take offense ... but am struggling with remembering it used. In my experience, the "worst" insult depends on the child. For some, they'd rather die than be called gay. Others will go absolutely crazy if they're targeted for their race. A few years ago, we had boys scoring girls for their breast-size, before we found out and dealt with it. Some of the girls were devastated for being found wanting in that area. So, in truth, it really depends. "Freak" isn't it. Here, at least. If I had to come up with just one for you, the worst insult used in schools ... to my knowledge ... I'd say it would be to be called gay. But, again, that's a gross generalization and doesn't really accurately reflect reality.
Regarding the rest of your post .... I find some of it highly ironic.
Penny wrote: "Was this thread about ANGELS AND DEMONS by Dan Brown, 2000? I'm beginning to not recognize it."Like many other things, discussions evolve :-)
Dan Brown wrote: "Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this: when we as a species abandon our trust in a power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability."
No.
First thing is that "we as a species" do not believe that which is quite easy to demonstrate. How many countries and cultures have advocated complete anarchism? How many have truly believed that we are accountable to a higher power and therefore have abandoned all attempts to police our societies?
Why would anyone seek justice in this world if they truly believe that all accounts will be settled by an ultimate power?
The ultimate refutation of this entire concept is contained within the Bible, the Qu'ran and the laws of many religious nations. Blasphemy laws. If it is felt it is necessary for us to punish crimes against the ultimate arbiter then that shows a intrinsic distrust of the entire concept.
I do worry about one thing. There are good religious people who are often attracted to religion for its appearance of altruism, and there are good people who are completely irreligious. Yet the people that worry me are the ones that claim that without a concept of ultimate punishment they would feel completely unrestrained in thieving, raping and killing. That is a problem with that persons conscience rather than an issue with religion.
Moreover, there is a higher power to us as individuals that is both comprehensible and accessible, society. As social animals we form societies for mutual advantage and benefit, our systems of justice are based on the simple idea that if people are allowed to cheat that society, placing their own needs above all others then that society is undermined and the mutual benefit is damaged. Trust in each other and trust in our society is what enables society to function as more than the sum of its parts. Therefore we use systems of ethics and justice to allow us to trust in each other and to trust that the system will form some form of mutual defence against those who would harm us.
Concept: Consider, in a manner similar to a virus, religions subvert these systems of trust and enforcement to propagate itself as an concept, just like the DNA of virii subvert cell functions to copy itself instead of performing the cells primary function, and just as a virus can leech resources away from important functions to accomplish this causing the cell to sicken, so can a religion subvert the functions of a healthy society to benefit itself at the cost of the society as a whole.
Dan Brown wrote: "Faiths … all faiths … are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable."
No.
For a start, it is mainly monotheistic faiths that have the concept of accountability. Many polytheistic faiths accepted the gods as being as flawed and as prone to misjudgement as any human.
Second practically all Faiths are based on the idea that there is something we can understand easily, such as a person who acts like us and has similar emotions, just written big, or complex ideas presented as simple reification such as "good" or "evil". Faith tucks away what we do not understand as comfortingly within the comprehension of someone just like us that we trust.
Dan Brown wrote: "With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth."
No.
With faith we hold everyone accountable to our opinion of what the 'higher truth' is. It is arrogance and presumption masquerading as pious humility. Faith is an act of placing our own opinion as unassailable and inarguable, and then judging others based on our opinion.
Dan Brown wrote: "Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed."
Yes.
Because religion is an invention of man, it contains all of his worst flaws. From the innocuous "little white lies" we tell ourselves and each other in the interests of comfort and solace, to the worst excesses of fear, paranoia and bigotry. Yet religion stands as a perpetuation and codification of these flaws that we pass down generation to generation. Perhaps one day to be dissolved in the pristine solvent of reason, compassion and genuine humility.
Dan Brown wrote: "The church consists of a brotherhood of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control."
Most Churches want to be the voice of rule in a world that some fear is expanding beyond their control. Look at the major issues that Churches are involved in now, the fear and disgust directed at gay people, the control over women as breeding stock for men and the fear that science is explaining things that Faith once held exclusive access too dominates the discussion. At the same time many deeply religious people show public scorn for the poor and needy, claiming that social justice is somehow unfair and evil. .
Penny wrote: "My sense of it is that scientists, esp. those in quantum mechanics, cosmology, the sub-micro and the super-macro -- many of them -- get around to the issue of God. (As opposed to Religion, please note.)"
In a way yes they do, mainly because the fields that they investigate often address questions once solely reserved to religion. Quantum physics shows us that the universe is far stranger than any religion has ever claimed, and Cosmology addresses the question of the nature and origin of the universe shorn of anthropomorphic assumptions and tales.
Religious conviction amongst scientists is statistically a lot lower than in the general population, and many of those that do have some kind of faith have it in an entity that is very different from how a lot of people would conceive it.
“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Penny wrote: "But religion, esp. as practiced recently in the USA, is getting more and more anti-science."
Religion became anti-science when monotheism became the dominant form of faith for the simple reason that with only one god their is only one authority and one 'truth' and anything which undermines that 'truth' therefore undermines the authority. Early Christian scholars celebrated the destruction of the Library in Alexandria and the destruction of non-Christian works from the great pre-Christian thinkers of Greece and elsewhere because it meant that non-Christian ideas were being obliterated. From then on any significant scientific discovery that overturned the 'truth' as taught by the Church was subject to opposition and violence. From Galileo to Darwin.
The only difference today is that knowledge is expanding so fast that it throws superstition and assumption into sharp relief. This leaves many faithful afraid that if science can call the 'truth' contained in their teachings into question, then all of it can be questioned and questions defy authority and control.
Penny wrote: "So; if I need both, then it would seem to choose Science, and get God; whereas to choose Religion is not necessarily a good bet to get Science."
Why is god needed at all? What is needed is ethics, morality and knowledge. All three can serve each other without the threat of divine retribution.
Assuming that there was a god, and he truly loved all of his creation, then why would he need or even desire worship? If worship was necessary to be good then why conceal his nature from some, or give different ideas to different people that then leads to conflict? In fact what should he love more, a person who did good because he was afraid of him, or a person who did good because they felt it was the right thing to do, fearing no punishment and expecting no reward?
Shannon wrote: "I'd write her up for harassment. She'd be investigated. She'd be found guilty of harassment, be forced to take classes on harassment and who knows what else. I'd do that before I told her she was ignorant."So you would write her up and send her for punishment before you'd simply tell her that she was being ignorant?
After all "ignorance" means being uninformed or ill-educated about a subject, often (but not necessarily) wilfully.
If a layperson turned around and claimed that "Quantum-Touch is a powerful, yet easy to learn, method of natural healing (or energy healing)." http://www.quantumtouch.com/ was supported by Quantum Physics then I would call them ignorant of Quantum Physics, unless of course they could then produce enough independently confirmed reasoning and evidence which shows it was accurate.
Ignorance is a state that is addressed by education, so by being a student you are almost by definition ignorant, and indeed everyone is almost certainly ignorant of something. However, actually telling someone that they are acting in an ignorant manner is usually reserved for when people make claims (either by assertion or implication) about a field that they are largely ignorant of.
Shannon wrote: "Adults should behave as adults, not children."
Agreed but, as you can see from some responses on here, not everyone does :-)
In my opinion though part of this is being honest, and sometimes I find that calling bulls**t when you hear it is an honest and immediate response that some people need to hear. Even me on occasion :-)
As I have said, I have debated religious apologists on many points and the truth is that some of them, or their chosen references, are deliberately misrepresented for ideological reasons. (Dave Gorman's the "Googlewhack Adventure" has a good example of Dr Duane Gish claiming that the second law of thermodynamics means that evolution is physically impossible, when actually he omits the incredibly important first four words "In a Closed System".)
Shannon wrote: "There are ways of challenging thinking and showing that one questions a standpoint and doesn't respect what is being said without stooping to name-calling."
Again what's in a name? Calling the student "stupid" is a value judgement on his intelligence, calling him "ignorant" is saying that he lacks important information about what he is talking about.
Shannon wrote: "There is a difference between respecting a person and respecting what the person is saying."
In a one on one situation. What happens when hatred and bigotry are addressed and discussed? Ideally you have time to do this and to discredit that attitude. What happens when you meet that opinion in public with limited time. Simply by pausing to address that attitude you legitimise the idea that holding such an opinion is reasonable and valid. The impression given that the bigoted and non-bigoted attitudes are just two sides of the same coin each equally valid.
