Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Travis wrote: " gary is putting out ideas and instead of suggesting how then could be fixed or adjusted to work, you declare them limitations and you don't like it, so it probably won't work."
Do you guys value science? Really and truly ...? How do scientists learn and better the field?
I went to Space Camp when I was in high school. Guess how they taught us ... how they teach astronauts? Through anomalies.
They'd put us on a "mission" and they'd throw problems at us. How did we act under pressure? How did we apply the things we learned in lecture? They threw one at the guys on the "shuttle" and the boy who was serving as the pilot did something that had never been tried. He moved fuel from one tank to the next and the computer said it solved the problem. No one could believe it. Holy heck! The kid was 15 and thought of something none of the NASA scientists had thought of. The next thing we knew, well, later that day or the next, five astronauts and scientists showed up and took Wes and questioned him for a few hours. What did he do? Why did he do it? What was he thinking? Why did he think it would work? Etc... Etc...
Big bad Shannon picking on poor Gary. Hardly.
I told you.
This is how my mind works.
An administrator comes up with an idea. If I see no value in the idea, I say relatively little ... or ... if it has value, in my opinion, I start to troubleshoot.
It's one thing to have an idea, maybe a GREAT idea. It's quite another thing to make the idea work. If we had a good idea ... if an administrator had a good idea, I'd start to troubleshoot it.
Why?
To attack the idea or the person? Hardly. To shoot down the idea? No. If it's a good idea and an idea that would be best for the students, I'd actually want it to work. In order to do that, we'd need to, in part, envision what might happen ... including and especially the bad, in order to learn and in order for the idea to have the best chance at success.
It's not personal. It's not me saying ... :P ... to Gary and his ideas.
It's about taking an idea and making it a reality, if that is the point. Since when do you guys see questioning and troubleshooting and another's opinions to be a negative.
And, instead of answering all of those questions for Gary and the entire group, I asked them ... and pointed out problems.
Maybe Gary and Travis could come up with some solutions.
I have some ideas, actually. We can discuss those ideas, or the wagons can be circled around Gary and fingers can be pointed at me. The latter is uncomfortable but a stage in the learning process and in developing truly great ideas.
Do you guys value science? Really and truly ...? How do scientists learn and better the field?
I went to Space Camp when I was in high school. Guess how they taught us ... how they teach astronauts? Through anomalies.
They'd put us on a "mission" and they'd throw problems at us. How did we act under pressure? How did we apply the things we learned in lecture? They threw one at the guys on the "shuttle" and the boy who was serving as the pilot did something that had never been tried. He moved fuel from one tank to the next and the computer said it solved the problem. No one could believe it. Holy heck! The kid was 15 and thought of something none of the NASA scientists had thought of. The next thing we knew, well, later that day or the next, five astronauts and scientists showed up and took Wes and questioned him for a few hours. What did he do? Why did he do it? What was he thinking? Why did he think it would work? Etc... Etc...
Big bad Shannon picking on poor Gary. Hardly.
I told you.
This is how my mind works.
An administrator comes up with an idea. If I see no value in the idea, I say relatively little ... or ... if it has value, in my opinion, I start to troubleshoot.
It's one thing to have an idea, maybe a GREAT idea. It's quite another thing to make the idea work. If we had a good idea ... if an administrator had a good idea, I'd start to troubleshoot it.
Why?
To attack the idea or the person? Hardly. To shoot down the idea? No. If it's a good idea and an idea that would be best for the students, I'd actually want it to work. In order to do that, we'd need to, in part, envision what might happen ... including and especially the bad, in order to learn and in order for the idea to have the best chance at success.
It's not personal. It's not me saying ... :P ... to Gary and his ideas.
It's about taking an idea and making it a reality, if that is the point. Since when do you guys see questioning and troubleshooting and another's opinions to be a negative.
And, instead of answering all of those questions for Gary and the entire group, I asked them ... and pointed out problems.
Maybe Gary and Travis could come up with some solutions.
I have some ideas, actually. We can discuss those ideas, or the wagons can be circled around Gary and fingers can be pointed at me. The latter is uncomfortable but a stage in the learning process and in developing truly great ideas.
Gary, are you positing something along the lines of a demarchy?
Gary, ....
You said ...
Gary wrote: "In my "perfect" world, policies would go to the appropriate experts to study and then their recommendations would go to people who had been democratically appointed on their merits in their appropriate field to make a policy decision."
No, you didn't say it would be a limited pool of people and you didn't advocate that they be disproportionately white or male.
But, look at your words. In reality, today, would that be what would happen?
Scientists. A limited number of people are scientists. Very poor countries might not have a lot of scientists to choose from and not as many of their people might go into the field. We know the fields of science and math have been dominated by men for many years. That's beginning to change, in SOME areas ... not all. By area, I mean geographic area. Further, the people who have a strong science base, those who understand science and can be elected on the merits of that knowledge, would be small.
In your "perfect" world, you said everyone would have an education and the farmer I mentioned would know science.
Your "perfect" world doesn't currently exist.
Could we move toward that? If so, how so?
You said ...
Gary wrote: "In my "perfect" world, policies would go to the appropriate experts to study and then their recommendations would go to people who had been democratically appointed on their merits in their appropriate field to make a policy decision."
No, you didn't say it would be a limited pool of people and you didn't advocate that they be disproportionately white or male.
But, look at your words. In reality, today, would that be what would happen?
Scientists. A limited number of people are scientists. Very poor countries might not have a lot of scientists to choose from and not as many of their people might go into the field. We know the fields of science and math have been dominated by men for many years. That's beginning to change, in SOME areas ... not all. By area, I mean geographic area. Further, the people who have a strong science base, those who understand science and can be elected on the merits of that knowledge, would be small.
In your "perfect" world, you said everyone would have an education and the farmer I mentioned would know science.
Your "perfect" world doesn't currently exist.
Could we move toward that? If so, how so?
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "The picture is much bigger and has far more colors than people might first see. "
It's also dangerous to assume that you see clearer than others based on a single statement."
This is somewhat taken out of context. It was not meant to imply that I see your idea, in general, more clearly.
It was meant to say the idea that President Obama is seen as an elitist due to his wanting everyone to be college educated isn't a complete picture. And, it's not. Based ... on evidence.
It's also dangerous to assume that you see clearer than others based on a single statement."
This is somewhat taken out of context. It was not meant to imply that I see your idea, in general, more clearly.
It was meant to say the idea that President Obama is seen as an elitist due to his wanting everyone to be college educated isn't a complete picture. And, it's not. Based ... on evidence.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: " gary is putting out ideas and instead of suggesting how then could be fixed or adjusted to work, you declare them limitations and you don't like it, so it probably won't work."Do ..."
If you were offering any constructive suggestions beyond 'Well, I don't like that', then your claim of troubleshooting would be a bit more solid.
maybe if you included your ideas along with your criticism you'd seem more like you are participating in the process and then wouldn't have to get defensive when it's pointed out you are contributing very little to the discussion.
Travis wrote: "then wouldn't have to get defensive when it's pointed out you are contributing very little to the discussion."
Actually, ....
I'm not defensive, and I actually am contributing to the discussion.
What have people said on this thread before ... about making personal attacks on others and the cause for such attacks?
If you or Gary or Hazel would like to continue the discussion regarding Gary's idea and how to move toward that world, I'm available. Otherwise ....
Actually, ....
I'm not defensive, and I actually am contributing to the discussion.
What have people said on this thread before ... about making personal attacks on others and the cause for such attacks?
If you or Gary or Hazel would like to continue the discussion regarding Gary's idea and how to move toward that world, I'm available. Otherwise ....
I know some college educated people who couldn't wiggle their way out of a paper bag that is open on both ends. Some of the most ingenious people I know are ones that most folks would consider "uneducated".
Shannon wrote: "Big bad Shannon picking on poor Gary. Hardly."The point was where the hell did "would all these people be white males" come from? What did that do with what I had proposed. It felt like it was saying "you're only saying experts and scientists because you know that it will keep things in the white male camp" so I was rather taken aback. I could not see how you got there from what I said.
Then the derogatory and completely unhelpful term "elitist". Well elitism already exists. You are proud of the women that represent your state? How many atheists represent Americans in government?
Have any politicians came out and not only said that women and blacks shouldn't be allowed in government or even as citizens?
“I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” George H. W. Bush
Shannon wrote: "An administrator comes up with an idea. If I see no value in the idea, I say relatively little ... or ... if it has value, in my opinion, I start to troubleshoot."
Fair enough, but then troubleshoot problems with the idea, don#t just attach current problems to the idea as if they are new.
Shannon wrote: "It's about taking an idea and making it a reality, if that is the point. Since when do you guys see questioning and troubleshooting and another's opinions to be a negative."
When the questioning and troubleshooting seem like attacking a strawman version of the idea postulated.
Shannon wrote: "I have some ideas, actually. We can discuss those ideas, or the wagons can be circled around Gary and fingers can be pointed at me. The latter is uncomfortable but a stage in the learning process and in developing truly great ideas."
Excellent. Lets have the ideas then. But could we address the problems with the specific points raised.
Hazel wrote: "Gary, are you positing something along the lines of a demarchy?"
Must... look... up... :-) Not everyday I am told a completely unfamiliar term.
Shannon wrote: "But, look at your words. In reality, today, would that be what would happen?"
Yet that isn't a problem with the idea, it's another problem with society in general, one which I know scientists and others have tried to address, but with limited funding and interest from government.
Shannon wrote: "Scientists. A limited number of people are scientists."
Before we get into the "scientific elitism" trap, note that I said appropriate experts. I also noted that I may have a personal bias to science, but mainly because the methodology works in all sorts of circumstances not just labs and experiments. Even economists, advertisers, intelligence analysts, political spin doctors etc. make models, carry out trials and crunch statistics to determine the effectiveness of their ideas.
Shannon wrote: "By area, I mean geographic area. Further, the people who have a strong science base, those who understand science and can be elected on the merits of that knowledge, would be small."
So the choice would be between a dozen candidates that are maybe B-C students in their area rather than a dozen that are A-B? Again bearing in mind that I am suggesting that it would be good if people selected politicians for their skills and knowledge rather than their wealth or their ability to manipulate others.
