an essay

[Dudde]

is what I'm doing. this probably belongs in homework help because it's homework, but it's further down than this. SO.

 

do you guys think the American population should have the influence that it does on the way scientific research and/or methods are practiced?

 

trying to get some input here since I'm supposed to have my topic picked two weeks ago.... it's for an argumentative essay for english...

 

personally, I think the influence should be lessened greatly, people who can't look further than the next week or so and don't understand what they're viewing have no place in saying what's what

[AO_champion]

I like this topic, in all honesty. Why hasn't anybody posted on it? No, the American people should not have the influence that they do on scientific methods and practice... I suppose when it comes down to it, people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of scientific methods, but it's very key that if you're going to say that science is important, at least you should have consistant standards for what you accept as scientific...

 

It shouldn't sway and change with popular opinion... it shouldn't adjust to who pays your check or what the friends you hang out with think about the world. But it is... and it does...

 

How evidence of anything today is interpretted is completely revolving around the presuppositions that people approach that evidence with. It's all a matter of opinions and whatnot with quite a few issues. Evolution, for instance... There's overwhelming evidence that the whole theory of is flawed... and yet when people (scientists, for the most part) are presented with this evidence, they explain it away so that they can keep supporting the theory they want to believe in.

 

I can give a great for instance.... Creation vs. Evolution: The majority of Americans and "scientists" want to believe that it took billions of years for everything to form... this makes it easy past mentioning to dismiss the Bible as just some book which they don't have to follow or even pay attention to. But... even though there are so very many flaws in the theory of evolution, we still teach it as scientific fact in all our public schools... teaching generation after generation that there is no Creator God which they have to obey. We cling to the idea that government funded schools are not the domain of religion, and yet we are blind to the fact that we teach a religion in every science textbook around... we teach an atheist, anti-God religion that is centered on man being the highest authority in the universe. Even if you don't want to believe in God... even if you don't want to think that there is an intelligent designer, you must at least accept that it is not only foolish, it's downright destructive what we do in our public schools.... basically attacking the very foundations of the country to which we teach them! There is no respect for any law past the respect that people have for the prison sentence or the hefty fine they might be subject to if they break it. They don't believe that there really is any right or wrong in this country... or the world, for that matter. They have no respect for anything you teach them... and you want to know why? Because you yourself have no authority. By taking away the foundation of common morality on which this country used to stand, you've totally thrown out that there is anything right or wrong past what you tell those kids. And why should they listen to you? You know just as much, if not less, than they do about morality. Sure, you could site me the works of lots of ethical philosophers, but they don't really have any authority either, now do they?

And whenever somebody brings up the idea of teaching alternative sciences or creative design, they're immediately shut down. Why? Because it would look unprofessional and unscientific to entertain such "Puritanical" ideals and to offer them up to school children. The fear of looking uneducated or unprofessional has gripped ahold of so many people who might otherwise criticize evolutionary dogma. They are so afraid of truly questioning it that they resign themselves to being taught it.... they run around preaching the good news of "science." Why? Not because they actually can put any real faith in it (which is precisely what a good deal of those theories take, faith), they espouse seemingly great theories so that they can appear to be intelligent... Oh, if I could tell you the number of kids my age I've talked to about this stuff.... They don't have any faith in a God... they only hear the religion of science, which they don't have any faith in either, I might add. But they choose to go along with what they are told is science because it is what is popularly accepted as true. True science would encourage more criticism and scrutiny and would admit more openly the flaws in it's theories. True science would start with admitting that most of what is taught in high school textbooks is so out of date and unreliable. True science would start by letting it be known that some of the stuff that people are espousing as fact, is only theory, and loosely based theory, at that!

[Sayonara]

I think Dudde was looking to hear about the arguments for and against, rather than trying to provide a soap-box for random religious rantings.

 

I like the phrase "evolutionary dogma", it's a delicious irony. Since you will not be aware of the actual extent of evidence for the evolutionary theory groups, and in fact don't know how to identify valid evidence and therefore don't realise that there is none whatsoever for the christian god, I won't try to explain why.

[Skye]

I think the public has little to do with the decision making as it is. They elect representatives to make broad decisions on their behalf, but since science doesn't usually rate as an election issue there's little public influence, only in areas of intense ethical debate..

[atinymonkey]

AO_champion actually provided a good example for the essay. Everyone has an agenda of some kind or another, so the more open the research methods are to the American population them more they will be restricted. Of course, an independent body in control of the decisions would be introverted and isolated (not to mention sinister). So there has to be a balance between the two. So then you do an analysis of the current involvement to show whether or not it’s at the correct level.

[Dudde]

true, but the American public doesn't have to directly influence things like that, merely the fact that millions of people think something is inhumane or cruel is enough to stop any scientific or medical research, no matter what the eventual outcomes could lead to

 

and yes, I'm still open to any topic for this essay;) just debate about something dangit

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by AO_champion

 

1. Do you know anything about the scientific method?

 

2. Do you know that evolution DOES exist, at it's most basic level as a mere logical consequence of random variations in characteristics?