As an adult I feel that some ideas should be challenged whenever brought up publicly and they should be challenged robustly lest others get the idea that such things are acceptable in a civil society. When the likes of Rick Santorum stands up and spits his homophobic venom, when as a candidate running for US president he publicly gives fuel to the scientifically disproved notion that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, do you quietly accept such hateful rhetoric and hope to slowly undo the damage he has just caused to 10% of the population, or do you stand up and challenge that statement in the strongest manner you can?
Shannon wrote: "In addition, even if I were dealing with the most hateful person on the planet, I would struggle not to allow that person and his/her hateful behavior to change who I am"
What is worse than the most hateful person is the person that has been indoctrinated into hate because the proponents of hate have been loud and the decriers too complacent.
Shannon wrote: "to elicit a response from me that stoops to a level I'm not willing to stoop to."
Personally I find some ideas abhorrent, and while I will take the time to show why they are, I will also decry them in the strongest manner possible from the start. To do less seems to me to make yourself complicit in the perpetuation of the idea.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding your question on whether or not "freak" is the worst insult hurled in American classrooms ...."
Thanks for that, it was very interesting. You see I had a distinct impression that after things like McCarthyism and the far more prevalent religious movement based on the Puritanical settlers that fled Europe for the US there seemed to be to my eyes a fear of non-conformity in the US that is far more pronounced than in Europe. I am rather surprised to hear it's not apparent at all.
Perhaps it says more about the experiences of writers than of Americans in general?
Shannon wrote: "I'd say it would be to be called gay. But, again, that's a gross generalization and doesn't really accurately reflect reality."
Yes, in the UK it seems the term "gay" has recently sublimed into a general term for something bad, even amongst people who are not particularly homophobic. (E.g. "Facebook has changed it's layout again!", "Oh that's gay!") I don't like the term myself obviously but strangely I have now heard it used in situations where the person was definitely not being labelled as homosexual. (The funniest one being said to a man "What, you're not coming out with us because you're going to see your girlfriend? That's gay!")
Shannon wrote: "Regarding the rest of your post .... I find some of it highly ironic."
Is that a veiled allegation of hypocrisy? Is it really more respectful to someone to make vague implications about the validity of their opinions or is it more respectful to point out immediately and exactly what you disagree with?
Gary wrote: "So you would write her up and send her for punishment before you'd simply tell her that she was being ignorant?
"
Yes. I tend to follow school policy and state and federal law.
"
Yes. I tend to follow school policy and state and federal law.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "There are ways of challenging thinking and showing that one questions a standpoint and doesn't respect what is being said without stooping to name-calling."
Again what's in a name? Calling the student "stupid" is a value judgement on his intelligence, calling him "ignorant" is saying that he lacks important information about what he is talking about."
We've had this conversation on this thread before. I can't remember if you were part of it. I believe you were.
You tend to turn to definitions at times. I'm including a link ...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
I think I've given this information before. Excuse the repetition for those who remember it.
I'm fairly sure you're aware, Gary, that the word isn't as, hmmm, innocent as you put forth. It has very negative connotations, again, as I assume you're aware. It's a belittling word. To call someone ignorant is to, for all intents and purposes, say they are less than you. I've never in my life called someone ignorant, and I can't imagine doing so.
Have I told people their views were racist or sexist or homophobic or illegal? Yes. That's called naming the problem and calling the person on their behavior.
To call someone ignorant, perhaps instead of addressing the problem, is being judgmental, and, frankly, reminds me of the "ists" you so often talk about in your posts.
Regarding my stating your post is ironic, I have spelled out, immediately and exactly, what I disagree with. You've claimed, in previous posts, that it's important to think and engage and question. Oops. You forgot to throw out the caveat. It's important to do those things only up to a point. If you use tone, nope. If you're a confused 12 year old asking a question in science class, nope ... 'cause you, for some reason, have lumped that child in with all of the "ists" that you've debated who raise such questions for nefarious purposes. Unless you want to take science and have it make sense. And, then we have, followed on the heels of trying to make sense of something, the following, "In the end it would be impossible to teach people anything unless they accept certain ideas. You may call this "belief" but I would call it "accepting a model". Now you may feel free to debate this model and ask questions, but ultimately you either need to consult expert opinion, or become an expert yourself. Neither of which is really a choice within the bounds of an average science lesson." Riiight.... Fairly certain this point has been argued before in history, but not in regard to science.
There was nothing veiled in my statement. I've been very honest with regard to who I am, my experiences and my thoughts on the subjects at hand.
Again what's in a name? Calling the student "stupid" is a value judgement on his intelligence, calling him "ignorant" is saying that he lacks important information about what he is talking about."
We've had this conversation on this thread before. I can't remember if you were part of it. I believe you were.
You tend to turn to definitions at times. I'm including a link ...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
I think I've given this information before. Excuse the repetition for those who remember it.
I'm fairly sure you're aware, Gary, that the word isn't as, hmmm, innocent as you put forth. It has very negative connotations, again, as I assume you're aware. It's a belittling word. To call someone ignorant is to, for all intents and purposes, say they are less than you. I've never in my life called someone ignorant, and I can't imagine doing so.
Have I told people their views were racist or sexist or homophobic or illegal? Yes. That's called naming the problem and calling the person on their behavior.
To call someone ignorant, perhaps instead of addressing the problem, is being judgmental, and, frankly, reminds me of the "ists" you so often talk about in your posts.
Regarding my stating your post is ironic, I have spelled out, immediately and exactly, what I disagree with. You've claimed, in previous posts, that it's important to think and engage and question. Oops. You forgot to throw out the caveat. It's important to do those things only up to a point. If you use tone, nope. If you're a confused 12 year old asking a question in science class, nope ... 'cause you, for some reason, have lumped that child in with all of the "ists" that you've debated who raise such questions for nefarious purposes. Unless you want to take science and have it make sense. And, then we have, followed on the heels of trying to make sense of something, the following, "In the end it would be impossible to teach people anything unless they accept certain ideas. You may call this "belief" but I would call it "accepting a model". Now you may feel free to debate this model and ask questions, but ultimately you either need to consult expert opinion, or become an expert yourself. Neither of which is really a choice within the bounds of an average science lesson." Riiight.... Fairly certain this point has been argued before in history, but not in regard to science.
There was nothing veiled in my statement. I've been very honest with regard to who I am, my experiences and my thoughts on the subjects at hand.
Shannon wrote: "Yes. I tend to follow school policy and state and federal law."Which is fair enough, I was more commenting on the perceived disconnect between not being willing to negatively criticise someone's opinion while being willing to proceed with punitive action for it.
Shannon wrote: "It has very negative connotations, again, as I assume you're aware. It's a belittling word."
It does have negative connotations, however so does the term "bigotry". Calling somebody bigoted is just as pejorative as calling them ignorant, and is indeed tantamount to the same thing. However I am willing to call an opinion bigoted if in my opinion it is unabashedly so (usually with reference to independent evidence/opinion) therefore I am likely to call someone ignorant if they be fulfilling the criteria making claims about subjects that the person is ill-informed of and generally unwilling to discover.
Shannon wrote: " To call someone ignorant is to, for all intents and purposes, say they are less than you. I've never in my life called someone ignorant, and I can't imagine doing so."
I would disagree. I am ignorant of football (soccer) myself, I am uninformed about it, unwilling to learn and often offer the opinion that it is mindlessly dull while forgetting to add "to me" to the statement.
Shannon wrote: "Have I told people their views were racist or sexist or homophobic or illegal? Yes. That's called naming the problem and calling the person on their behavior."
Ok so what do you say when somebody presents their opinion as fact while being obviously misguided and unwilling to listen to any point of view that doesn't back theirs?
Shannon wrote: "To call someone ignorant, perhaps instead of addressing the problem, is being judgmental, and, frankly, reminds me of the "ists" you so often talk about in your posts."
Isn't calling something homophobic or racist just as judgemental as calling something ignorant? If fact isn't homophobia a simple ignorance of the scientifically established facts of sexuality and the cultural ethics of freedom and fairness? Isn't racism an ignorance of the lack of scientific meaning to supposed racial supremacy and again ethics of freedom and fairness?
Why again does uninformed opinion get a free card in the bigotry stakes?
Shannon wrote: "'cause you, for some reason, have lumped that child in with all of the "ists" that you've debated who raise such questions for nefarious purposes. "
No. What I said was "I don't know". You asked me to judge whether the teacher was right for calling someone ignorant and I replied I do not know. You were asking me to judge someone based on hearsay for judging somebody else.
Thinking and questioning is a good thing. Not necessarily doing one and not the other. I am sure that you are quite familiar with the term "rhetorical question" where a question is asked to pose it to the subject rather than being a genuine query.
Shannon wrote: "Unless you want to take science and have it make sense. And, then we have, followed on the heels of trying to make sense of something, the following, "
Being a teacher I assume that you know the difference between learning something and studying it? You seem to have treated what I said very dismissively while not answering the point I raised.