Shannon wrote: "In your "perfect" world, you said everyone would have an education and the farmer I mentioned would know science."
Not exactly. I said everyone would have a chance at a good education if they wanted it, not just in "science". Again bearing in mind that a well trained farmer would be invaluable when making decisions that effect farming and agriculture.
Shannon wrote: "Your "perfect" world doesn't currently exist.
Could we move toward that? If so, how so?"
A few small steps I could think of to start with.
* Stop the gouging of educational systems for tax cuts and invest in children.
* Adopt a decent national curriculum of study that includes a strong grounding in transferable skills such as data analysis and research that are useful across curricula.
* Update the science curriculum so it includes 20th century physics at least and keep Creationism and other pseudo-science out of it.
* When appointing committees in government, try to appoint people with appropriate skillsets to compliment the committee.
The last one there is particularly scary in the US. Last year the House Science Committee included;
Paul Broun, ”All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,”
Ralph Hall. Climate change skeptic and behind a 2010 effort by Republicans to cut off billions in funding for scientific research and math and science education by tacking onto a bill a provision that would have forced Democrats to vote in favor of letting federal employees view pornography while on the job.
Todd Akin. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Roscoe Bartlett - made more veiled references to pregnancy from rape being rare.
Randy Neugebauer - "join together in prayer to humbly seek fair weather conditions"
Jim Sensenbrenner - has alternately decried ”scientific fascism” and described research on climate change as an “international conspiracy.”
Sandy Adams - voted in favor of a bill to have teachers “teach theories that contradict the theory of evolution.”
This year it looks like you will have Lamar Smith who has decried "global warming alarmists" and though it seems his website acknowledges Climate Change, it doesn't acknowledge any role for humans in it.
Shannon wrote: "This is somewhat taken out of context. It was not meant to imply that I see your idea, in general, more clearly."
In that case my comment was also taken out of context. I didn't say Obama was seen as an elitist solely because of what Santorum said, I said that Santorum accused him of elitism by misrepresenting his wish to offer Americans the chance to go to college or a vocational course. I never commented on whether Obama was an "elitist" or how accurate that statement could be considered, just that Santorum deliberately left out the voluntary part and the vocational course part to deliberately make it look like Obama only valued college kids and could therefore accuse him of snobbery and elitism.
In general though I think the term "elitist" is merely derogatory as all it is really saying is "a select group" which is true of any small group that you're not necessarily part of. For example any group of politicians can be viewed as a "ruling elite" unless they are selected from the general population at random like a jury. Which is why calling a group of people selected on merit by the general public some sort of aloof elite seemed to be an attack rather than a criticism.
Which elite would you prefer? Intelligent and capable people (whatever their background)? Rich people? Lawyers? Christians?
I think representatives should be chosen for their skills, their ability and their honesty. Not their wealth, their religion or their friends. How to make this happen is much harder.
I think there shouldn't be religion, this what all the wars are fought over. But if there has to have a religion then we shouldn't judge other religions, but live our own to the fullest, and hold on to our own faiths.
Gary wrote: "The point was where the hell did "would all these people be white males" come from? What did that do with what I had proposed. It felt like it was saying "you're only saying experts and scientists because you know that it will keep things in the white male camp" so I was rather taken aback. I could not see how you got there from what I said."
?
If you were taken aback and confused by my logic at the time, why didn't you address that then?
Let's look at what was actually said ...
"Shannon wrote: "How many of those experts will be white men? "
How many politicians are white men and not experts in anything but political manoeuvring, manipulation and spin now? How many get their positions from established wealth rather than any personal laudable skills, knowledge or expertise?
Certainly science and other areas in some countries need to improve on their demographics but they are still in general far ahead of US & UK politics. The difference here is that addressing educational fairness of opportunity is easy with the political will to invest, while merely appointing people to rule because they are not white men is condescending to non-white men and does little to win respect.
Also in science notoriety and respect is generally won through papers and works. I.e. through the mind not the body that contains it. Some people don't find out the gender of a scientist let alone the colour of their skin until long after they have deliberated or even collaborated with them.
Shannon wrote: "Yes, a portion of women go into such fields, though it's lower then men, I think."
The same with politics. But politics works that way because of the inherent bias of the population that is used to seeing white men in charge. The bias in sciences is due to the cultural impetus that discourages women from certain interests and the fact that the US and UK still have unfair educational opportunities that are worsening as the wealthy squeeze money out of the system to cut taxes for themselves."
The current "outrage" doesn't really match up with the conversation.
One could ask why....
?
If you were taken aback and confused by my logic at the time, why didn't you address that then?
Let's look at what was actually said ...
"Shannon wrote: "How many of those experts will be white men? "
How many politicians are white men and not experts in anything but political manoeuvring, manipulation and spin now? How many get their positions from established wealth rather than any personal laudable skills, knowledge or expertise?
Certainly science and other areas in some countries need to improve on their demographics but they are still in general far ahead of US & UK politics. The difference here is that addressing educational fairness of opportunity is easy with the political will to invest, while merely appointing people to rule because they are not white men is condescending to non-white men and does little to win respect.
Also in science notoriety and respect is generally won through papers and works. I.e. through the mind not the body that contains it. Some people don't find out the gender of a scientist let alone the colour of their skin until long after they have deliberated or even collaborated with them.
Shannon wrote: "Yes, a portion of women go into such fields, though it's lower then men, I think."
The same with politics. But politics works that way because of the inherent bias of the population that is used to seeing white men in charge. The bias in sciences is due to the cultural impetus that discourages women from certain interests and the fact that the US and UK still have unfair educational opportunities that are worsening as the wealthy squeeze money out of the system to cut taxes for themselves."
The current "outrage" doesn't really match up with the conversation.
One could ask why....
Gary wrote: "Fair enough, but then troubleshoot problems with the idea, don#t just attach current problems to the idea as if they are new.
"
Is that what I did, though...?
I applied your idea to our current reality.
Our current reality ...? Not a ton of people are up on science. Not a ton of people, who are trying not to starve, are able to study science. For years, math and science have been dominated by men. That's our reality.
To apply your idea to our reality, we'd be talking about a small number of scientists, likely of a certain demographic, developing the policies and a small number of people, likely of a certain demographic, who are knowledgable in science being democratically voted into office in order to vote on the policies.
That is what it is .... What part of that is shocking and confusing? It's reality.
If you'd like, we can take the idea and put it back into the realm of ideas. We could, instead, discuss how to move toward a world in which more and more people are educated in science. Ultimately, I'm guessing the latter is really what you would like to see happen.
"
Is that what I did, though...?
I applied your idea to our current reality.
Our current reality ...? Not a ton of people are up on science. Not a ton of people, who are trying not to starve, are able to study science. For years, math and science have been dominated by men. That's our reality.
To apply your idea to our reality, we'd be talking about a small number of scientists, likely of a certain demographic, developing the policies and a small number of people, likely of a certain demographic, who are knowledgable in science being democratically voted into office in order to vote on the policies.
That is what it is .... What part of that is shocking and confusing? It's reality.
If you'd like, we can take the idea and put it back into the realm of ideas. We could, instead, discuss how to move toward a world in which more and more people are educated in science. Ultimately, I'm guessing the latter is really what you would like to see happen.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "But, look at your words. In reality, today, would that be what would happen?"
Yet that isn't a problem with the idea, it's another problem with society in general, one which I know scientists and others have tried to address, but with limited funding and interest from government."
Gary ....
No. The problem isn't the idea. But, please remember .... I asked, over and over, was your idea meant to remain an idea, something to be discussed, or if it was meant to be applied practically ... made a reality.
Yes, the problem is with society.
The thing of it is ...
If we take an idea, any idea, and put it in play, it will be made a reality in the test tube, school, society, world in which it exists.
Given that, ....
Houston, we have a problem.
Yet that isn't a problem with the idea, it's another problem with society in general, one which I know scientists and others have tried to address, but with limited funding and interest from government."
Gary ....
No. The problem isn't the idea. But, please remember .... I asked, over and over, was your idea meant to remain an idea, something to be discussed, or if it was meant to be applied practically ... made a reality.
Yes, the problem is with society.
The thing of it is ...
If we take an idea, any idea, and put it in play, it will be made a reality in the test tube, school, society, world in which it exists.
Given that, ....
Houston, we have a problem.
Gary wrote: "Which elite would you prefer? Intelligent and capable people (whatever their background)? Rich people? Lawyers? Christians?
I think representatives should be chosen for their skills, their ability and their honesty. Not their wealth, their religion or their friends. How to make this happen is much harder. "
I think, ultimately, I prefer not determining who can make policy and who can be voted into office, in general.
Obviously, I want leaders who are smart and honest.
How do we get that?
In my mind, attempting to get that via pronouncements and rules issued by a few to the masses is ... not the way to go. I think it's elitist, negative connotations included.
Do we say policies need to be made by scientists and voted on by people with a prerequisite scientific knowledge base? Do we say only people who get A's and B's get to be voted in?
Well, that would have ruled Bush the Younger out. But, it would also rule out President Obama. If I remember correctly, he's refused to make his college and law school records public.
Further, would that rule out ... an Einstein? Didn't he flunk out of school? I've known several students who were flipping brilliant but who got horrid grades. Why? They had no desire to play the game. The game of school. Was Einstein that type of kid? Would that sort of thing rule out someone who is really bright but did poorly freshman year due to freedom and drinking?
At what point do other types of intellect and hard work enter the picture? I know some gurus who say, for example, that IQ doesn't matter as much as hard work. Not sure how I feel about that, but .... We could have a person who got C's all through school and is super honest and works from sunup to sundown. Would that person be a better leader than someone who got A's in science and math classes but is lazy as could be?
Years and years ago, when they were talking about who would run against Bush the Younger the second time, people talked about Kerry and Clinton, Hillary. I remember a Washington insider saying it shouldn't be Kerry. He was a show horse. The Democrats wheeled him out once and awhile, but .... Now, Hillary Clinton, the man said, was a workhorse. She was one of the first people on the Hill in the morning and one of the last ones out at night. She went to her committee meetings, listened to testimony, and voted all the time ... unlike some senators. Further, he said, she wrote all sorts of legislation.
