JustStuit Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Do you arrive at that conclusion based on personal experience or did you just pluck it out of thin air? Yes. I get arrested for false resume submission every other week.
pcs Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Yes. I get arrested for false resume submission every other week. I should rephrase. Do you base your conclusions about the habits and motives of people dispatching and handling resumes based on long experience, or did you just pluck them out of thin air?
JustStuit Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Hmm...lets think about this. A resume contains the credentials and reasons which you think should get you the job. If you are accepted by false information, should you not tell anyone? I cannot say I have studied people handling resumes.... The average bear can remember whether or not they completed college.
pcs Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Hmm...lets think about this. A resume contains the credentials and reasons which you think should get you the job. A cover letter usually covers the latter part. If you are accepted by false information, should you not tell anyone? We all know what fraud is. The question is whether or not it happened here. Remember, this guy is a political appointee who'd already spent 2003 and 2004 working with the Bush-Cheney and Reelect the President campaigns. You have no idea whether his resume was even a consideration when he was offered the job, or if it were whether his status at Texas A&M was known to his employers, or if he were aware that his resume was not up to date. The first two assumptions are your weakest; I'm pretty sure you have no experience with the political appointment process. I cannot say I have studied people handling resumes.... The average bear can remember whether or not they completed college. I'm not even sure Yogi did, and he was smarter than your average bear if you remember. The question is whether there is a plausible way to reconcile the fact that Deutsch obviously hadn't graduated and his claim that the resume was unintentionally inaccurate. You can assume the least generous spin if it suits you, I just want to know whether or not that assumption stems from some respectable personal experience of yours or some hard \evidence.
JustStuit Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 The reason is that I think people lie too often. People lie to me and I see peopl lieing all the time.
pcs Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 The reason is that I think people lie too often. People lie to me and I see peopl lieing all the time. Have you considered that the experience of billions of people other than yourself may not be characterized in such emo'ish terms? Maybe a little cynicism is healthy, but that statement of yours is just loaded with baggage. I don't want to touch that with a ten foot pole, so could we please step out of that box and look at the issue dispassionately? I mean, this guy just lost his job in the face of an entire nation for nothing other than making a suggestion about how a piece of NASA edutainment is worded. And given the flap over his resume he may find it difficult if not impossible to find work in journalism; so that's countless thousands in college investment down the tubes. So why kick the guy while he's down?
pcs Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 It is human nature to lie. Deja vu. I'd tell you the story but it's a bit personal and irrelevant. Let's just say that it's also human nature to eat, piss and sleep, three among many things I bet gets more of our time than lying could ever aspire to. Hell, out of a 168 hours I doubt even you've been lied to for more than 24 of'em. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case God help us all. So why don't you consider the possibility that while Deutsch is human--and therefore, in your mind, a liar--it might be a little disingenuous to attach that as his defining characteristics.
padren Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Is that the new secularist strategy? Hope the other side gives up? If the "other side" is arguing in favor of a flat Earth, a 5000 year old IDed Earth, co-existance of dinos and humans....I'd say then yes. Since you cannot use logic to defeat these arguers (anyone who argues for a flat earth etc has already long since been immunized against logic and rational thought) the best you can do is let them marginalize themselves into oblivion or give up. Most Christian sects gave up on the flat earth model so they could continue to appear relevant, while others marginalized themselves out of existance. In all likelihood they will give up "young IDed earth" too the same way and for the same reasons, given enough time. It won't be logical arguments that do it though, it will be a need to maintain appeal to a base of followers.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 If the "other side" is arguing in favor of a flat Earth, a 5000 year old IDed Earth, co-existance of dinos and humans....I'd say then yes. Since you cannot use logic to defeat these arguers (anyone who argues for a flat earth etc has already long since been immunized against logic and rational thought) the best you can do is let them marginalize themselves into oblivion or give up. Recently addressed in another thread. I think you're confusing empiricism with logic. That is unless reasoning absent or contrary to empirical evidence fundamentally irrational, in which case that's a bit more of a leap than I'm willing to take without further discussion. And what about the qualitative difference between Flat Earth and ID/YEC? Flat Earth requires the denial of presently available empirical evidence (or at least an extreme parochialism and conspiratorial doubt over the intellectual honesty of astronauts, merchentmen and airline pilots). ID/YEC disputes the explanatory power of certain science regarding unobservable events and conditions. Most Christian sects gave up on the flat earth model so they could continue to appear relevant, while others marginalized themselves out of existance. What historical evidence is there of any Christian sect of note subscribing to a flat earth model? In all likelihood they will give up "young IDed earth" too the same way and for the same reasons, given enough time. Absent inventing time travel, I think the challenge of expunging ID as a credible public intellectualism will be somewhat different from that of debunking Flat Earth. It won't be logical arguments that do it though, it will be a need to maintain appeal to a base of followers. Check out Destroy All Monsters. Lay out your plan.