Some (if not all) concepts are actually far more complicated and nuanced than they appear at first glance. In order to teach someone said concept you often have to simplify the idea and teach the basics before moving on to specifics and even exceptions. In History it is commonly taught that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand caused the First World War. Now this is perhaps true, perhaps debatable, and almost certainly a huge oversimplification of the real social and political factors that culminated into a conflict that swept across Europe.
Shannon wrote: "There was nothing veiled in my statement. I've been very honest with regard to who I am, my experiences and my thoughts on the subjects at hand."
In which case, what did you find particularly ironic?
Without science, we go back to uncivilized society like 10,000 years? How can anybody live in that kind of world?
Mesolithic age? I reckon I'd cope. Doesn't mean I'd want to though :P
In reply to Gary ...
Shannon wrote: "It has very negative connotations, again, as I assume you're aware. It's a belittling word."
It does have negative connotations, however so does the term "bigotry". Calling somebody bigoted is just as pejorative as calling them ignorant, and is indeed tantamount to the same thing. However I am willing to call an opinion bigoted if in my opinion it is unabashedly so (usually with reference to independent evidence/opinion) therefore I am likely to call someone ignorant if they be fulfilling the criteria making claims about subjects that the person is ill-informed of and generally unwilling to discover.
In reply, ...
My example dealt with a teacher who said global warming was created by humans and a 12 year old who said ... but ... I've read a lot of history books and there have always been times of warming and cooling, so I can't just be caused by human industry. I'd not say the 12 year old was "ill-informed" when he made that statement. It's a statement of fact. It's true. The teacher had a choice. Teach the child. Or, call him names. Bravo! We know what the teacher picked. You, it would seem, would have called him ignorant if he used tone. I think that's crap. Be that as it may, if science teachers are unable to teach the subject adequately, I suppose the teacher could have said that ... vs. calling the child a name. Having said that, I'm still unclear as to how admitting there has always been warming and cooling; however, stating it is greatly exacerbated (times infinity ... so as not to fall in with the argument of an "ist") ... perhaps to catastrophic levels, would be a violation of all things logical and scientific. But, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Shannon wrote: " To call someone ignorant is to, for all intents and purposes, say they are less than you. I've never in my life called someone ignorant, and I can't imagine doing so."
I would disagree. I am ignorant of football (soccer) myself, I am uninformed about it, unwilling to learn and often offer the opinion that it is mindlessly dull while forgetting to add "to me" to the statement.
In reply, ....
I notice something rather interesting in your posts (and the posts of others on this thread) and this reply.
When talking about believers or people, like a 12 year old, who question something mentioned regarding science, you and others seem to have little hesitation in calling the person ignorant.
In attempting to explain why it's okay to use the word, you say, "I'm ignorant in football."
Notice the difference? There is one.
Shannon wrote: "Have I told people their views were racist or sexist or homophobic or illegal? Yes. That's called naming the problem and calling the person on their behavior."
Ok so what do you say when somebody presents their opinion as fact while being obviously misguided and unwilling to listen to any point of view that doesn't back theirs?
In reply, ...
I wouldn't belittle the person. I'd tell the person I disagree. I'd tell the person I disagreed strongly. In the instances of harassment, which include discriminating against someone based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc..., I'd say things like ... that's hate speech ... that's a racist comment and illegal ... that's sexual harassment, etc....
I'd disagree and tell the person why. I wouldn't say, "You're ignorant."
Personal anecdote ... When I was in college, one of my cousins adopted a little boy from Central America. My grandmother, a racist, had a fit. I was home from college and she came down to visit. My mother mentioned the boy and showed me a picture. I can't remember how it started and it doesn't matter. But, my grandmother basically said he wasn't family because he was "colored" and she'd never take to him. She wouldn't even call him by name. My mother and I tried to talk to her. He was a child. He was an innocent child. Apart from that, color meant nothing. Etc... Etc... She would not be swayed. Things got heated when she made a comment similar to your "schoolgirl" example. My mother slammed her fist on the table and told her she would not speak that way in her house. It was wrong and hurtful. It was her house (my mother's) and she would not tolerate that talk. My grandmother said she had a right to her opinion. My mother agreed. However, if she wanted to voice that opinion, she could leave my mother's house. Further, my mother told her mother ... if she refused to accept ____ and if she treated him hatefully, my grandmother would not be welcome in her house again ... she felt that strongly about it ... all contact would be cut off because she would not condone such talk and behavior.
In this argument, not once did either woman call the other ignorant.
Both looked at me. I sat there. Horrified. Clearly, my grandmother was wrong. But, she was my grandmother. Both, it seemed to me, wanted me to take a side. I sat there. I felt like the world was crashing around me. I was totally and completely against racism ... and had been treated to my dose of racism myself. I can not abide by people hurting children or treating them hurtfully. But, ... how could I never see my grandmother again.
I looked at both .... Then, I said ... Nana, you have a right to your opinion; however, it's wrong. People are people. We all bleed red. What matters is who we are on the inside ... not what color we are. He's my cousin. (I used his name.) He's my cousin and, as far as I'm concerned, he's my blood just as much as my other cousins are. I'll fight anyone who tries to hurt him.
My grandmother looked devastated. My mother looked proud. My grandmother got up and left. Drove away. She called my mother a day or so later and asked if she was allowed to come visit, if she followed our rules. My mother said she could. To my knowledge, she never treated the child badly. She wasn't warm. But, she wasn't mean and hateful. A rather low bar, to a certain extent.
So, as you can see, there are ways of dealing with such situations without calling someone ignorant. You could say my mother's ultimatum was heavy-handed and controlling. I don't know. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.
In my mind, explaining why one disagrees is more likely to get results than telling someone they're ignorant. Which, to me, is akin to saying, "Nananaboo!"
Yes, I'm sure telling someone they're making racist statements, etc... is, what ... potentially hurtful and upsetting ... judgmental. But, it's naming the thing a problem ... not naming the person as deficient.
Shannon wrote: "To call someone ignorant, perhaps instead of addressing the problem, is being judgmental, and, frankly, reminds me of the "ists" you so often talk about in your posts."
Isn't calling something homophobic or racist just as judgemental as calling something ignorant? If fact isn't homophobia a simple ignorance of the scientifically established facts of sexuality and the cultural ethics of freedom and fairness? Isn't racism an ignorance of the lack of scientific meaning to supposed racial supremacy and again ethics of freedom and fairness?
Why again does uninformed opinion get a free card in the bigotry stakes?
In reply, ...
I'm shocked you'd link an uniformed opinion with bigotry. Regardless, I do see a difference between calling a behavior racist or homophobic, which goes to specific attitudes, language and behavior, and calling a person ignorant. Further, while calling out something like racism is judgmental of the specific actions of the person, I think calling someone ignorant is judging the person at his/her core. I see a difference. Yes, I'm sure you don't. I do.
Shannon wrote: "'cause you, for some reason, have lumped that child in with all of the "ists" that you've debated who raise such questions for nefarious purposes. "
No. What I said was "I don't know". You asked me to judge whether the teacher was right for calling someone ignorant and I replied I do not know. You were asking me to judge someone based on hearsay for judging somebody else.
Thinking and questioning is a good thing. Not necessarily doing one and not the other. I am sure that you are quite familiar with the term "rhetorical question" where a question is asked to pose it to the subject rather than being a genuine query.
Shannon wrote: "Unless you want to take science and have it make sense. And, then we have, followed on the heels of trying to make sense of something, the following, "
Being a teacher I assume that you know the difference between learning something and studying it? You seem to have treated what I said very dismissively while not answering the point I raised.
Some (if not all) concepts are actually far more complicated and nuanced than they appear at first glance. In order to teach someone said concept you often have to simplify the idea and teach the basics before moving on to specifics and even exceptions. In History it is commonly taught that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand caused the First World War. Now this is perhaps true, perhaps debatable, and almost certainly a huge oversimplification of the real social and political factors that culminated into a conflict that swept across Europe.
In reply, ...
I don't know many history teachers who teach that. They tend to go into many of the issues at play in pre-WWI Europe; they tend to say the assassination lit the powder keg. They don't teach that it was the powder keg and the spark.
Shannon wrote: "There was nothing veiled in my statement. I've been very honest with regard to who I am, my experiences and my thoughts on the subjects at hand."
In which case, what did you find particularly ironic?
In reply, ...
Asked, sort of, and answered.
Shannon wrote: "It has very negative connotations, again, as I assume you're aware. It's a belittling word."