Now, true, I think Hillary Clinton is brilliant. Great education and very intelligent. So, she might not be the best example. However, I wouldn't much care what legislation she wrote ... would it just have to do with the law ... no. Someone who worked like that, who was so dedicated to the job, .... She could write legislation on law, education, medicine and I'd pay attention. I might agree. I might not. I might back it. I might not. But, heck, do I want a woman like that attempting to do the job? Heck, yes. Regardless of whether or not I always agree with her politics and regardless of whether or not she's an expert in the field, she's a workhorse and, damn, I value that.
So, .... Do we get at the best people via rules? These people can if...? Or, do we get at the best people by dealing with society, by dealing with the culture?
I think representatives should be chosen for their skills, their ability and their honesty. Not their wealth, their religion or their friends. How to make this happen is much harder. "
I think, ultimately, I prefer not determining who can make policy and who can be voted into office, in general.
Obviously, I want leaders who are smart and honest.
How do we get that?
In my mind, attempting to get that via pronouncements and rules issued by a few to the masses is ... not the way to go. I think it's elitist, negative connotations included.
Do we say policies need to be made by scientists and voted on by people with a prerequisite scientific knowledge base? Do we say only people who get A's and B's get to be voted in?
Well, that would have ruled Bush the Younger out. But, it would also rule out President Obama. If I remember correctly, he's refused to make his college and law school records public.
Further, would that rule out ... an Einstein? Didn't he flunk out of school? I've known several students who were flipping brilliant but who got horrid grades. Why? They had no desire to play the game. The game of school. Was Einstein that type of kid? Would that sort of thing rule out someone who is really bright but did poorly freshman year due to freedom and drinking?
At what point do other types of intellect and hard work enter the picture? I know some gurus who say, for example, that IQ doesn't matter as much as hard work. Not sure how I feel about that, but .... We could have a person who got C's all through school and is super honest and works from sunup to sundown. Would that person be a better leader than someone who got A's in science and math classes but is lazy as could be?
Years and years ago, when they were talking about who would run against Bush the Younger the second time, people talked about Kerry and Clinton, Hillary. I remember a Washington insider saying it shouldn't be Kerry. He was a show horse. The Democrats wheeled him out once and awhile, but .... Now, Hillary Clinton, the man said, was a workhorse. She was one of the first people on the Hill in the morning and one of the last ones out at night. She went to her committee meetings, listened to testimony, and voted all the time ... unlike some senators. Further, he said, she wrote all sorts of legislation.
Now, true, I think Hillary Clinton is brilliant. Great education and very intelligent. So, she might not be the best example. However, I wouldn't much care what legislation she wrote ... would it just have to do with the law ... no. Someone who worked like that, who was so dedicated to the job, .... She could write legislation on law, education, medicine and I'd pay attention. I might agree. I might not. I might back it. I might not. But, heck, do I want a woman like that attempting to do the job? Heck, yes. Regardless of whether or not I always agree with her politics and regardless of whether or not she's an expert in the field, she's a workhorse and, damn, I value that.
So, .... Do we get at the best people via rules? These people can if...? Or, do we get at the best people by dealing with society, by dealing with the culture?
Melissa wrote: "Most major rules in today's society come from religion itself. As do most morals and ethics. Do you believe that science alone would have allowed us to socially evolve in the same way? "Again this is a point that has come up before, and if true you are saying the only reason you are moral is either out of fear of punishment, or out of hope for reward. Neither of these are moral in my opinion. If a lack of religion leads to a lack of morals you would expect the majority of those in prison to be atheists, but studies have shown it is the opposite.
Yes, morality and empathy can, and have, evolved, and the morals you claim to get from religion predate religion and have been adopted by religion.
If religion gives you your morality, which holy book do you refer to? I will assume (and am perfectly willing to be corrected on this) that you are christian and therefore it is the bible....so do your morals allow you to own slaves (as the bible permits)? Do you stone disobedient children?
Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Most major rules in today's society come from religion itself. As do most morals and ethics. Do you believe that science alone would have allowed us to socially evolve in the same w..."Or, my favorite, do you eat figs?
So, many people pass over the crucial fig question.
Gary wrote: "A few small steps I could think of to start with.
* Stop the gouging of educational systems for tax cuts and invest in children.
* Adopt a decent national curriculum of study that includes a strong grounding in transferable skills such as data analysis and research that are useful across curricula.
* Update the science curriculum so it includes 20th century physics at least and keep Creationism and other pseudo-science out of it.
* When appointing committees in government, try to appoint people with appropriate skillsets to compliment the committee."
Yeah, ....
Some of this works. Some of it seems to work at first blush, but .... For example, I think people in other countries make a lot of hay over how much Americans spend on education, especially by comparison, but still have crappy test scores. Hmm.... Now, I wonder if people from other countries make hay of that or if it's people here who do.
Yes, I think it's problematic when a society pays sports players a kazillion dollars and don't spend like funds on education. But, even though I'm a teacher, more money wouldn't be my focus.
Regarding Creationism, .... It really doesn't happen here. Not in public schools. So, that's not going to be my end all and be all. Not saying it's yours. It's just not even on my radar. Not because I want Creationism taught. I just know that's not an issue ... here and in public schools.
Yes, we, in America, need to work on curriculum. We are, to a greater or lesser extent. Given the new Common Core, it's a big thing right now.
If the point is to have leaders who are knowledgable in science and to see to it that all people have access to a quality education, there are all sorts of things that need to and can be done. (I can only speak for the system here.)
How about better education for teachers...? How about looking at certification?
Think about this. Elementary teachers are certified to teach K-6, general education. They teach reading, writing, math, science, history, etc.... Do they truly have expertise in all of those subjects? All of those subjects and the craft of teaching itself? Heck, think about middle school and high school math teachers and/or science teachers? Are they always qualified? Both in their subject and in the craft of teaching?
That's a tall order, by the way.
Something VT started doing a few years ago. I'm not entirely sure of the impetus, but I'm pretty sure .... We wanted to be sure our math teachers were really and truly qualified to teach math. A special program was developed to teach math teachers ... math. Our school even paid megabucks to bring one of these gurus onsite. They weren't in classes about the brain and how to teach math ... about boys and math ... about girls and math ... about making math fun ... about .... The math teachers did ... math. They were taught math and did math. Math and more math. Crazy math! It was pretty damned difficult for some. In fact, some dropped out and boycotted the classes. But, you know, it's pretty hard to teach math when you don't really and truly know math.
Now, those other classes ... the brain and math, etc... are good. But, should those classes be the focus? Or, should gaining the expertise in math or science itself be the focus?
I'm sure the same could be said of and done for science.
English? Do you know how many writing workshops, conferences, and classes I've been to that focused, solely, on creative writing? "We're here to show you writing can be fun! We're going to hand you a bag. An item is in the bag. Write a story or a poem that is inspired by that item! Okay. Go!" Do you know how many times I've sat through that exact workshop? Way. Too. Many. Does that type of lesson or writing take much thought or skill? No. Oh, but ... does writing a research paper? Yeah. That, though, isn't taught.
Testing ....
Yes, we test science knowledge here. Do you know when? I think in the 5th, 8th, and 11th grade. That's it. That's all.
When are we tested in reading and math? Well, that would be grades 2-8 and grade 11. Writing? 5th, 8th, and 11th.
Guess what happens?
For years, guess how schools became schools in need of improvement? The naughty schools .... Scores in reading and math. (That's beginning to change. They're also looking at absences, drop-out rate, etc... Maybe science scores, now. I'm not sure.)
An unintended consequence....
At my old school, for the last, hmmm.... four to six years, they cut science and history. You guys get all kinds of upset over the thought that American rednecks are teaching Creationism, right? Guess what. Some Americans don't teach science, period. Why? The focus was reading and math. That's why. Now, did my school cut it totally. No. But, they might as well have. Oh, we're talking in the 5th and 6th grade. If I recall correctly, science was taught one quarter, then history, then science .... And, while kids were getting math for an hour, reading for an hour, and writing for an hour ... with an SSR period, further reading ... the science time was much shorter. It was on par with a special ... music, art, etc.... Was religion the cause? Ignorance? Nope! Testing and how schools were deemed in need of improvement.
Bet that could about set your hair on fire, right. Even though I'm not a math/science person and know my science background is lacking, I found it an outrage and spoke up against it.
This is depressing me ....
What can you do about it? What can the average person do about it?
I'd go at it from this angle ... and from others ....
I recently heard of a woman in Maine, retired, who volunteers at a school. She started a club, a fly fishing club. She takes the kids fly fishing, FUN, and teaches about science, etc....
Speaking of NASCAR, .... There's actually a crapload of math in racing. Something about car setup and laps and times and doing the math based on car setup and .... There are some, a very few, who do special classes that link this with math ... that teach math through this.
You mentioned transferable skills. Not all teachers will be able to figure this out. Sorry, but it's true. Heck. I'll throw myself into that pile. I have to teach word choice, vocabulary and punctuation. Okay. Direct instruction. Super fun! Right .... Yeah, I can do it through the Young Writers' Project and publish their work and hope UVM professors and grad students write to them with feedback. Real world application. Transferable skill. But, who knows. Maybe someone out there would have another idea. Other ideas. People outside the field of education could help with this immensely.
Books. I wasn't blowing smoke the other day when I said you should write a book.
Think about it .... Think about the need.
Think about the "-ology" books that kids love. LOVE!
Dragonology: The Complete Book of Dragons
Okay. Seriously ....
Imagine creating books like that but around science ... different parts and pieces of science. Yes, there are some. But, ....
One came on the market several, several years ago. It was all the rage and VERY expensive. Heck, this was probably over 10 years ago. I don't remember the title. My mother got a copy for me to put in my class. The kids destroyed it, literally, in about three weeks. It was ripped and an absolute mess. There was a popup part, etc... and wasn't constructed in the best way, it seems. I almost threw up. The damn thing cost something like $60. They begged me to buy another copy. Sorry.... That was a lot of money for me at the time.
