Page 3 of 5 [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

02 May 2011, 8:27 am

leejosepho wrote:
"Evolution", as I see it, and as opposed to the observable matter of evolution, is a dogma. And so if some kind of similar "'gravity' dogma" were being presented as "No 'God' needed, therefore 'God' likely does not even exist", then yes, I would be opposed to having to help pay for having any such indoctrination being imposed upon all otherwise-yet-to-learn-to-think-for-themselves young (or even older) minds.


Evolution, even including macroevolution or common descent, does NOT say "No 'God' needed, therefore 'God' likely does not exist." I agree that if any scientist or teacher says otherwise, then they are mixing up science and religion and I might add, doing poorly at representing both.

So, as long as the science teachers teach evolution as the fact it is, including the fact of common descent (e.g., that man and monkeys are biological cousins with a common ancestor), but don't say anything to imply or explicitly state that fact means God doesn't exist, you're okay with that, right?


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 02 May 2011, 8:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 May 2011, 8:35 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
"Evolution", as I see it, and as opposed to the observable matter of evolution, is a dogma. And so if some kind of similar "'gravity' dogma" were being presented as "No 'God' needed, therefore 'God' likely does not even exist", then yes, I would be opposed to having to help pay for having any such indoctrination being imposed upon all otherwise-yet-to-learn-to-think-for-themselves young (or even older) minds.


Evolution, even including macroevolution or common descent, does NOT say "No 'God' needed, therefore 'God' likely does not exist." I agree that if any scientist or teacher says otherwise, then they are mixing up science and religion and I might add, doing poorly at representing both.

So, as long as they teach evolution as the fact it is, including the fact of common descent (e.g., that man and monkeys are biological cousins with a common ancestor), but don't say anything to imply that means God doesn't exist, you're okay with that, right?

Yes, close enough ... at least for as long as I do not have to then begin sitting and picking lice out of other people's hair ... :roll:


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 9:22 am

There is no possible harm in "teaching" that genetically humans are primates quite close to chimps, or that Muslims believe in a Divine Entity witgh certain attributes.

But why waste school time on passing along trivia available in any encyclopaedia?



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

02 May 2011, 9:27 am

Philologos wrote:
There is no possible harm in "teaching" that genetically humans are primates quite close to chimps, or that Muslims believe in a Divine Entity witgh certain attributes.

But why waste school time on passing along trivia available in any encyclopaedia?


Certain amounts of trivia are needed, and theories raise certain questions in anyone. If I was just taught evolutionary theory, my first question would be; did humans evolve? how. It's worth putting that information into a course. Of course, I hate the whole "MCQ trivia" as much as anyone else (I have a test in two days on Botany, which will largely be about the different pigments of plants), and I wish there was more theory, less fact (in the strict, scientific sense), but I think that there is a good amount of fact needed to understand a subject.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 May 2011, 12:21 pm

Philologos wrote:
You - for whatever reason - seem to feel that if I disagree with Group A's consensus [differing with the psychosocial folk on what might be abusive, for example], that is not good, and if I also reject Group B's consensus [taking a view of God that cannot be supported from any mainstream theology] this is plain bad.

Well.... yeah. In both cases, the underlying issue is method. A is using a good method given the assumptions. B is using a good method using the assumptions. You don't seem to have anything nearly as solid on your method though, which is why the suggestion of projection is presented. If your notion of God were unorthodox, but found using a historical method and/or philosophical analysis of some form, y'know, a good justification structure, then that's fine. But.... often status quos are justified, meaning they get the presumption.

Quote:
I - for better or worse - have always trusted my own perceptions and my own conclusions as more reliable than the group. Doubting Thomas - I gotta see and decide for myself.

But you have to have evidence, and the evidence has gotta be good.

Quote:
You - for better or worse - and I do not know if it is innate or if it is an acquired habit of thought - I myself learned patterns closer to yours in my teens and maintained them at least in part through my 30s - appear to assume that the theories and perceptions of a peer-reviewing discipline are likely to be more reliable than those of any individual.

Well.... yes. And this is often a sensible assumption. Even further, you... don't seem to focus or use much method.

Quote:
Of course either group or individual; may be wrong. It is highly probable that in many respects both are.
But we gotta look at method.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 1:02 pm

I got it method. But hey, I been around a few years, and I ride the bicycle mostly off trained reflexes, so the grinding gears of the method do not show as much.