It does have negative connotations, however so does the term "bigotry". Calling somebody bigoted is just as pejorative as calling them ignorant, and is indeed tantamount to the same thing. However I am willing to call an opinion bigoted if in my opinion it is unabashedly so (usually with reference to independent evidence/opinion) therefore I am likely to call someone ignorant if they be fulfilling the criteria making claims about subjects that the person is ill-informed of and generally unwilling to discover.
In reply, ...
My example dealt with a teacher who said global warming was created by humans and a 12 year old who said ... but ... I've read a lot of history books and there have always been times of warming and cooling, so I can't just be caused by human industry. I'd not say the 12 year old was "ill-informed" when he made that statement. It's a statement of fact. It's true. The teacher had a choice. Teach the child. Or, call him names. Bravo! We know what the teacher picked. You, it would seem, would have called him ignorant if he used tone. I think that's crap. Be that as it may, if science teachers are unable to teach the subject adequately, I suppose the teacher could have said that ... vs. calling the child a name. Having said that, I'm still unclear as to how admitting there has always been warming and cooling; however, stating it is greatly exacerbated (times infinity ... so as not to fall in with the argument of an "ist") ... perhaps to catastrophic levels, would be a violation of all things logical and scientific. But, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Shannon wrote: " To call someone ignorant is to, for all intents and purposes, say they are less than you. I've never in my life called someone ignorant, and I can't imagine doing so."
I would disagree. I am ignorant of football (soccer) myself, I am uninformed about it, unwilling to learn and often offer the opinion that it is mindlessly dull while forgetting to add "to me" to the statement.
In reply, ....
I notice something rather interesting in your posts (and the posts of others on this thread) and this reply.
When talking about believers or people, like a 12 year old, who question something mentioned regarding science, you and others seem to have little hesitation in calling the person ignorant.
In attempting to explain why it's okay to use the word, you say, "I'm ignorant in football."
Notice the difference? There is one.
Shannon wrote: "Have I told people their views were racist or sexist or homophobic or illegal? Yes. That's called naming the problem and calling the person on their behavior."
Ok so what do you say when somebody presents their opinion as fact while being obviously misguided and unwilling to listen to any point of view that doesn't back theirs?
In reply, ...
I wouldn't belittle the person. I'd tell the person I disagree. I'd tell the person I disagreed strongly. In the instances of harassment, which include discriminating against someone based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc..., I'd say things like ... that's hate speech ... that's a racist comment and illegal ... that's sexual harassment, etc....
I'd disagree and tell the person why. I wouldn't say, "You're ignorant."
Personal anecdote ... When I was in college, one of my cousins adopted a little boy from Central America. My grandmother, a racist, had a fit. I was home from college and she came down to visit. My mother mentioned the boy and showed me a picture. I can't remember how it started and it doesn't matter. But, my grandmother basically said he wasn't family because he was "colored" and she'd never take to him. She wouldn't even call him by name. My mother and I tried to talk to her. He was a child. He was an innocent child. Apart from that, color meant nothing. Etc... Etc... She would not be swayed. Things got heated when she made a comment similar to your "schoolgirl" example. My mother slammed her fist on the table and told her she would not speak that way in her house. It was wrong and hurtful. It was her house (my mother's) and she would not tolerate that talk. My grandmother said she had a right to her opinion. My mother agreed. However, if she wanted to voice that opinion, she could leave my mother's house. Further, my mother told her mother ... if she refused to accept ____ and if she treated him hatefully, my grandmother would not be welcome in her house again ... she felt that strongly about it ... all contact would be cut off because she would not condone such talk and behavior.
In this argument, not once did either woman call the other ignorant.
Both looked at me. I sat there. Horrified. Clearly, my grandmother was wrong. But, she was my grandmother. Both, it seemed to me, wanted me to take a side. I sat there. I felt like the world was crashing around me. I was totally and completely against racism ... and had been treated to my dose of racism myself. I can not abide by people hurting children or treating them hurtfully. But, ... how could I never see my grandmother again.
I looked at both .... Then, I said ... Nana, you have a right to your opinion; however, it's wrong. People are people. We all bleed red. What matters is who we are on the inside ... not what color we are. He's my cousin. (I used his name.) He's my cousin and, as far as I'm concerned, he's my blood just as much as my other cousins are. I'll fight anyone who tries to hurt him.
My grandmother looked devastated. My mother looked proud. My grandmother got up and left. Drove away. She called my mother a day or so later and asked if she was allowed to come visit, if she followed our rules. My mother said she could. To my knowledge, she never treated the child badly. She wasn't warm. But, she wasn't mean and hateful. A rather low bar, to a certain extent.
So, as you can see, there are ways of dealing with such situations without calling someone ignorant. You could say my mother's ultimatum was heavy-handed and controlling. I don't know. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.
In my mind, explaining why one disagrees is more likely to get results than telling someone they're ignorant. Which, to me, is akin to saying, "Nananaboo!"
Yes, I'm sure telling someone they're making racist statements, etc... is, what ... potentially hurtful and upsetting ... judgmental. But, it's naming the thing a problem ... not naming the person as deficient.
Shannon wrote: "To call someone ignorant, perhaps instead of addressing the problem, is being judgmental, and, frankly, reminds me of the "ists" you so often talk about in your posts."
Isn't calling something homophobic or racist just as judgemental as calling something ignorant? If fact isn't homophobia a simple ignorance of the scientifically established facts of sexuality and the cultural ethics of freedom and fairness? Isn't racism an ignorance of the lack of scientific meaning to supposed racial supremacy and again ethics of freedom and fairness?
Why again does uninformed opinion get a free card in the bigotry stakes?
In reply, ...
I'm shocked you'd link an uniformed opinion with bigotry. Regardless, I do see a difference between calling a behavior racist or homophobic, which goes to specific attitudes, language and behavior, and calling a person ignorant. Further, while calling out something like racism is judgmental of the specific actions of the person, I think calling someone ignorant is judging the person at his/her core. I see a difference. Yes, I'm sure you don't. I do.
Shannon wrote: "'cause you, for some reason, have lumped that child in with all of the "ists" that you've debated who raise such questions for nefarious purposes. "
No. What I said was "I don't know". You asked me to judge whether the teacher was right for calling someone ignorant and I replied I do not know. You were asking me to judge someone based on hearsay for judging somebody else.
Thinking and questioning is a good thing. Not necessarily doing one and not the other. I am sure that you are quite familiar with the term "rhetorical question" where a question is asked to pose it to the subject rather than being a genuine query.
Shannon wrote: "Unless you want to take science and have it make sense. And, then we have, followed on the heels of trying to make sense of something, the following, "
Being a teacher I assume that you know the difference between learning something and studying it? You seem to have treated what I said very dismissively while not answering the point I raised.
Some (if not all) concepts are actually far more complicated and nuanced than they appear at first glance. In order to teach someone said concept you often have to simplify the idea and teach the basics before moving on to specifics and even exceptions. In History it is commonly taught that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand caused the First World War. Now this is perhaps true, perhaps debatable, and almost certainly a huge oversimplification of the real social and political factors that culminated into a conflict that swept across Europe.
In reply, ...
I don't know many history teachers who teach that. They tend to go into many of the issues at play in pre-WWI Europe; they tend to say the assassination lit the powder keg. They don't teach that it was the powder keg and the spark.
Shannon wrote: "There was nothing veiled in my statement. I've been very honest with regard to who I am, my experiences and my thoughts on the subjects at hand."
In which case, what did you find particularly ironic?
In reply, ...
Asked, sort of, and answered.
Shannon wrote: "My example dealt with a teacher who said global warming was created by humans and a 12 year old who said ... but ... I've read a lot of history books and there have always been times of warming and cooling, so I can't just be caused by human industry. I'd not say the 12 year old was "ill-informed" when he made that statement."Agreed. From your version of the story he wasn't being ignorant, however as I keep saying I am not judging the teacher as being wrong because I do not know what was actually said and how it was said.
The "there has always been warming and cooling" has been the clarion call of the Climate Change denier from the point that the science first came to light. While it is "true" it has often been used to make the erroneous conclusion that 'because there has always been changes in climate, current change is a minor factor compared to natural processes.'
Now if the child was repeating this common conservative argument which uses correct facts to draw wrong conclusions and was doing so in a manner that was either deliberately argumentative or dogmatic (as opposed to consensual) then that would be behaving in an ignorant fashion.
Since I do not know how the conversation went it would be ignorant of me to accuse the teacher or the student of ignorance. The teacher chose to judge the student as ignorant, you have chose to (in so many words) to judge the teacher as ignorant. I do not wish to be ignorant so I will accept my lack of knowledge of a conversation that took place somewhere on a different continent at an unspecified time that I was not witness too or had any evidence about beyond hearsay.