Imagine writing books for grade school, middle school, high school and adults ... about science. Like the "ology" books ... some fiction.
So, they started writing "eco mysteries" for middle schoolers several years back. Maybe, if coupled with mystery, the kids would like it. Do you know how much "eco" was in the mystery? Ahh.... Not much.
Travis could create graphic novels regarding some sort of science method. Come on.... Do you know how many graphic novels they're making for the Classics? Macbeth ... modern-day language/graphic novel. Macbeth ... original language/graphic novel. Abridged. Not. Black and white. Color. We can stick our noses up, but guess what ...? I had a student who, day two of Macbeth, came to me, almost in tears. She couldn't understand it, no matter how much I explained it. I gave her a copy of a graphic novel, modern-day version. She took it home and read it that night. Loved it. Then, she took part in class from then on ... talked about how she understood it all of a sudden ... all she needed was to read the graphic novel first.
Right...? Imagine.
How will this work in countries with starving people? I don't know. I don't know enough about it.
But, I do know there are plenty of kids and adults in the US and, I'm guessing, the UK who just don't know enough about science ... myself included. Given that, we don't always make the best choices. Given that, our career choice, etc... is limited. Given that, our leaders aren't always the sharpest science scalpel in the drawer.
Do we get at that problem through legislation and laws and government/governance? Topdown. Or, do we get at it through a grassroots effort, by taking matters into our own hands, by attempting to educate by what means we can ... fly fishing ... writing.
Cosmos!
Okay. Math is not my friend. Given that, science, some sciences, were challenging.
But, I'll tell you what! I LOVED Cosmos! Heck, I might even have had a weird crush of some sort on Carl Sagan, which is totally and completely gross. I didn't miss an episode. I was a kid. A teen. I was engrossed. Granted, there was a historical aspect and I was a history nerd. But, think about it. Carl Sagan in a dorky button-down or a sweater, talking in near monotone, at times, about science ... and people loved it, ate it up ... still remember it ... with longing.
Does anyone have a similar program now?
I'm not talking about the ... people who act like cartoon characters and teach science on TV ... or the people who go on and on about the ignorance of carbon users and abusers. I'm talking science .... I'm talking doing what Sagan did ... making connections between our world and science ... story and science .... Imagine if someone did that today? Wouldn't it be amazing?!
That's where my ideas start ....
* Stop the gouging of educational systems for tax cuts and invest in children.
* Adopt a decent national curriculum of study that includes a strong grounding in transferable skills such as data analysis and research that are useful across curricula.
* Update the science curriculum so it includes 20th century physics at least and keep Creationism and other pseudo-science out of it.
* When appointing committees in government, try to appoint people with appropriate skillsets to compliment the committee."
Yeah, ....
Some of this works. Some of it seems to work at first blush, but .... For example, I think people in other countries make a lot of hay over how much Americans spend on education, especially by comparison, but still have crappy test scores. Hmm.... Now, I wonder if people from other countries make hay of that or if it's people here who do.
Yes, I think it's problematic when a society pays sports players a kazillion dollars and don't spend like funds on education. But, even though I'm a teacher, more money wouldn't be my focus.
Regarding Creationism, .... It really doesn't happen here. Not in public schools. So, that's not going to be my end all and be all. Not saying it's yours. It's just not even on my radar. Not because I want Creationism taught. I just know that's not an issue ... here and in public schools.
Yes, we, in America, need to work on curriculum. We are, to a greater or lesser extent. Given the new Common Core, it's a big thing right now.
If the point is to have leaders who are knowledgable in science and to see to it that all people have access to a quality education, there are all sorts of things that need to and can be done. (I can only speak for the system here.)
How about better education for teachers...? How about looking at certification?
Think about this. Elementary teachers are certified to teach K-6, general education. They teach reading, writing, math, science, history, etc.... Do they truly have expertise in all of those subjects? All of those subjects and the craft of teaching itself? Heck, think about middle school and high school math teachers and/or science teachers? Are they always qualified? Both in their subject and in the craft of teaching?
That's a tall order, by the way.
Something VT started doing a few years ago. I'm not entirely sure of the impetus, but I'm pretty sure .... We wanted to be sure our math teachers were really and truly qualified to teach math. A special program was developed to teach math teachers ... math. Our school even paid megabucks to bring one of these gurus onsite. They weren't in classes about the brain and how to teach math ... about boys and math ... about girls and math ... about making math fun ... about .... The math teachers did ... math. They were taught math and did math. Math and more math. Crazy math! It was pretty damned difficult for some. In fact, some dropped out and boycotted the classes. But, you know, it's pretty hard to teach math when you don't really and truly know math.
Now, those other classes ... the brain and math, etc... are good. But, should those classes be the focus? Or, should gaining the expertise in math or science itself be the focus?
I'm sure the same could be said of and done for science.
English? Do you know how many writing workshops, conferences, and classes I've been to that focused, solely, on creative writing? "We're here to show you writing can be fun! We're going to hand you a bag. An item is in the bag. Write a story or a poem that is inspired by that item! Okay. Go!" Do you know how many times I've sat through that exact workshop? Way. Too. Many. Does that type of lesson or writing take much thought or skill? No. Oh, but ... does writing a research paper? Yeah. That, though, isn't taught.
Testing ....
Yes, we test science knowledge here. Do you know when? I think in the 5th, 8th, and 11th grade. That's it. That's all.
When are we tested in reading and math? Well, that would be grades 2-8 and grade 11. Writing? 5th, 8th, and 11th.
Guess what happens?
For years, guess how schools became schools in need of improvement? The naughty schools .... Scores in reading and math. (That's beginning to change. They're also looking at absences, drop-out rate, etc... Maybe science scores, now. I'm not sure.)
An unintended consequence....
At my old school, for the last, hmmm.... four to six years, they cut science and history. You guys get all kinds of upset over the thought that American rednecks are teaching Creationism, right? Guess what. Some Americans don't teach science, period. Why? The focus was reading and math. That's why. Now, did my school cut it totally. No. But, they might as well have. Oh, we're talking in the 5th and 6th grade. If I recall correctly, science was taught one quarter, then history, then science .... And, while kids were getting math for an hour, reading for an hour, and writing for an hour ... with an SSR period, further reading ... the science time was much shorter. It was on par with a special ... music, art, etc.... Was religion the cause? Ignorance? Nope! Testing and how schools were deemed in need of improvement.
Bet that could about set your hair on fire, right. Even though I'm not a math/science person and know my science background is lacking, I found it an outrage and spoke up against it.
This is depressing me ....
What can you do about it? What can the average person do about it?
I'd go at it from this angle ... and from others ....
I recently heard of a woman in Maine, retired, who volunteers at a school. She started a club, a fly fishing club. She takes the kids fly fishing, FUN, and teaches about science, etc....
Speaking of NASCAR, .... There's actually a crapload of math in racing. Something about car setup and laps and times and doing the math based on car setup and .... There are some, a very few, who do special classes that link this with math ... that teach math through this.
You mentioned transferable skills. Not all teachers will be able to figure this out. Sorry, but it's true. Heck. I'll throw myself into that pile. I have to teach word choice, vocabulary and punctuation. Okay. Direct instruction. Super fun! Right .... Yeah, I can do it through the Young Writers' Project and publish their work and hope UVM professors and grad students write to them with feedback. Real world application. Transferable skill. But, who knows. Maybe someone out there would have another idea. Other ideas. People outside the field of education could help with this immensely.
Books. I wasn't blowing smoke the other day when I said you should write a book.
Think about it .... Think about the need.
Think about the "-ology" books that kids love. LOVE!
Dragonology: The Complete Book of Dragons
Okay. Seriously ....
Imagine creating books like that but around science ... different parts and pieces of science. Yes, there are some. But, ....
One came on the market several, several years ago. It was all the rage and VERY expensive. Heck, this was probably over 10 years ago. I don't remember the title. My mother got a copy for me to put in my class. The kids destroyed it, literally, in about three weeks. It was ripped and an absolute mess. There was a popup part, etc... and wasn't constructed in the best way, it seems. I almost threw up. The damn thing cost something like $60. They begged me to buy another copy. Sorry.... That was a lot of money for me at the time.
Imagine writing books for grade school, middle school, high school and adults ... about science. Like the "ology" books ... some fiction.
So, they started writing "eco mysteries" for middle schoolers several years back. Maybe, if coupled with mystery, the kids would like it. Do you know how much "eco" was in the mystery? Ahh.... Not much.
Travis could create graphic novels regarding some sort of science method. Come on.... Do you know how many graphic novels they're making for the Classics? Macbeth ... modern-day language/graphic novel. Macbeth ... original language/graphic novel. Abridged. Not. Black and white. Color. We can stick our noses up, but guess what ...? I had a student who, day two of Macbeth, came to me, almost in tears. She couldn't understand it, no matter how much I explained it. I gave her a copy of a graphic novel, modern-day version. She took it home and read it that night. Loved it. Then, she took part in class from then on ... talked about how she understood it all of a sudden ... all she needed was to read the graphic novel first.
Right...? Imagine.
How will this work in countries with starving people? I don't know. I don't know enough about it.
But, I do know there are plenty of kids and adults in the US and, I'm guessing, the UK who just don't know enough about science ... myself included. Given that, we don't always make the best choices. Given that, our career choice, etc... is limited. Given that, our leaders aren't always the sharpest science scalpel in the drawer.
Do we get at that problem through legislation and laws and government/governance? Topdown. Or, do we get at it through a grassroots effort, by taking matters into our own hands, by attempting to educate by what means we can ... fly fishing ... writing.
Cosmos!
Okay. Math is not my friend. Given that, science, some sciences, were challenging.
But, I'll tell you what! I LOVED Cosmos! Heck, I might even have had a weird crush of some sort on Carl Sagan, which is totally and completely gross. I didn't miss an episode. I was a kid. A teen. I was engrossed. Granted, there was a historical aspect and I was a history nerd. But, think about it. Carl Sagan in a dorky button-down or a sweater, talking in near monotone, at times, about science ... and people loved it, ate it up ... still remember it ... with longing.