 

3. Do you realise that science is all about choosing for yourself, finding the path that has the most evidence?

 

4. Do you realise that (on a creationist website that most of the other one's I've seen have linked to) most of the 20 or so 'flaws in evolution' were explained in my geography class when I was 9, as a part of the national curriculum?

[Dudde]

now that we've dropped some of the dead weight and regained some of the betters, I still need stuff mans!! (and lady)

 

at least some examples or links would be very helpful eh;)

[uscphysics]

Dudde- "people who can't look further than the next week or so and don't understand what they're viewing have no place in saying what's what"

This type of stance could also be easily used to debate whether the common person should have the right to vote unless they are educated (which they should be) in the ins and outs of all the political platforms.

 

 

Well I think they should have some control over the type of research done only because many of the grants issued is from the taxpayer. I think this is controlled by their election of representatives though. So in conclusion, the American People do and have a right to speak about what type of research is done.

 

As far as the Scientific Method of research, I believe this is very established and does not interfere -sp with any concerns of the general populus -sp. The actual way the Scientific Method is carried out could be debated and is by Congressman, the people's mouthpiece.

[Sayonara]

People don't pay taxes so that they can pick and choose the experiments they'd like to see Professor Frink conduct this week, they pay taxes so that more informed people will decide what research the country needs.

[Skye]

>>>"(and lady)"

Err dudde, I'm dude, don't let the girly name confuse you. The lipstick and heels are inexcusable though, I admit.

 

>>> "true, but the American public doesn't have to directly influence things like that, merely the fact that millions of people think something is inhumane or cruel is enough to stop any scientific or medical research, no matter what the eventual outcomes could lead to"

 

Personally, I'll accept some contraints in order to have some say over what other people do.

[Dudde]

I wasn't referring to you skye;) don't worry

 

and I wasn't talking about restricting all influence over them completely, of course America wouldn't be America without the people exercising control over everything, which isn't a bad way to work

 

what I'm talking about is the fact that there are many science practices or research that have been stopped or never started because the american public thinks it is either immoral or useless

 

some dude in english class gave a good example yesterday when we were all talking about dead people (some people are just too dang weak) when he said that we should be using dead bodies as things such as fertilizer and/or organ research for the newly dead, but can't because the people respect their dead:-p

[uscphysics]

Ok yeah, I agree with you. If I die I would want to donate my body for research, even if I had some terminal disease and little time left, I would be willing to try experimental drugs to helo research.

 

-Well I did say that the people do elect representatives to take care of such issues, so people do have a say inthis

[atinymonkey]

Dudde said in post #12 :

some dude in english class gave a good example yesterday when we were all talking about dead people (some people are just too dang weak) when he said that we should be using dead bodies as things such as fertilizer and/or organ research for the newly dead, but can't because the people respect their dead:-p

 

I forget, isn't there a guy in Florida who keeps corpses in a big yard to see the effect of decomposition in differing environments? I read an article on him once, full glossy magazine pictures.

 

Why not write a paper based around off the wall research? What happens without control in the research area?When the scientist gets a grant and is let loose Professor Frink style in a Laboratory. We had a team that was given £3 million to find out why Cornflakes go soggy. Surely that’s a lack of control? Plus, it would be fun to read.

 

If you can keep the person reading it interested they are bound to mark it more favourably. Maybe. Sort of.

[Dudde]

well the thing is, it's supposed to be an argumentative essay, so I have to argue something. though I guess I could write something like that....

 

she's gotten enough humor out of me already I think;) except not yet, because I still have to write a cause and effect essay on what would happen if aliens let loose an electromagnetic pulse around the earth

[atinymonkey]

Lol Aliens, yay!

 

 

I forgot it was an argumentative essay. I'm having a dumb day.

[Loki]

As of now, I don't think that the American populus even has a controllable, direct say on what research is done (do they?). Dudde, you said that the influence should be lessened greatly, implying that the American population does have a pretty big say in the situation. Is this just generally speaking, or am I missing something?

 

Anyway, I do agree with you Dudde. (And just because AO_champion is here). Just think of what would happen to fossil research that furthers our understanding of the evolutionary theory if our overwhelmingly religous population had their say. Sorry, I didn't say that. But really tho... nevermind--

 

See ya!

[T_FLeX]

No the American population should have very little influence on how research, or methods are conducted. If the research does not hurt or effect them in any way they should have no say what so ever. In my experience most people that are not interested in science know very little about the current research methods, they had no say before why should they now. The truth is no one would even care, if it wasn't for some religious bozo complaining about the dangers of playing God.

[Dudde]

people do not have a DIRECT influence to speak of exactly, however, when there are a hundred million people threatening to vote for someone else and you're a politician, you make sure the government is funding things to make them go your way;)

 

maybe the general population should be required to know at least just a little about science

[Dudde]

okay okay okay...seriously

 

since you guys are the smartest people I know (I go to an art school eh)

anyone mind if I post it up here?(excusing the obvious gaping holes in factual information in the two examples, I was hard pressed for time so I made up something that sounded logical for a teacher since I forgot all that stuff....it's been a long time:( I'm in the process of getting it right as we speak)