Shannon wrote: "You, it would seem, would have called him ignorant if he used tone. I think that's crap."
Yet - ironically - you have called my position "crap" when I have freely admitted that I do not know enough to judge. Why is it ok to insult my opinion for not choosing to insult either the teacher or the student?
Shannon wrote: "Having said that, I'm still unclear as to how admitting there has always been warming and cooling; however, stating it is greatly exacerbated (times infinity ... so as not to fall in with the argument of an "ist") ... perhaps to catastrophic levels, would be a violation of all things logical and scientific. But, we'll have to agree to disagree on that."
It is a common strategy that I have seen employed numerous times not just in this context.
The argument appeals to people's intrinsic blindspots when it comes to statistics and influences.
If someone claims that there are at least 5 factors that effect climate, only one being humans and that those factors include huge things like the Sun, Plate Tectonics and Volcanism, then the impression left is that man's influence must therefore be tiny compared to such overwhelming factors. This conclusion appeals to "Common Sense" but is not scientifically supported.
For a good illustration look at the site http://www.dhmo.org/
The US EPA refuses to ban the compound Dihydrogen Monoxide despite these many factors;
DHMO is colourless and odourless.
DHMO is found in high concentrations in tumours and cancerous tissue.
DHMO if inhaled in more than trace quantities can be lethal.
DHMO in it's solid or gaseous forms can cause severe burns.
DHMO contributes to "global warming" and it's concentration in the atmosphere is considered a major causative factor in storms.
DHMO is found in sewage and as a component of many chemical spills.
DHMO is an "enabling component" of acid rain.
DHMO is a causative agent in most instances of soil erosion.
DHMO is present in high levels nearly every creek, stream, pond, river, lake and reservoir in the U.S. and around the world.
Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.
DHMO is regularly dumped without license from a variety of factories and plants including major chemical and industrial facilities.
Yet the EPA refuses to restrict dumping of this compound to the environment and the FDA refuses to restrict it's employment in common pharmaceuticals and even foodstuffs.
Most people haven't even heard of all this as schools consistently refuse to teach the controversy surrounding this substance.
Shannon wrote: "When talking about believers or people, like a 12 year old, who question something mentioned regarding science, you and others seem to have little hesitation in calling the person ignorant."
Glad you mentioned that. Again it comes down to what we claim over what we can demonstrate or prove. There is a difference as you say. Most of the actual "claims" I make are based on evidence which I admit means accepting the opinion of experts. However, I do not "believe" them. I accept their opinion as likely to be true because of the disciplined review process which has been highly successful in allowing us to build on the knowledge of others.
I accept scientific consensus because independent experts have mutually verified much of the claims.
Shannon wrote: "I'd disagree and tell the person why. I wouldn't say, "You're ignorant.""
As I say you would call their attitude "racist" if they were denigrating people based on race, you'd call it "sexist" if based on gender, etc. yet if there attitude was ignoring expert opinion and evidence for ideological reasons you'd draw the line at "ignorant".
Again this seems to be the revered position of Faith or Belief. You feel fine to label something a highly pejorative term like "racist" but if someone uses similar bias regarding science or knowledge then that's fine.
Again it is right to challenge racism, sexism etc. but anti-intellectualism is acceptable. No wonder atheists and free-thinkers are still the minority in the lowest regard.
Shannon wrote: "In this argument, not once did either woman call the other ignorant."
Yet they both described ignorance even if they didn't use the term. One thought it was ignorant to challenge someone else's beliefs, the other thought it was ignorant to be racist.
Obviously you seem to have a particular dislike of the word, which is fine, but to me the term is just as valid as "racist". Again it seems to be the fact that "ignorance" as a term is at its fundamental level a pejorative term for somebody who ignores evidence, expert opinion or other knowledge based on a belief. Something that you condone as long as that belief does not discriminate against certain groups.
Perhaps this is why you find the term offensive and I find it descriptive?
Shannon wrote: "I looked at both .... Then, I said ... Nana, you have a right to your opinion; however, it's wrong."
What is the real difference between telling someone that their opinion is wrong and their opinion is ignorant?
Shannon wrote: "So, as you can see, there are ways of dealing with such situations without calling someone ignorant."
You see to me calling somebody wrong because they have outmoded, dogmatic or prejudiced views is calling them ignorant in so many words.
Shannon wrote: "In my mind, explaining why one disagrees is more likely to get results than telling someone they're ignorant."
I fully agree. Which is why you may notice that I rarely dismiss other peoples points (even when repeated ad infinitum) and I have rarely called people ignorant unless they were acting ignorant (for example refusing consistently to respond to ideas).
Obviously you have a strong distaste for the term "ignorant" but please remember that you asked me to judge somebody for using the term on a student. All I am saying is that I am not judging someone for it without a lot more information, and in my opinion calling someone ignorant is as valid as calling them racist. In fact they are synonyms.
Shannon wrote: "But, it's naming the thing a problem ... not naming the person as deficient."
Calling someone racist (or the attitude racist) is accusing them of as much deficiency as being ignorant.
Shannon wrote: "I'm shocked you'd link an uniformed opinion with bigotry."
But isn't bigotry pretty much an uninformed opinion by definition. Bigotry is certainly an opinion, are you claiming that bigotry is informed?
Shannon wrote: "I think calling someone ignorant is judging the person at his/her core. I see a difference. Yes, I'm sure you don't. I do."
I see the difference. One is a judgement call on a belief in racial superiority, or sexual superiority etc. While the other one seems uncomfortably close to attacking beliefs based on what's "true" in the world. As someone that still maintains the idea that belief is fine in religious context but not in matters such as gender etc. you seem to feel one is offensive and the other is a fair call.
Just to illustrate the point further, many right wing evangelists feel just as strongly as you that accusing them of bigotry for their homophobic dogma is just as offensive as calling them ignorant. A century or so ago then calling someone racist for believing that white people where Gods chosen people would have seemed offensive. (Biblical precedent was heavily cited to support slavery, and the LDS went as far as to include specifically racist material in their literature.
Shannon wrote: "I don't know many history teachers who teach that."
Fair enough, possibly bad example :-) I was influenced by watching a comedy by Rob Newman called "the History of Oil" where he makes the claim that a big cause of the First World War was actually (ironically) an invasion of Iraq over the discovery of oil.
(I like Rob Newman as a comedian and it's an interesting story, but I don't necessarily hold it all to be true!)
Shannon wrote: "Asked, sort of, and answered. "
My apologies, I think I see it now.
You seem to think that their is some cognitive dissonance between me advocating that questioning Dogma and keeping an open mind, compared to accepting the opinion of the scientific community.
To my mind this is only dissonant if you treat religious dogma and scientific knowledge as equivalent, which I know many people do, but I (and most scientists) don't.
Obviously if we had to teach the last two Millennia of scientific progress to every person from the Greek philosophers to Hawking, by the time you'd be ready to make your own progress you'd be dead several centuries already.
We need to "stand on the shoulders of giants" to see further, or even just a stack of shoulders.
So what difference does this make? Well Religion has dogma and opinion. In fact we say "religion" when we mean "religions" despite Stephen Colbert ("I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be you Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.") :-)
The field of Science meanwhile uses a tried and tested formula to winnow out erroneous ideas and to focus on truth, despite what our egos say or what we would like it to be.
This is why I see a huge difference between accepting a peer-reviewed, independently confirmed and thoroughly evidenced and reasoned theory as being as true as we can get to at the moment, compared to accepting one of the myriad differential claims made by religious leaders or scripture based on their own unfounded opinions combined with my own.
As Martin Luther, a founder of protestantism and spiritual ancestor of just about every evangelist, said - "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "You, it would seem, would have called him ignorant if he used tone. I think that's crap."
Yet - ironically - you have called my position "crap" when I have freely admitted that I do not know enough to judge. Why is it ok to insult my opinion for not choosing to insult either the teacher or the student?
"
Gary ...
I'm not insulting your "opinion" for not choosing to insult either the teacher or the student. That's not what I'm doing and you know it. I've been quite clear.
You made yourself very clear. If the 12 year old used tone, it would be acceptable to call the child ignorant. I've stated, clearly, that whether or not a child uses tone, teachers should not call children ignorant or anything else.
You said in your last post, basically, if you're wrong, you expect someone to call bulls*it. That was in my mind when thinking about this, Gary. So, I called crap.
Now, you're crying foul.
I don't think so. That's more than a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
Further, I've not called the teacher ignorant in anyway. Nice try, but no. I think the teacher was wrong for calling the student a name. I think the teacher missed a teachable moment. I don't think she was ignorant.
Something you've not asked, as you continue to point out that you weren't there so you can't judge ... although, if the boy was using an "ist" argument and an attitude...