Does anyone have a similar program now?
I'm not talking about the ... people who act like cartoon characters and teach science on TV ... or the people who go on and on about the ignorance of carbon users and abusers. I'm talking science .... I'm talking doing what Sagan did ... making connections between our world and science ... story and science .... Imagine if someone did that today? Wouldn't it be amazing?!
That's where my ideas start ....
Having given "the idea" further thought ...
The problem does lie, to a certain extent, with the idea ... if ...
If the idea were put in place, now, there would be new problems.
If only scientists, for example, were able to make policies that dealt with science, the environment, medicine, etc... and if only people who understood science were able to run for office (at least to deal with such issues), as I said, the demographics might look fairly male and fairly white.
No, Gary, I'm not calling you a racist, for pity's sake.
Reality is what it is ....
The new problem that would be created ...? Today, all sorts of people can create policy and run for office .... All sorts of people here. All sorts of people in all sorts of places.
I knew a woman who owned a bowling alley who served on a Judiciary committee. She didn't have special expertise when it came to the law and law enforcement. Not even a little bit. But, she was quick and full of energy and a hard worker. She attended all hearings and insisted that they call actual police officers to give testimony ... actual victims to give testimony. She demanded that the committee look to practical applications and hear from the people who had been forever changed by crime. Her leadership and voice definitely added something to the process. Did she understand the law? Heck, no. I mean, really .... When she tried, she sometimes messed it up. But, she understood what it meant to be a citizen, a business owner, a woman .... A business owner might see certain criminal legislation from a different perspective. That perspective might lead to even better ideas.
If we put your idea in play in our present world, she'd not have a seat at the table ... at least not that particular seat. I see that as a problem.
The problem does lie, to a certain extent, with the idea ... if ...
If the idea were put in place, now, there would be new problems.
If only scientists, for example, were able to make policies that dealt with science, the environment, medicine, etc... and if only people who understood science were able to run for office (at least to deal with such issues), as I said, the demographics might look fairly male and fairly white.
No, Gary, I'm not calling you a racist, for pity's sake.
Reality is what it is ....
The new problem that would be created ...? Today, all sorts of people can create policy and run for office .... All sorts of people here. All sorts of people in all sorts of places.
I knew a woman who owned a bowling alley who served on a Judiciary committee. She didn't have special expertise when it came to the law and law enforcement. Not even a little bit. But, she was quick and full of energy and a hard worker. She attended all hearings and insisted that they call actual police officers to give testimony ... actual victims to give testimony. She demanded that the committee look to practical applications and hear from the people who had been forever changed by crime. Her leadership and voice definitely added something to the process. Did she understand the law? Heck, no. I mean, really .... When she tried, she sometimes messed it up. But, she understood what it meant to be a citizen, a business owner, a woman .... A business owner might see certain criminal legislation from a different perspective. That perspective might lead to even better ideas.
If we put your idea in play in our present world, she'd not have a seat at the table ... at least not that particular seat. I see that as a problem.
"Shannon wrote: "If you were taken aback and confused by my logic at the time, why didn't you address that then?"I was taken aback, but not so confused as I am used to having ideas attacked by the straw man argument which is why I assumed that's what you were doing since it was such a switch and emotive issue to suddenly throw at me. So I answered it as best as I could.
"Shannon wrote: "The current "outrage" doesn't really match up with the conversation.
One could ask why...."
Implying someone is feigning offence for ulterior motive is just as offensive as implying that they are positing inherently racist or sexist ideas.
Why is it that you will bristle with rage when an offensive label is used but happily use equally offensive language as long as its clothed by a description rather than a word, or implication rather than accusation?
"Shannon wrote: "I applied your idea to our current reality."
Yes but you applied it to problems that exist now, and may exist after so the best you could say is that "hey it wouldn't address that issue" which is fine, however you used it to criticise the idea even though it was nothing to do with it.
It's like saying "I have an idea to half the costs of healthcare to people" and then you criticising it because people still will eventually die.
"Shannon wrote: "Our current reality ...? Not a ton of people are up on science."
I should have guessed that you'd get caught up in a "them" and "us" idea about scientists. Please try to remember that I said scientists as an example of experts in science, I also said that I said in a perfect world people would select them based on their abilities to solve the problems they are looking at not their ability to win elections. I also mentioned that I personally would prefer scientists in a lot of areas because science has a proven track record of resolving problems.
"Shannon wrote: "To apply your idea to our reality, we'd be talking about a small number of scientists"
No that's your idea based on your 'them or us' idea of scientists. I certainly would prefer scientists but what is a scientist? A person with a doctorate, with a degree, with a diploma or with a toga? I said scientists and experts meaning people who base their ideas and solutions on evidence and reason rather than ideology and belief.
"Shannon wrote: "That is what it is .... What part of that is shocking and confusing? It's reality."
The part where you take my idea, apply your own interpretations and assumptions and then use them as the primary reason to criticise and reject an idea that never used such.
Real "problem solvers" don't flatly reject ideas, they take ideas and try to find ways to ensure that this nightmare world of your imagined elitism and prejudice would not come to pass. This is easily done by making education more available and also by finding ways of making what qualifies as an "expert or scientist" open to people with less traditional or formal education.
"Shannon wrote: "If you'd like, we can take the idea and put it back into the realm of ideas."
Or we could try to build rather than destroy.
"Shannon wrote: "No. The problem isn't the idea. But, please remember .... I asked, over and over, was your idea meant to remain an idea, something to be discussed, or if it was meant to be applied practically ... made a reality."
Which is a false dichotomy. Ideas shape reality but reality shapes ideas. You can't come up with an idea and go "yes that works in all circumstance", neither can you say that every idea with even a single flaw is pointless.
Instead we may start from an ideal simplistic idea and then adapt, modify and shape it to see if it fits.
This is the same way a scientific hypothesis is shaped. Most things are way too complicated to make precise calculations, however you make simplifications (like imagining atoms as little balls, or imagining temperature is a "thing" rather than a statistical quantity) then you make a model using the simplified issue. Yet before you can apply that model to real world situations you need to see whether it is a good guide to what will happen or whether other factors will overwhelm.
"Shannon wrote: "Houston, we have a problem."
Thank you, that sarcasm is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Where would Apollo 13 have been if Mission Control had told them, "we're sorry, your filter will not fit in the reality of your CO2 scrubber, and you do not have enough electrical power, sorry you're all going to die." Instead they took the idea of using a filter that didn't fit and constructively built ways to adapt the idea to reality and in doing so saved three lives.
"Shannon wrote: "I think, ultimately, I prefer not determining who can make policy and who can be voted into office, in general."
So you don't ever vote? Voting is determining who can make policy. If we are selecting people then either you do it at random or you use criteria.
"Shannon wrote: "In my mind, attempting to get that via pronouncements and rules issued by a few to the masses is ... not the way to go. I think it's elitist, negative connotations included."
Good thing I never suggested it then. This makes the long list of flaws that follows fairly irrelevant.
What I said in a "perfect" world was that people would be appropriately skilled. That is a "what" I never said anything about a "how". Which is why I think you've got bogged down on totalitarian rules because you assume the only way you can make a change like this is through imposing authority.
"Shannon wrote: "Do we get at the best people via rules? These people can if...? Or, do we get at the best people by dealing with society, by dealing with the culture?"
Now we're making some progress, so if the flaw is ordering people to do things this way (which I never suggested) then what ways can we encourage our culture to select the best and the brightest, whomever they are?
"Shannon wrote: "Some of this works. Some of it seems to work at first blush"
Why do you go straight for the dismissive? You can read the "but" coming. If there is a "but" can we address the "but" before you dismiss?
"Shannon wrote: ", but .... For example, I think people in other countries make a lot of hay over how much Americans spend on education, especially by comparison, but still have crappy test scores."
Do they? Does America spend a lot per head?
Besides as a teacher you are surely aware that in the end test scores show you how well the kid has been trained to pass tests. The only thing we can hope for is to design better tests so that by teaching kids to pass them we may teach them something worthwhile into the bargain.
Is an education test scores or something else?
"Shannon wrote: "But, even though I'm a teacher, more money wouldn't be my focus."
Not even for better equipment, smaller classes and perhaps the ability to adapt education to the pace of students better?
"Shannon wrote: "Regarding Creationism, .... It really doesn't happen here."
Really??? I think you'd better start paying attention to it. Is all the reports of cases of people trying to "teach the controversy" or altering text books in Texas because most of the rest of the US adopts the books that they select because of economies of scale.
"Shannon wrote: "Given the new Common Core, it's a big thing right now."
I don't know about that. It would be interesting to see an overview. All I know is from a science critique that indicated that no physics beyond the mid-nineteenth century was taught in US public high schools, which suddenly explained a lot of the problems I had trying to show the errors in some peoples claims about science and physics.
"Shannon wrote: "If the point is to have leaders who are knowledgable in science and to see to it that all people have access to a quality education, there are all sorts of things that need to and can be done. (I can only speak for the system here.)"
Good.
"Shannon wrote: "How about better education for teachers...? How about looking at certification?"
Again, certificates and tests are an easy answer, but not necessarily an effective one. They are politically popular though because its an inexpensive effort that seems to carry its own success criteria, but if you think about it that criteria is entirely an arbitrary choice based on the tests author.
"Shannon wrote: "Our school even paid megabucks to bring one of these gurus onsite."
Again this can be good, or it can simply be a money spinner for smart people to get money from schools. I have seen both in my time at a school.
"Shannon wrote: "Oh, but ... does writing a research paper? Yeah. That, though, isn't taught."
I actually liked my English teacher for her encouragement in my creative writing, in fact she bent the curriculum backwards to let me write about what I wanted to, and actually seemed eager to read my next story. At the same time though I do sometimes wish that more people would be trained in writing research papers and abstracts. Not only would it make their writing easier to understand, but also easier to understand mine, and that is the goal is it not? Language is the bridge that ideas cross.
"Shannon wrote: "Some Americans don't teach science, period."
8-/
"Shannon wrote: "Testing and how schools were deemed in need of improvement."