I used to teach babystep linguistics, passing on cookbook techniques that WILL get a you a little bit into the language. You can do that - SIL does that pretty largely and generally successfully

But where I want my students to end up is having most of that down at the level of intuition.

-----------------

And, atr the risk of seeming repetitive, everybody: between books and the world, the facts are there if you have grasped method and achieved understanding. If you do not - facts are no use without a scorecard.

Even vision is useless unless the brain hazs been trained to interpret and analyze.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 May 2011, 1:11 pm

Philologos wrote:
Between books and the world, the facts are there if you have grasped method and achieved understanding. If you do not - facts are no use without a scorecard.

Even vision is useless unless the brain has been trained to interpret and analyze.

I have just added that to my own little stash of clips-n-quotes, and you will get the credit for it whenever I use it ... or at least until such time as I might become able to recite it from rote memory!


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 3:27 pm

My lawyers will contact you about royalties.

Or wait till I am public domain?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

02 May 2011, 4:05 pm

why did a thread about teaching religion get tracked into a debate about evolution?

*sigh*



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

02 May 2011, 4:17 pm

because they in some places apearantly are mutually exclusive?
if not by actual lack of teaching then by the ideology of the school or teacher involved?


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 May 2011, 6:07 pm

Philologos wrote:
I got it method. But hey, I been around a few years, and I ride the bicycle mostly off trained reflexes, so the grinding gears of the method do not show as much.

If you want to discuss something though, method is often more important than results. A lot of my criticisms are based upon what I perceive as bad method. A lot of discussions get very method-heavy as well because debates often go back to "Well, how'd you get *that* answer!?". And the point of clarification isn't noticing that an answer disagrees, but rather why it disagrees and how this disagreeing answer could be valid, or showing that it really isn't.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 7:28 pm

LKL wrote:
why did a thread about teaching religion get tracked into a debate about evolution?

*sigh*


Who's debating evolution?

I been talking the whole time about the appropriate nsature ad purpose and content and stylr of education.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 7:35 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Philologos wrote:
I got it method. But hey, I been around a few years, and I ride the bicycle mostly off trained reflexes, so the grinding gears of the method do not show as much.

If you want to discuss something though, method is often more important than results. A lot of my criticisms are based upon what I perceive as bad method. A lot of discussions get very method-heavy as well because debates often go back to "Well, how'd you get *that* answer!?". And the point of clarification isn't noticing that an answer disagrees, but rather why it disagrees and how this disagreeing answer could be valid, or showing that it really isn't.


Different emphases - not much I can do about it. Come across this before.

If you are writing up a paper:

Do you state your conclusion and then explain how you got trhere?

Or do you give data, work through analysis, and then list your conclusion?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 May 2011, 8:43 pm

Philologos wrote:
Different emphases - not much I can do about it. Come across this before.

If you are writing up a paper:

Do you state your conclusion and then explain how you got trhere?

Or do you give data, work through analysis, and then list your conclusion?

Oh, the problem is that I think your analysis is poor. I think your rhetoric sucks too, and maybe your bad rhetoric makes the analysis hard to find or difficult to put in its place, but the difficulty seems apparent.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 11:14 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Philologos wrote:
Different emphases - not much I can do about it. Come across this before.

If you are writing up a paper:

Do you state your conclusion and then explain how you got trhere?

Or do you give data, work through analysis, and then list your conclusion?

Oh, the problem is that I think your analysis is poor. I think your rhetoric sucks too, and maybe your bad rhetoric makes the analysis hard to find or difficult to put in its place, but the difficulty seems apparent.


0 points - the candidate's response did not address the question.

I would still be interested to know?

As for the rest - already noted that we process and speak differently. By me is your style either too slangy or too "show your work", so that I cannot always wade through the formalism enough to find the point. But different strokes for different folks is what makes horse races; I can no other nore likely can you.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 May 2011, 11:31 pm

Philologos wrote:
0 points - the candidate's response did not address the question.

I would still be interested to know?

As for the rest - already noted that we process and speak differently. By me is your style either too slangy or too "show your work", so that I cannot always wade through the formalism enough to find the point. But different strokes for different folks is what makes horse races; I can no other nore likely can you.

The question was a non sequitur given the matter at hand. I dismissed it as irrelevant. That being said, I usually prefer process first, then result as a presenting method.

In any case, the formalism is central to a point... oy... I get the feeling that your last dismissal is a statement that you have no desire to go anywhere on this...