The boy told me what happened. Then, at lunch, the teacher told us what happened. Both stories matched. Why did the teacher call him ignorant? She was sick of ignorant conservatives who believe FOX news. She assumed that's where the boy was coming from. Whether or not "ists" or conservatives use that as an erroneous argument or not, the fact remains that there has always been warming and cooling, as the boy said, and he was, therefore, asking his teacher why she would say global warming was caused by humans. Instead of assuming the 12 year old had motives ... even if he did, which he didn't, she should have answered the question versus calling him a name. She failed him as a teacher that day, in that moment. Did that have to do with ignorance? No. It had to do with temperament.
Yet - ironically - you have called my position "crap" when I have freely admitted that I do not know enough to judge. Why is it ok to insult my opinion for not choosing to insult either the teacher or the student?
"
Gary ...
I'm not insulting your "opinion" for not choosing to insult either the teacher or the student. That's not what I'm doing and you know it. I've been quite clear.
You made yourself very clear. If the 12 year old used tone, it would be acceptable to call the child ignorant. I've stated, clearly, that whether or not a child uses tone, teachers should not call children ignorant or anything else.
You said in your last post, basically, if you're wrong, you expect someone to call bulls*it. That was in my mind when thinking about this, Gary. So, I called crap.
Now, you're crying foul.
I don't think so. That's more than a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
Further, I've not called the teacher ignorant in anyway. Nice try, but no. I think the teacher was wrong for calling the student a name. I think the teacher missed a teachable moment. I don't think she was ignorant.
Something you've not asked, as you continue to point out that you weren't there so you can't judge ... although, if the boy was using an "ist" argument and an attitude...
The boy told me what happened. Then, at lunch, the teacher told us what happened. Both stories matched. Why did the teacher call him ignorant? She was sick of ignorant conservatives who believe FOX news. She assumed that's where the boy was coming from. Whether or not "ists" or conservatives use that as an erroneous argument or not, the fact remains that there has always been warming and cooling, as the boy said, and he was, therefore, asking his teacher why she would say global warming was caused by humans. Instead of assuming the 12 year old had motives ... even if he did, which he didn't, she should have answered the question versus calling him a name. She failed him as a teacher that day, in that moment. Did that have to do with ignorance? No. It had to do with temperament.
Gary wrote: "As I say you would call their attitude "racist" if they were denigrating people based on race, you'd call it "sexist" if based on gender, etc. yet if there attitude was ignoring expert opinion and evidence for ideological reasons you'd draw the line at "ignorant".
Again this seems to be the revered position of Faith or Belief. You feel fine to label something a highly pejorative term like "racist" but if someone uses similar bias regarding science or knowledge then that's fine."
And.... That would be an assumption on your part.
I tend to be very legalistic at times. As a teacher, I'm trained yearly, perhaps twice a year, regarding bullying and harassment. Over and over again.
Racism is illegal. Sexism is illegal. Harassment is illegal; discriminating against someone based on protected categories, which includes things like gender, race, sexual orientation, etc... is harassment. They're illegal. Period. So, yes, I'm trained in dealing with that. There are policies and procedures and laws that have been engrained in me and that I follow.
Having an opinion that one can't prove or that might not make sense isn't illegal ... last I checked.
It has nothing to do with faith or belief or my being a closet "ist" and not admitting it.
It has to do with a funky thing called the law.
And, personally, I agree with the law. I don't think holding a belief or opinion that can't be substantiated is an offense to humanity, like sexism, racism, etc....
Again this seems to be the revered position of Faith or Belief. You feel fine to label something a highly pejorative term like "racist" but if someone uses similar bias regarding science or knowledge then that's fine."
And.... That would be an assumption on your part.
I tend to be very legalistic at times. As a teacher, I'm trained yearly, perhaps twice a year, regarding bullying and harassment. Over and over again.
Racism is illegal. Sexism is illegal. Harassment is illegal; discriminating against someone based on protected categories, which includes things like gender, race, sexual orientation, etc... is harassment. They're illegal. Period. So, yes, I'm trained in dealing with that. There are policies and procedures and laws that have been engrained in me and that I follow.
Having an opinion that one can't prove or that might not make sense isn't illegal ... last I checked.
It has nothing to do with faith or belief or my being a closet "ist" and not admitting it.
It has to do with a funky thing called the law.
And, personally, I agree with the law. I don't think holding a belief or opinion that can't be substantiated is an offense to humanity, like sexism, racism, etc....
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I looked at both .... Then, I said ... Nana, you have a right to your opinion; however, it's wrong."
What is the real difference between telling someone that their opinion is wrong and their opinion is ignorant?"
At any moment, someone is going to accuse me of repeating myself. I am. However, you keep missing my point. I find myself wondering if you're truly confused or if you're doing this as a tactic. Feel free to explain, if you choose.
There is a difference, in my opinion, between saying a person's opinion regarding people of color being born of apes while white people are born of God is wrong ... and ... calling a person ignorant.
When I called my grandmother out for her racist opinions, yes, I was calling those opinions wrong and making a stand against racism. I was talking about the thing ... itself.
I see a difference between that and saying, "You know what, Nana, you're ignorant. You're probably the most ignorant person I know. That's probably the most ignorant thing I've ever heard."
One is dealing with a specific problem. The other is deeming a person, at his or her core, to be ignorant, which in my mind means less than me. I don't do that.
Further, in my initial example, the teacher didn't say the child's question was ignorant. She didn't say his opinion was ignorant. Because, let's face it, he didn't even have an opinion, he had a question. No. When he asked if she was calling HIM ignorant, she said she was.
More often than not, in past posts, when atheists here use the word, they'll come right out and say, "You're ignorant." Well, guess what? That reads differently from, "I'm ignorant in football." It's different from saying that opinion is ignorant. It's branding a person at their core.
Perhaps this is a cultural thing. Maybe people in the UK think it's acceptable to run round calling people that. Maybe the word isn't seen as negative. Or, maybe it's part of the atheist "playbook" ... if "ists" have a "playbook" ....
In this country, if I were to leave right now and go to my place of employment and call someone ignorant ... if I were to go to the library and call someone ignorant ... a restaurant ... it would be a huge issue. If I were to call someone ignorant in certain places, I'd likely get beat. Badly. So, seriously ...? Either things are totally different in the UK or you're playing with me, Gary. I'm not overly fond of being played with.
What is the real difference between telling someone that their opinion is wrong and their opinion is ignorant?"
At any moment, someone is going to accuse me of repeating myself. I am. However, you keep missing my point. I find myself wondering if you're truly confused or if you're doing this as a tactic. Feel free to explain, if you choose.
There is a difference, in my opinion, between saying a person's opinion regarding people of color being born of apes while white people are born of God is wrong ... and ... calling a person ignorant.
When I called my grandmother out for her racist opinions, yes, I was calling those opinions wrong and making a stand against racism. I was talking about the thing ... itself.
I see a difference between that and saying, "You know what, Nana, you're ignorant. You're probably the most ignorant person I know. That's probably the most ignorant thing I've ever heard."
One is dealing with a specific problem. The other is deeming a person, at his or her core, to be ignorant, which in my mind means less than me. I don't do that.
Further, in my initial example, the teacher didn't say the child's question was ignorant. She didn't say his opinion was ignorant. Because, let's face it, he didn't even have an opinion, he had a question. No. When he asked if she was calling HIM ignorant, she said she was.
More often than not, in past posts, when atheists here use the word, they'll come right out and say, "You're ignorant." Well, guess what? That reads differently from, "I'm ignorant in football." It's different from saying that opinion is ignorant. It's branding a person at their core.
Perhaps this is a cultural thing. Maybe people in the UK think it's acceptable to run round calling people that. Maybe the word isn't seen as negative. Or, maybe it's part of the atheist "playbook" ... if "ists" have a "playbook" ....
In this country, if I were to leave right now and go to my place of employment and call someone ignorant ... if I were to go to the library and call someone ignorant ... a restaurant ... it would be a huge issue. If I were to call someone ignorant in certain places, I'd likely get beat. Badly. So, seriously ...? Either things are totally different in the UK or you're playing with me, Gary. I'm not overly fond of being played with.
Gary wrote: "I see the difference. One is a judgement call on a belief in racial superiority, or sexual superiority etc. While the other one seems uncomfortably close to attacking beliefs based on what's "true" in the world."
No. Not in my mind. Not in the minds of most everyone I know. Yes, while the textbook definition of the word deals with beliefs, our views of the word extend beyond that ... especially if someone is calling the person him or herself ignorant.
It's not about attacking one's beliefs.
It's about attacking the person.
If I were to tell one of my students that she made a racist comment, she might say, "No, I didn't."