Yup we have similar issues here. The main reason here is that schools are being squeezed of ever more money, class sizes keep going up, equipment is scarce, yet the government has to be seen to be improving education. Hence more testing and more inspections, leaving teachers scrabbling to fulfil all of the government prescribed points before they can even think of the kids.
"Shannon wrote: "This is depressing me ...."
Amen...
"Shannon wrote: "I recently heard of a woman in Maine, retired, who volunteers at a school."
It may not be your intent, but that raised alarm bells for me. At the moment we are have a right wing government, with a little influence from a centrist party. The key idea of our PMs tenure is his concept of "Big Society" which sounds all nice and community focused. Yet what it is really is more excuses to replace public sector workers with unpaid volunteers, or to put public assets such as schools and hospitals into increasingly private hands. All so the government can keep their wealthy tax cuts. There has already been scandals here of American creationist "charities" getting involved in running schools free from government control of their science curriculum but still funded by taxes.
"Shannon wrote: "You mentioned transferable skills. Not all teachers will be able to figure this out. Sorry, but it's true. Heck. I'll throw myself into that pile."
English is one of the most basic transferable skills.
"Shannon wrote: "The damn thing cost something like $60."
Hence my point about money. It's all well and good to write a book, but who can afford to buy it? Meanwhile our Education secretary thought it good, at a time of austerity, to spend tens of thousands of pounds sending a big leather bound Bible to every school in order to "increase morality". Fortunately the party realised the PR disaster and made him get charitable funding to pay for it. Will these expensive leather bound Bibles, signed by a minister with thin delicate pages ever get out of the headmasters office?
"Shannon wrote: "by attempting to educate by what means we can ... fly fishing ... writing."
Or by advocating reason and rationality over ideology and rhetoric whereever I can?
"Shannon wrote: "Does anyone have a similar program now?"Dr. Brian Cox is popular in the UK (and has many ladies crushing on him)
In the US I really like Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, who lists Sagan as an inspiration.
"Shannon wrote: "If we put your idea in play in our present world, she'd not have a seat at the table ... at least not that particular seat. I see that as a problem."
Then we think of ways that such a person would get a seat, after all she proved herself to people to get on there in the first place, by what criteria? If we changed the criteria do you really think she would just give up and go home?
I am not talking about restricting people, I am talking about improvement in the criteria they've picked. For every individual person who turned out excellent, and probably would have anyway, you have committees packed with people who disbelieve the expertise of the system they vote on? To me that's a problem of a staggeringly greater degree.
Okay, Gary....
You're right. Your idea is a great one and would work marvelously. No problems at all. And, you're also right. It was all about my misconceptions and "science" vs. "non-science" mentality. That's it. That's all. You're right. Totally and completely.
Discussion?
No need for discussion, given that.
You're right. Your idea is a great one and would work marvelously. No problems at all. And, you're also right. It was all about my misconceptions and "science" vs. "non-science" mentality. That's it. That's all. You're right. Totally and completely.
Discussion?
No need for discussion, given that.
Shannon wrote: "Okay, Gary....You're right. Your idea is a great one and would work marvelously. No problems at all. And, you're also right. It was all about my misconceptions and "science" vs. "non-science"..."
Lord, you are prickly as a hedgehog.
You've done nothing but tell gary 'well, that won't work' and then gotten defensive when it's pointed out.
All the discussion has been you going 'nope, won't work' in various forms.
That's not trouble shooting, that's the argument sketch from Monty Python.
If you are interested in actually having a discussion, try making a suggestion.
Instead of going on about all these people you know that will never, ever be on the evil elitist ruling council, how should the the system be fixed to give them a place at the table.
Is this idea meant to become reality? Probably not, if he can't get past you, then an elitist, european communist like gary doesn't have a chance down in south carolina or texas.
Shannon wrote: "Okay, Gary....You're right. Your idea is a great one and would work marvelously. No problems at all. And, you're also right. It was all about my misconceptions and "science" vs. "non-science" mentality. That's it. That's all. You're right. Totally and completely.
Discussion?
No need for discussion, given that. "
From attacks to sarcasm? That isn't a discussion.
To discuss an idea you need to discuss the idea, not a twisted version that's easy to point at and proclaim as twisted and sinister.
I never claimed it was perfect, or even whether it would work, I was asked for an idea and then had flaws that weren't related to it attacked, assumptions about prejudice made and sidelong implications of ulterior motive or bigotry.
Would you do that to a kid who you had just invited to speak an idea to the class, only to then tear it apart before it was even fully formed based on extrapolation to an absurd degree?
Travis wrote: "Is this idea meant to become reality? Probably not, if he can't get past you, then an elitist, european communist like gary doesn't have a chance down in south carolina or texas. "
Well, I asked. Didn't I? Is this idea meant to stay in the realm of ideas or is this meant to leave the realm of ideas and become a reality? Yes, yes, I did.
Now, I didn't know Gary was an elitist, European communist. Good to know, though.
Well, I asked. Didn't I? Is this idea meant to stay in the realm of ideas or is this meant to leave the realm of ideas and become a reality? Yes, yes, I did.
Now, I didn't know Gary was an elitist, European communist. Good to know, though.
Gary wrote: "To discuss an idea you need to discuss the idea, not a twisted version that's easy to point at and proclaim as twisted and sinister."
You're right. Let's take your statement.
In your "perfect" world, we'll have scientists create science policy and economists create economic policy and vote in people who have an understanding of/expertise in science to vote on science policy and economics to vote on economics policy.
Perfect. End of story.
To point out that there's a problem in taking that idea and applying it to our current circumstances, given the disparities in economics, education, and gender that exist, is ... well, that is twisting your idea.
It's twisting it and making it appear twisted and sinister.
You're right.
Or, ... are you?
Huh.... Which is the straw man argument?
You're right. Let's take your statement.
In your "perfect" world, we'll have scientists create science policy and economists create economic policy and vote in people who have an understanding of/expertise in science to vote on science policy and economics to vote on economics policy.
Perfect. End of story.
To point out that there's a problem in taking that idea and applying it to our current circumstances, given the disparities in economics, education, and gender that exist, is ... well, that is twisting your idea.
It's twisting it and making it appear twisted and sinister.
You're right.
Or, ... are you?
Huh.... Which is the straw man argument?
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "To discuss an idea you need to discuss the idea, not a twisted version that's easy to point at and proclaim as twisted and sinister."You're right. Let's take your statement.
In ..."
You forgot to do the sinister "Da-da-daaaah!" music after 'Or...are you?'
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "To discuss an idea you need to discuss the idea, not a twisted version that's easy to point at and proclaim as twisted and sinister."
You're right. Let's take your st..."
Oh, I was whistling it. Not sure how to take a whistle and represent it in type.
You're right. Let's take your st..."
Oh, I was whistling it. Not sure how to take a whistle and represent it in type.
Although I am an atheist I would have to say religion. Our world would be a mess if people did not have faith/belief in a higher power or presence. The majority of the people around me acts accordingly to the ethics code only out of the fear of god and commitment to religion. If one day people start to behave benevolently and respectfully towards others not because it is a requirement of religion but because they want to have a positive impact on the world and their society I will then pick SCIENCE. However our world is not even close to this. Even with religion controlling the masses there are countless murders and horrible things done everyday. Innocent people are left homeless due to terrorism and warfare. People are raped, tortured, and abused on a daily basis.
Hazel wrote: "Aiman, why is it that religious folk assume that atheists are ignorant, when it is the study of religion and the reading of holy books that is the main cause for people to become atheist?"or people to become atheist?"
I did not accuse anyone of being ignorant, to get a better picture of others' believes one needs to know what their questions/believes stem from. Ignorance is often the case but not always.
Gary wrote: "Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in..."I’m explaining in sequence the errors that you think Qurran carries.
1)It is by way of metaphorical meaning.. Fruits in the meaning of fruit bearing flowers etc.. Or as Ruh ul Ma'ani mentions fruits of those trees.. i.e everything from the tree from its fruits, nectar, succulent leaves flowers etc etc..
2)http://www.muslimhope.com/ZulQarnain.htm (READ IT FULLY TO REALLY GET THE POINT)
3) One should read the whole AYAT and not just pick out some words and infer them in ways one wants to. “Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any God beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!”
http://www.everymuslim.co.za/index.ph...
4) http://www.everymuslim.co.za/index.ph...
and I can't force you to believe anything. I'm just trying to remove your misconceptions. I respect your views and what you choose to believe. If you don't want me to answer your questions I'll leave , you just have say the word.
Qurran says, there is no compulsion in religion"
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "To discuss an idea you need to discuss the idea, not a twisted version that's easy to point at and proclaim as twisted and sinister."You're right. Let..."
Whistle the 'da-dad-daaah!' music...?
You're never going to sound dramatic and/or sinister that way.
Ideally, you should play the music on a big pipe organ, but if that's not practical, you could hum it.
Berke wrote: "Even with religion controlling the masses there are countless murders and horrible things done everyday."True, in fact a lot of them are done in highly religious parts of the world, while the more secularised parts are more peaceful and indeed crime and violent crime has diminished even as non-belief has spread.
Correlation doesn't always imply causation, however it does show eloquently that places with less religion do not automatically turn more violent.
Perhaps after thousands of years of expecting fear to keep people in line we should try something new?
Aiman wrote: "I did not accuse anyone of being ignorant, to get a better picture of others' believes one needs to know what their questions/believes stem from. Ignorance is often the case but not always."Often the case? Proof?
How can you know where someone's beliefs stem from if they do not have a belief?
Aiman wrote: "1)It is by way of metaphorical meaning.."
So when the Qur'an gets things right like the Doctor claimed it is divine revelation, but when its wrong it's just a metaphor?
Do you know what "confirmation bias" is?
If the Dr. claims that the Qur'an can be proven to be true by it's contents, he cannot logically then say "except when it doesn't".
Aiman wrote: "Fruits in the meaning of fruit bearing flowers"
And what about flowers without fruits?
Aiman wrote: "2)http://www.muslimhope.com/ZulQarnain.htm (READ IT FULLY TO REALLY GET THE POINT)"
A very bad habit of some religious people. Capslock does not make you seem more authoritative, any more than yelling does.