No. Let me give a specific example that happened. I was in a meeting with some of the teachers. We heard some of our kids in the hall. They weren't supposed to be there ... had escaped gym. As I was moving to go figure out what was going on, we heard a boy yell another boy's name and call him "chocolate" ... the boy is African American. I flew out there and dealt with the situation. As part of dealing with it, I told the boy I was going to have to write him up for harassment. "Why? I didn't mean anything by it. I was just joking around." I told him calling an African American "chocolate" could be considered a racist statement. The boy said the other boy didn't mind. Another teacher said, "But, Ms. ____ heard it. You yelled it. If she considers it racist and offensive, it's racism. You know the law. If someone else hears it and is offended, it's racism." The boy was sorely ticked off at me and started yelling at me and asking why I always had to take everything so seriously. So, yeah, he was mad ... 'cause I'm always so serious.
The scenario would have played out far differently if I'd called the boy ignorant. If I said, "I heard you call him chocolate. You are so ignorant!"
Totally different. Now, clearly, I guess we don't know for sure. You could say that. It didn't happen, so we don't know. But, I taught the boy for two years. I know. I've lived in America my whole life. I know. If I called him ignorant, he would have seen that as a mortal insult ... it would have been a mortal wound. He never ... ever ... would forgive me for it.
One dealt with a comment he made. Yes, I called it a racist comment. Yes, I told him I was going to write him up for harassment ... which was going to cause him a world of hurt, potentially ... as in ... an investigation and consequences. Yes, he was ticked and gave me grief for being too serious. But, if I'd called HIM ignorant, he would have viewed that as an insult against who he is at his very core. It wouldn't be about the behavior. It would be about HIM. And, he'd likely have said something like ... why would you do me like that ... knowing him, that's what he'd have said. Not ... I was joking ... you're always so serious. It would have been ... why would you do me like that ... why would you say something like that about me ... I can't believe you'd say something like that to me ... is that what you really think about me ... and he'd have been screaming it ... with tears in his eyes. I'm telling you that ... not because I want to win an argument ... but because it's true.
And, it has nothing to do with religion or reverence for faith and people's beliefs.
It has to do with how you treat people ... and whether or not you're willing to treat someone like a piece of dirt under your shoe ... because, in this country, at least here, if you call someone that, it's seen as calling the person garbage ... dirt ... not worthy of you or your time.
You might go back to the definition and say, but ...! Look at the synonyms, Gary. Consider the culture and how it's viewed. Perhaps, just perhaps, you don't know how the word is used here ... if it's really so different from how it's used in the UK.
No. Not in my mind. Not in the minds of most everyone I know. Yes, while the textbook definition of the word deals with beliefs, our views of the word extend beyond that ... especially if someone is calling the person him or herself ignorant.
It's not about attacking one's beliefs.
It's about attacking the person.
If I were to tell one of my students that she made a racist comment, she might say, "No, I didn't."
No. Let me give a specific example that happened. I was in a meeting with some of the teachers. We heard some of our kids in the hall. They weren't supposed to be there ... had escaped gym. As I was moving to go figure out what was going on, we heard a boy yell another boy's name and call him "chocolate" ... the boy is African American. I flew out there and dealt with the situation. As part of dealing with it, I told the boy I was going to have to write him up for harassment. "Why? I didn't mean anything by it. I was just joking around." I told him calling an African American "chocolate" could be considered a racist statement. The boy said the other boy didn't mind. Another teacher said, "But, Ms. ____ heard it. You yelled it. If she considers it racist and offensive, it's racism. You know the law. If someone else hears it and is offended, it's racism." The boy was sorely ticked off at me and started yelling at me and asking why I always had to take everything so seriously. So, yeah, he was mad ... 'cause I'm always so serious.
The scenario would have played out far differently if I'd called the boy ignorant. If I said, "I heard you call him chocolate. You are so ignorant!"
Totally different. Now, clearly, I guess we don't know for sure. You could say that. It didn't happen, so we don't know. But, I taught the boy for two years. I know. I've lived in America my whole life. I know. If I called him ignorant, he would have seen that as a mortal insult ... it would have been a mortal wound. He never ... ever ... would forgive me for it.
One dealt with a comment he made. Yes, I called it a racist comment. Yes, I told him I was going to write him up for harassment ... which was going to cause him a world of hurt, potentially ... as in ... an investigation and consequences. Yes, he was ticked and gave me grief for being too serious. But, if I'd called HIM ignorant, he would have viewed that as an insult against who he is at his very core. It wouldn't be about the behavior. It would be about HIM. And, he'd likely have said something like ... why would you do me like that ... knowing him, that's what he'd have said. Not ... I was joking ... you're always so serious. It would have been ... why would you do me like that ... why would you say something like that about me ... I can't believe you'd say something like that to me ... is that what you really think about me ... and he'd have been screaming it ... with tears in his eyes. I'm telling you that ... not because I want to win an argument ... but because it's true.
And, it has nothing to do with religion or reverence for faith and people's beliefs.
It has to do with how you treat people ... and whether or not you're willing to treat someone like a piece of dirt under your shoe ... because, in this country, at least here, if you call someone that, it's seen as calling the person garbage ... dirt ... not worthy of you or your time.
You might go back to the definition and say, but ...! Look at the synonyms, Gary. Consider the culture and how it's viewed. Perhaps, just perhaps, you don't know how the word is used here ... if it's really so different from how it's used in the UK.
Shannon wrote: "However, you keep missing my point. I find myself wondering if you're truly confused or if you're doing this as a tactic. Feel free to explain, if you choose."I am trying to understand why you see such a difference in the term. Perhaps it is a cultural difference. I think perhaps the term is in English "Ignoramus" which means an "utterly ignorant person" which is the same as calling them stupid or ignorant of everything.
Shannon wrote: "There is a difference, in my opinion, between saying a person's opinion regarding people of color being born of apes while white people are born of God is wrong ... and ... calling a person ignorant."
In the dictionary reference you gave it even has an example of "he is an ignorant old racist".
Shannon wrote: "Nana, you're ignorant. You're probably the most ignorant person I know. That's probably the most ignorant thing I've ever heard."
Now you have changed the parameters. You have not just said that the attitude is ignorant, you have said it is the most ignorant, or the person is an ignoramus. (i.e. ignorant of many things thereby being the most ignorant person you know).
In my opinion there is a big difference between calling an idea stupid, and a person stupid. For example if a friend tries to leap a gate and injures themselves I may describe the act or choice as "stupid" but not the person as irrevocably and grotesquely stupid.
Just as if somebody says an idea that is racist, homophobic, or otherwise prejudice I may describe that idea as ignorant without thus making a value judgement that the person is ignorant in every manner.
Shannon wrote: "When he asked if she was calling HIM ignorant, she said she was."
A person can be ignorant of a subject in discussion, or a person can behave with an ignorant attitude during said discussion. Thus she may have described the person as being or behaving in an ignorant manner in context. This doesn't mean that they necessarily have accused the person of being an ignoramus.
Let me say it again though. I am not condoning what the teacher said, I am merely not condemning it without some context. To do so would be ignorant of me.
If the teacher labelled the student as ignorant for asking an honest question then obviously that isn't fair. Yet I would need context to form an opinion.
Shannon wrote: "More often than not, in past posts, when atheists here use the word, they'll come right out and say, "You're ignorant." Well, guess what? That reads differently from, "I'm ignorant in football." It's different from saying that opinion is ignorant. It's branding a person at their core."
In my opinion that would be labelling the opinion/s cited or the behaviour shown as ignorant. Certainly it is not complimentary to the person but neither is it specifically calling them an ignoramus.
Unless they do.
Shannon wrote: "Either things are totally different in the UK or you're playing with me, Gary. I'm not overly fond of being played with. "
No I am not, and I am sorry that the word seems to upset you so much, but you were the one that referenced it, not I.
Strangely considering the cultural stereotypes of politeness in the UK compared to the US I find strangely comical that using the term "ignorant" would be so offensive in the US when it seems so polite compared to other terms that could be used (and often are used in inner city schools by the children).
Does anyone else find the term so incredibly offensive in the UK or US?
I will keep this in mind when talking to Americans if so(though I rarely accuse people of ignorance unless they are being fairly offensive themselves).
Strangely enough I did think that (from media studies alone I'm afraid) "freak" was a particularly nasty term in the American psyche because it seemed that social conformity was even more pronounced in the US than Europe (citing things like the "pledge of allegiance", the apparent ubiquitous presence of the Star and Stripes, the more prevalent religiosity and an apparent need to 'fit in'). Yet with this word I wasn't expecting it, though I still think my hypothesis would go some way to explaining the discrepancy, just as 'atheist' or 'godless' also seems far more pejorative to people in the US.