Read your link, again, and it does not change the fact that you want us to accept the text as literal when its right and metaphorical when it isn't.
Aiman wrote: "3) One should read the whole AYAT and not just pick out some words and infer them in ways one wants to."
I did not. I quoted the relevant part and the rest of it does not change that it refers to a fixed Earth.
So again either the Qur'an contains literal scientific truths or it doesn't. If you pick and choose based on what you know now then it is you and not the scripture that is right.
“Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any God beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!”
Aiman wrote: "http://www.everymuslim.co.za/index.ph..."
The good doctor appears to be unaware of archaea, bacteria, and protists and if the Qur'an was so scientifically precise why doesn't it mention that these forms of life do not come in pairs for the vast majority, a majority that outnumbers all other life.
Your link then goes onto state that this creating everything in pairs also extends to particles, yet we know quarks come in six varieties each with three "colours" so that they link either as threes within protons. we have the W+ W- and Z0 particles of weak nuclear force and three varieties of neutrino.
At best the "pairs" thing is a guess based on common knowledge of the time, including far more sophisticated agricultural programs than the doctor was aware of.
Aiman wrote: "I can't force you to believe anything."
But you have tried. You have attempted to use compulsion of logic, you have made your absolute statements. All of which is a form of compelling someone else to believe something.
Aiman wrote: "I'm just trying to remove your misconceptions."
Which is fine, I am trying to remove yours. I am willing to entertain the idea I am wrong and have read what you asked me to read and found errors and inconsistencies some of which, like the Doctors claim that knowledge of moonlight and the shape of the Earth being modern ideas, I hate to say it but I cannot see how a doctor of any kind could have got it wrong. Especially since it is the Arabian culture we have to thank for knowing he's wrong.
Aiman wrote: "I respect your views and what you choose to believe."
That's the difference. I do not choose what to believe. I look at evidence of my own and other peoples evidence and work and accept or do not accept their ideas. I do not believe because that closes your mind to the idea you could be wrong and is therefore hubris.
Aiman wrote: "If you don't want me to answer your questions I'll leave , you just have say the word.
Qurran says, there is no compulsion in religion" "
If there is no compulsion in religion then the Qur'an should not claim a god exists and instead should let people find if he exists through evidence. Making claims and expecting them to be believed is compulsion.
However, I would not tell you to go away, or to stop talking. If anything I wished you would do it honestly and not assume that you know more than me or more than others and entertain the idea that you could be wrong. I doubt you have it in you, but again you could prove me wrong.
I can see how the links you have asked me to read may persuade someone of limited knowledge of history and science, but I'm afraid they actually convinced me of the weakness of this man's arguments. This is no shame however as I have had different but similar in nature claims that the Bible has inspired knowledge and secret truth and that various logical arguments mean their particular god exists. Not one have not have huge flaws that even I could see, and I am not nearly as smart or as adept in science and philosophy as others.
No contest. A world without religion would be infinitely preferable.
Aiman wrote: "I did not accuse anyone of being ignorant, to get a better picture of others' believes one needs to know what their questions/believes stem from. Ignorance is often the case but not always. "the accusatory tone of your post implied it. Ignorance is very rarely the cause of atheism, it is almost always learning about religion, or even just applying logic to the teachings of religion, or making moral judgements on the teachings of religion that leads to atheism.
I also love the way you contradict yourself in that post, "I'm not calling anyone ignorant" to "ignorance is often the case" in two sentences. Once again, you've implied that people who have rejected what you believe are ignorant.
I tend to find that atheists know more about religious teachings than those that follow blindly.
Aiman wrote: " Qurran says, there is no compulsion in religion"I find this difficult to believe when the quran is full of passages calling for the death of apostates and unbelievers except where they convert and muslims around the world regularly call for the death of people they perceive to have "insulted" Islam, movie makers, authors, cartoonists, developmentally delayed girls who inadvertently use discarded quran pages for fire kindling ect ect.... The evidence for compulsion is strong.
Gary wrote: You may not understand why, but science does not have to stop here and in place of a "TV program" I offer actual training in cosmological theory.Everybody has to learn from something or someone. I have to believe Prof. Brian Cox who I know a lot more about than Gary. I am not doubting your delivery, but I think you are over egging the pudding to make what was a basic answer to a straight forward question much more complicated than it need be.
Gary wrote: Meanwhile there is no consistent or testable definition of "god" so it's pointless to speculate until there is evidence. .
Science says that the universe has no end, it also says that we may live in just one of billions of universes. Since both can’t be right one or both must be speculation. Likewise God may or may not exist.
Speculation by any other word is still speculation. Science may be happier using the word theory, but for the most part it is still speculation, until they can come up with evidence. If two cosmologists have separate theories about the universe, there has to be more evidence for one of the theories unless both are just speculating.
Gary wrote: Science accepts a theorem that demonstrates that no object with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light, and that massless objects travel at the speed of light. This does not lead to a "belief" that nothing can travel faster as the science does not preclude another entity that could already be travelling faster than light.
You are answering your own question about the speed of light. The comment Prof. Cox made and I repeated here, was about light reaching the edge of the universe, not what can travel faster than light.
Gary wrote: Indeed. But that does not necessarily mean a god. I know there are amazing phenomenal powerful things beyond my complete understanding, like Black holes..
If science has the complete answer to ‘all things black holes’ then it should not be beyond your complete understanding, unless that was not part of your training. It would be beyond your complete understanding , if science does not have a complete answer. And that I’m sure, is not what Shannon was meaning. A black hole is a poor analogy.
Gary wrote: Once more you arrogantly try to dismiss science as just another point of view equal to any other point of view on reality that people invent.
Would it make a difference if I dismissed it ‘without’ being arrogant? Well I do not dismiss it nor am I arrogant.
But……. Science has many branches and for the most part we are only comparing ‘religion’ (or in my case God) with cosmology, space and time, life and death beyond this earth, anthropology, astrophysics etc. Medical, Botany, Electronics, Mathematics, Palaeontology, Zoology, Marine Biology and many branches, although maybe they are interwoven, for the most part, do not form part of this religion/ science comparison.
If someone’s reply is ‘religion’ rather than science to this threads question, a rather glib response is usually something like…… but you are happy to use a pc and the internet. Maybe that is the fault of the questioner, proposing such a random question.
Science seems good at looking back billions and billions of years and telling us with almost god like certainty ‘what it is all about‘ but beyond the big bang, nothing: beyond the universe, nothing. Nothing but speculation.
We still don’t know where we came from and where we are going. At least god or something as amazing phenomenal and powerful gives us hope.
Gary wrote: Religion requires faith and belief. Religion makes claims such as "homosexuality is wrong and punishable by death" and people believe this without ever understanding why. If you applied the scientific method to that question the first thing you'd ask is "why is it wrong", the second is "define wrong" and the last is "why is killing a suitable punishment since it teaches its victims nothing?"
All you are doing is putting an interpretation on to something for effect. That is what ‘you’ think, not what is fact. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the reader does not interpret it as fact.
But if I go along with what you just said ………… why did you stop at, ‘it teaches its victims nothing’? If you are following that line of thought, then you would have to justify why it should ‘have’ to teach victims anything, anyway.
Gary wrote: Which is the hypocrisy of religion, the pretence of humility. I not only can I “envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding” but I do not claim to know what it may be yet, or to give it human personality or attributes, or to define it at all until the evidence is shown to me.
This is a catch 22. Who is going to show you evidence, unless they go looking for it. That would then be ‘science’, so are you suggestion that science consider that god may be indeed a reality and should give more of it’s time investigating?
cHriS wrote: "Would it make a difference if I dismissed it ‘without’ being arrogant? "
Ahahahaha.... Thanks for giving me a chuckle. ;)
Ahahahaha.... Thanks for giving me a chuckle. ;)
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Would it make a difference if I dismissed it ‘without’ being arrogant? "
Ahahahaha.... Thanks for giving me a chuckle. ;)"
Which ... isn't to say I think you're arrogant. I thought it was a funny line.
Ahahahaha.... Thanks for giving me a chuckle. ;)"
Which ... isn't to say I think you're arrogant. I thought it was a funny line.
Shannon wrote: "Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Would it make a difference if I dismissed it ‘without’ being arrogant? "Ahahahaha.... Thanks for giving me a chuckle. ;)"
Which ... isn't to say I think you're ar..."
I know, I couldn’t resist the line.
It's good to have a chuckle :}
Science we need, religion throughout history is the source of many of the worlds troubles
Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Most major rules in today's society come from religion itself. As do most morals and ethics. Do you believe that science alone would have allowed us to socially evolve in the same w..."I understand that you feel the need to attack religion. I am guessing it is because it does not fit into your personal belief system. So it would be easy for you to dismiss it because you think it is unimportant.However if you truly believe it should not exist than you are limiting yourself in this human experience. To close yourself off to the possibility of something simply because you do not understand it shows a very narrow minded view of the world. And than to go further and remove religion altogether and deny others that choice shows nothing but fear of that which you do not understand.
I believe spirituality (of which both religion and science play a role)is a journey each of us must navigate in our own way. Some might choose religion, some science, or both. And some might turn away from both and tell themselves they are done with the whole thing altogether. These are choices that must be available. Whether or not you agree with a particular religion or it's teachings and paractices you can not take away the importance of it's role in our history and it's powerful influence in our present day lives.
Because you assumed I am Christian, you decided to attack the Bible. And I know it is fairly easy to find fault in it. You could systematically go through every religion, both major and minor, and find fault in each one's philosophy and/or teachings and practices.But finding fault in something should not necessitate it's complete irradication. My point has never been that religion is perfect. Simply that it is NEEDED. That it has value and it's value surpasses some people's understanding of that value because they lack what people of faith have.
Now I could go your route and attack science and it's long history and site many instances where it has shown corruption and immoral pratices. I think it is safe to say that science has at times shown downright cruelty to both man and animal. I could choose to ignore all that is good about science and only focus on the negative side (like you are doing with religion).But that would only cause you to defend it and we would end up in the same circular direction we find ourselves in right now with regards to this discussion.
As for my personal belief system, it does not include a particular religion. I am not a Christian. I have too many issues with the Bible and it's teachings. My conscience rules my everyday life, not a system of rewards and punishments mapped out by a book. But my ego is not so large that I could completely rule out the possibilty that somewhere during my short time on Earth I and my morals have have not been influenced by religious teachings. And if you could be honest with your self, I think, you would come up with the same conclusion.
We live in a huge world full of so much we do not understand. So to jump to the conclusion that since you don't need faith and religion neither does any one else is naive. And to attack someone's assumed faith is (although clever) very judgmental and small.
Wow, a great deal of assumptions in this response. I state religion is the cause of many of the worlds problems for the last 2 thousand years. Mans interpretation is of course the issue not belief.
Hey, cHriS ....
Guess what?
I'm watching a program on The History Channel regarding rogue waves. I guess sailors have talked of them forever and an age. They're waves that are gigantic, at least 2x the size of waves in the area and appearing or acting independently of other waves.
Well, for years and years, people, hmmm, not sure which people, thought rogue waves were just legends. Sailors who spoke of them were even thought to be liars! Men who were excusing their poor sailing. Or, they were thought to have been drunk.
Hmmm.... No proof; they had to be delusional.
Whoops! Guess what?
Yup! You guessed it.
There actually are rogue waves. Proven now and everything. So, all of those people who talked of rogue waves for years and were called liars were right all along.
Wish they could have lived to see their names cleared.
Rogue waves. Giant squid. Looks like the sailors of the past weren't the drunks and liars they were painted out to be ... at least night entirely.
How sad ... that they were treated so poorly.
Anyway, I thought you'd find that interesting.
Guess what?
I'm watching a program on The History Channel regarding rogue waves. I guess sailors have talked of them forever and an age. They're waves that are gigantic, at least 2x the size of waves in the area and appearing or acting independently of other waves.
Well, for years and years, people, hmmm, not sure which people, thought rogue waves were just legends. Sailors who spoke of them were even thought to be liars! Men who were excusing their poor sailing. Or, they were thought to have been drunk.
Hmmm.... No proof; they had to be delusional.
Whoops! Guess what?
Yup! You guessed it.
There actually are rogue waves. Proven now and everything. So, all of those people who talked of rogue waves for years and were called liars were right all along.
Wish they could have lived to see their names cleared.
Rogue waves. Giant squid. Looks like the sailors of the past weren't the drunks and liars they were painted out to be ... at least night entirely.
How sad ... that they were treated so poorly.
Anyway, I thought you'd find that interesting.
There should be a balance between science and religion. To believe in religion or science is personal chose. I think religion is important in life. Science also is necessary to create a better future. We can learn and improve our life.
Melissa wrote: "I understand that you feel the need to attack religion."I would say I'm attacking misconceptions about atheism more than anything. You are implying that religion is the source of our morals, I'm a) pointing out that this is not true, and b) even if it were, it then implies that you feel that without your religion you would have no morals, and that any moral behaviour you do exhibit is done out of fear of punishment or desire for reward.
Melissa wrote: "And than to go further and remove religion altogether and deny others that choice shows nothing but fear of that which you do not understand."
I am not trying to remove religion. I am perfectly happy for other people to have their beliefs, but I am not happy for those beliefs to inform things like government policy. I do not fear religion, I fear the influence it holds over some people and their reluctance to countenance any other position. We therefore end up with elected officials who believe the earth is 6000 years old and that demonic possession is a possibility.
Melissa wrote: "Whether or not you agree with a particular religion or it's teachings and paractices you can not take away the importance of it's role in our history and it's powerful influence in our present day lives."
And that powerful everyday influence is often a negative influence. What positive influences do you think result only from religion?
Melissa said: "To close yourself off to the possibility of something simply because you do not understand it shows a very narrow minded view of the world"
The same point could be made in relation to science. And if you object to assumptions as you appear to (even those explicitly highlighted) you appear to assume I have always been an atheist.
Melissa wrote: "Because you assumed I am Christian, you decided to attack the Bible. And I know it is fairly easy to find fault in it. You could systematically go through every religion, both major and minor, and find fault in each one's philosophy and/or teachings and practices.But finding fault in something should not necessitate it's complete irradication."
Yes, I explicitly stated I was making that assumption, and it is one that can be challenged any time. I did not attack the bible, I asked how you decide which bits of it to follow, and which bits to ignore. If you are a christian, and if you believe (at least parts of) the bible, my question is, how do you choose which parts to believe? If you believe those parts are the word of god, what makes the bits you choose to ignore different? If the bible says to love thy neighbour and you choose to follow that as the word of god, on what authority do you then make the choice to say the bits permitting slavery, or stating that a rapist must marry his victim, are not the word of god? This is not attacking the bible, this is asking you to clarify how you feel you have the authority to ignore parts of what you presumably say is the word of god.
Melissa said: "My point has never been that religion is perfect. Simply that it is NEEDED."
And this is something I disagree with. It may be the case that some people feel they need it, and that's fine, that's their choice, but a blanket statement like that implies that everyone needs it, and that is simply not the case.
Melissa said: "Now I could go your route and attack science and it's long history and site many instances where it has shown corruption and immoral pratices. I think it is safe to say that science has at times shown downright cruelty to both man and animal. I could choose to ignore all that is good about science and only focus on the negative side (like you are doing with religion).But that would only cause you to defend it and we would end up in the same circular direction we find ourselves in right now with regards to this discussion."
That is not 'science' that is the people who are practicing that science. I have made no claims about scientists, but the scientific method is an excellent way of rooting out things like the corruption to which you refer. When a scientist fakes results, is it religion that uncovers these instances? No, it is the scientific method....when other scientists try to replicate those results, and fail, questions inevitably arise.
Melissa said: "As for my personal belief system, it does not include a particular religion. I am not a Christian. I have too many issues with the Bible and it's teachings. My conscience rules my everyday life, not a system of rewards and punishments mapped out by a book. But my ego is not so large that I could completely rule out the possibilty that somewhere during my short time on Earth I and my morals have have not been influenced by religious teachings. And if you could be honest with your self, I think, you would come up with the same conclusion."
Ah, so the bit about the bible above is probably not directly relevant to you then, fine, can I then ask if you subscribe to any of the commonly accepted religious groupings? Or at least, if you have a source for the deity (or deities) you believe in, an analog for the christian bible? As for my morality being influenced by religious teachings, it is my view that those religious teachings are a result of evolutionary pressures and do not (and did not) require religion to allow their expression. And for me it comes back to the question above about picking and choosing....if I should give religion credit for a moral position such as "do no harm" then on what basis do I make a decision that another of its moral positions such as "slavery is acceptable" is wrong?
Melissa said: "We live in a huge world full of so much we do not understand. So to jump to the conclusion that since you don't need faith and religion neither does any one else is naive. And to attack someone's assumed faith is (although clever) very judgmental and small. "
Can you please show me where you feel I have jumped to the conclusion you ascribe to me? It is also disingenuous since you make a blanket assertion that "Simply that it[religion] is NEEDED."
This notion that I am attacking your faith is also something that has been discussed before. I have asked you questions, relatively politely I feel, about your position on that faith (and whether it is the one I assumed or a different one is irrelevant, I would ask the same questions of another faith. I only assumed one in order to try and make my questions more specific), and those questions are taken to be an "attack". If we were discussing anything else, politics, music, books, whatever, would you similarly feel you were being "attacked"? Religion does not hold a privileged position in discourse, it is as open to questioning as any other subject. And, just as with any other subject, when discussing this particular subject it is not unreasonable to expect people to be able to support their position. That does not mean "prove god exists" btw, it simply means you should be able to discuss rationally why you have come to a particular position.
Sheila wrote: "I think religion is important in life."What is it you feel religion gives us that is unique to religion?
Shannon wrote: "There actually are rogue waves. Proven now and everything"And how were they proven?
Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "There actually are rogue waves. Proven now and everything"
And how were they proven?"
Well, I could answer that in two ways. Both would be accurate.
First, people over the last several years have witnessed such waves. And, given the numbers of people and, perhaps, given their technology, they weren't all dismissed as liars and drunkards.
Phew!
It must be rather frustrating and sad to be labeled a liar and a drunkard if you're not.
Second, recordings and whatnot were made at a platform. I can't remember the name of the platform or where it was and I can't testify to the whatnot. However, I think it was scientific in variety. I also think the platform might have been in or near the Arctic.
I was also reading about sunken cities in the Mediterranean this weekend. For many years, they were thought to be the stuff of literature. Mere legend. But, they were discovered around 10-14 years ago. Off the coast of Egypt, if I recall correctly. Reminded me of Troy.
Makes one wonder. How many people are labeled as naive, at best, and delusional, at worst, but are on the up-and-up regarding what they say they know?
And how were they proven?"
Well, I could answer that in two ways. Both would be accurate.
First, people over the last several years have witnessed such waves. And, given the numbers of people and, perhaps, given their technology, they weren't all dismissed as liars and drunkards.
Phew!
It must be rather frustrating and sad to be labeled a liar and a drunkard if you're not.
Second, recordings and whatnot were made at a platform. I can't remember the name of the platform or where it was and I can't testify to the whatnot. However, I think it was scientific in variety. I also think the platform might have been in or near the Arctic.
I was also reading about sunken cities in the Mediterranean this weekend. For many years, they were thought to be the stuff of literature. Mere legend. But, they were discovered around 10-14 years ago. Off the coast of Egypt, if I recall correctly. Reminded me of Troy.
Makes one wonder. How many people are labeled as naive, at best, and delusional, at worst, but are on the up-and-up regarding what they say they know?
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...
Well the comments so far seemed to be directed at my ideas and yet be common issues with any democratic system?
Do you think that choosing representatives on merits is a bad idea? Do you think that politicians should perhaps understand or seek the understanding of things that they are called to decide on?
I never said that this should be a limited pool of people, or that non-scientists or non-educated people couldn't be elected, or they should be all male or all white which is why it seemed to me to be an attack.
If that wasn't intentional fair enough, but I would prefer to discuss what I said, not what could be implied with certain other assumptions.