Gary wrote: "You seem to think that their is some cognitive dissonance between me advocating that questioning Dogma and keeping an open mind, compared to accepting the opinion of the scientific community.
To my mind this is only dissonant if you treat religious dogma and scientific knowledge as equivalent, which I know many people do, but I (and most scientists) don't. "
Not quite. Yes, my example had to do with science. At this point, I don't even remember why the hell I gave that example in the first place.
But, for me, yes, I see dissonance. Yup. It has nothing, truly, to do with dogma vs. science. I read you as saying ... question. Not, hey, question dogma and stuff that can't be proven through science. I read you as saying ... question. In fact, you've given information about things ... including scientific things. And, when people have commented, you've said something like ... hey, but don't take my word for it ... do some research.
So, when I said a student who LOVED history and read about history in his free time was confused when his teacher said global warming is caused by humans ... and he asked why she said that given the fact that he'd read about warming and cooling throughout history and started talking about the Middle Ages, it was shocking to me, in a huge way, that you'd say, basically, ... if he used tone, it's okay that she called him ignorant. What? And, in truth, it wouldn't matter to me what the subject might be. I've had kids say wacky stuff before. Make wacky claims about history. Say things that can't be proven. Ask me if it could be true. I've had kids say things about English, sort of. They've come out with things about Shakespeare. "I saw a show that said .... What do you think?" Some of the Shakespeare stuff is whacky and some isn't.
Anyway, why do I care if it's wacky or not? Why do I care if they're conservatives or liberals or using an argument that "ists" make or ....?
They're questioning! Hooray! Seriously? That's how I look at it. That's what education is about. Now, in those situations, would I say things like ... "Let's look at the evidence," ... "Get one of the history texts at the back of the room and let's see," ... "We're going to have to ask Mr. ____ that one," or "I don't know; people have a lot of different ideas about Shakespeare. Do you think there's enough proof yet, to prove things one way or another?" I don't say, "You're ignorant." Hey, I might even say ... and have ..., if the comment/belief is truly off and the child won't stop, "You know, we really need to get back to English. But, if you want to continue to have this conversation, you can come in at lunch or after school and I'll sit with you." I don't say, "You're ignorant."
When someone tells a person they're ignorant, in my mind, they shut the person down. There's no point in questioning or further discussion. You're done. The person is ignorant, a piece of poo. Period.
That doesn't follow with the Gary of ... question ... research. It just doesn't, in my mind. You can question faith and belief all the livelong day. As you're aware, I've told you that you have good points. You can tell a person you don't respect their religious beliefs. No problem. You can tell a person they should question their beliefs. Fine. I don't have a problem with any of that. That's not the issue.
Irony comes to play when you say people should question ... including you ... then, you say if a 12 year old used tone and was using an argument made by "ists" ... it would be okay to call him ignorant. Followed by ... science is really too complicated sometimes ... sometimes people just need to accept what is being said. Again, taking science and religion out of the mix, it seems to go against what you've said previously.
Now, granted, I also said ... you seem okay with questioning, especially of religion, but when someone questions something in science ... hold the phone. True. Which, put religion and science in the mix.
When I did that, I didn't do so to imply they're the same. They're not. I know that. I admit that. I've done so several times here ... and in real life. And, while people in threads are talking about how people develop personas for themselves at GR, I don't. I am who I am. No games.
For me, questioning is important. Questioning in and of itself. I don't care if it's about religion or science or history or the shades of nail polish. Politics. Culture. The best movie ever. It just doesn't matter. Personally, I believe it's important, for 5,001 reasons, to question.
I don't draw lines. It's okay to question this but not that. It's okay to question dogma, because ... but not science, because .... It's okay to question ... because it's vital to question. I'm not going to go into all the reasons.
I'm saying, simply, question. I stand behind that. It's ironic to me that, it would seem, you stand behind that ... unless .... The "unless" didn't come through on any of your previous posts.
To my mind this is only dissonant if you treat religious dogma and scientific knowledge as equivalent, which I know many people do, but I (and most scientists) don't. "
Not quite. Yes, my example had to do with science. At this point, I don't even remember why the hell I gave that example in the first place.
But, for me, yes, I see dissonance. Yup. It has nothing, truly, to do with dogma vs. science. I read you as saying ... question. Not, hey, question dogma and stuff that can't be proven through science. I read you as saying ... question. In fact, you've given information about things ... including scientific things. And, when people have commented, you've said something like ... hey, but don't take my word for it ... do some research.
So, when I said a student who LOVED history and read about history in his free time was confused when his teacher said global warming is caused by humans ... and he asked why she said that given the fact that he'd read about warming and cooling throughout history and started talking about the Middle Ages, it was shocking to me, in a huge way, that you'd say, basically, ... if he used tone, it's okay that she called him ignorant. What? And, in truth, it wouldn't matter to me what the subject might be. I've had kids say wacky stuff before. Make wacky claims about history. Say things that can't be proven. Ask me if it could be true. I've had kids say things about English, sort of. They've come out with things about Shakespeare. "I saw a show that said .... What do you think?" Some of the Shakespeare stuff is whacky and some isn't.
Anyway, why do I care if it's wacky or not? Why do I care if they're conservatives or liberals or using an argument that "ists" make or ....?
They're questioning! Hooray! Seriously? That's how I look at it. That's what education is about. Now, in those situations, would I say things like ... "Let's look at the evidence," ... "Get one of the history texts at the back of the room and let's see," ... "We're going to have to ask Mr. ____ that one," or "I don't know; people have a lot of different ideas about Shakespeare. Do you think there's enough proof yet, to prove things one way or another?" I don't say, "You're ignorant." Hey, I might even say ... and have ..., if the comment/belief is truly off and the child won't stop, "You know, we really need to get back to English. But, if you want to continue to have this conversation, you can come in at lunch or after school and I'll sit with you." I don't say, "You're ignorant."
When someone tells a person they're ignorant, in my mind, they shut the person down. There's no point in questioning or further discussion. You're done. The person is ignorant, a piece of poo. Period.
That doesn't follow with the Gary of ... question ... research. It just doesn't, in my mind. You can question faith and belief all the livelong day. As you're aware, I've told you that you have good points. You can tell a person you don't respect their religious beliefs. No problem. You can tell a person they should question their beliefs. Fine. I don't have a problem with any of that. That's not the issue.
Irony comes to play when you say people should question ... including you ... then, you say if a 12 year old used tone and was using an argument made by "ists" ... it would be okay to call him ignorant. Followed by ... science is really too complicated sometimes ... sometimes people just need to accept what is being said. Again, taking science and religion out of the mix, it seems to go against what you've said previously.
Now, granted, I also said ... you seem okay with questioning, especially of religion, but when someone questions something in science ... hold the phone. True. Which, put religion and science in the mix.
When I did that, I didn't do so to imply they're the same. They're not. I know that. I admit that. I've done so several times here ... and in real life. And, while people in threads are talking about how people develop personas for themselves at GR, I don't. I am who I am. No games.
For me, questioning is important. Questioning in and of itself. I don't care if it's about religion or science or history or the shades of nail polish. Politics. Culture. The best movie ever. It just doesn't matter. Personally, I believe it's important, for 5,001 reasons, to question.
I don't draw lines. It's okay to question this but not that. It's okay to question dogma, because ... but not science, because .... It's okay to question ... because it's vital to question. I'm not going to go into all the reasons.
I'm saying, simply, question. I stand behind that. It's ironic to me that, it would seem, you stand behind that ... unless .... The "unless" didn't come through on any of your previous posts.
Shannon wrote: "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio..."I have done a quick bit of research and perhaps there is a subtle difference.
From the Oxford English dictionary.
1 lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated:
[predic.] lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular:
I was largely ignorant of the effects of radiotherapy
2 informal discourteous or rude:
this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist
3 black English easily angered:
I is an ignorant man—even police don’t meddle with me
I note that it starts with "lacking" rather than the much more emotive "destitute" which makes an intrinsic value judgement.
I also note the Oxford English dictionary gives examples of calling oneself ignorant while the Websters was solely accusatory.
One thing I think should be noted with both descriptions however is both refer to a lack of knowledge or education, not an inability to gain knowledge or education or a value judgement of stupidity. (Though linked with stupidity in examples it specifically says ignorant and stupid rather than equating the two).
Personally the term seems to me to be more of an accusation that a person is unwilling to find out information that challenges their opinion, or happy with their lack of knowledge, rather than an insult or value judgement against that persons capabilities.
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
I just chuckle at people using the science of their computer to announce they prefer religion.
I wonder if their are people out their using prayer to announce that they prefer science.
I always enjoy a bit of irony with my morning coffee.