ydoaPs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 And what about the qualitative difference between Flat Earth and ID/YEC? Flat Earth requires the denial of presently available empirical evidence (or at least an extreme parochialism and conspiratorial doubt over the intellectual honesty of astronauts, merchentmen and airline pilots). ID/YEC disputes the explanatory power of certain science regarding unobservable events and conditions.are you sure you've been to talk origins? What historical evidence is there of any Christian sect of note subscribing to a flat earth model?is the catholic church of note? Absent inventing time travel, I think the challenge of expunging ID as a credible public intellectualism will be somewhat different from that of debunking Flat Earth.ID is religion. it is not and never will be science.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 are you sure you've been to talk origins? Yes. is the catholic church of note? Sure. When was the Catholic Church behind FE? ID is religion. it is not and never will be science. Well that was an interesting non sequitur, but I commend you for your enthusiasm.
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 The other side can't seem to do anything more than refute our statements. Maybe if they posted more on their opinions. ;)
ydoaPs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Sure. When was the Catholic Church behind FE?are you serious?
padren Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Recently addressed in another thread. I think you're confusing empiricism with logic. That is unless reasoning absent or contrary to empirical evidence fundamentally irrational' date=' in which case that's a bit more of a leap than I'm willing to take without further discussion. And what about the qualitative difference between Flat Earth and ID/YEC? Flat Earth requires the denial of presently available empirical evidence (or at least an extreme parochialism and conspiratorial doubt over the intellectual honesty of astronauts, merchentmen and airline pilots). ID/YEC disputes the explanatory power of certain science regarding unobservable events and conditions.[/quote'] With the sheer amount of emperical data collected from many different scientific disciplines ID/YEC is not a rational belief. Aside from that, ID/YEC doesn't even have anything to do with how accurate evolution is or is not. No amount of criticism of evolution or the age of the earth could ever actually build merit in favor of ID/YEC. For Evolution to be sound, ID/YEC cannot be. Hence, ID/YEC has been considered dead for some time, as dead as geocentrism. So even if everything we know about evolution and geology turned out to be disproven, it would at most leave ID/YEC as no longer having points against due to that evidence, but that still leaves it hovering right around zero points in favor. However, it is actually more likely that our theories about electicity that allow us to build computers and store digital data are dead wrong than it is that our estimates about the age of the world or the general evolution of species are wrong. What historical evidence is there of any Christian sect of note subscribing to a flat earth model? Absent inventing time travel' date=' I think the challenge of expunging ID as a credible public intellectualism will be somewhat different from that of debunking Flat Earth. [/quote'] A few saints and such were pro-flatters, but I got my wires crossed sorry, it was Geocentrism (sun goes around the earth) that many sects of Christianity had to give up to remain relevant. Check out Destroy All Monsters. Lay out your plan. I don't need a plan. IDies will marginalize themselves out of existance all on their own or adapt and cease to be IDies.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 With the sheer amount of emperical data collected from many different scientific disciplines ID/YEC is not a rational belief. This is an argument from incredulity--"it is inconceivable that something so utterly supported empirically, even if indirectly, can be wrong." It's the flip side to a creationist arguing that the absence of direct observational evidence disproves theory. And both are examples of why theory is falsified only by evidence, not by a value judgement pertaining to relative parsimony. Aside from that, ID/YEC doesn't even have anything to do with how accurate evolution is or is not. Exactly, just as evolution has nothing to do with how accurate ID/YEC are. No amount of criticism of evolution or the age of the earth could ever actually build merit in favor of ID/YEC. And I'm sure you'll find a strawman to argue that with you. For Evolution to be sound, ID/YEC cannot be... I don't think we'd agree here at all, and even so the following... ...[h]ence, ID/YEC has been considered dead for some time, as dead as geocentrism. ....doesn't necessarily follow and is actually incorrect factually. Polling definitely shows that in the United States at least belief in ID is on the same order of magnitude as disbelief. I don't have the polling on geocentrism, but either it's as popular as both ID and evolution or its not and the above just doesn't hold. However, it is actually more likely that our theories about electicity that allow us to build computers and store digital data are dead wrong than it is that our estimates about the age of the world or the general evolution of species are wrong. This came out of left field, but please tell me what sort of Bayesian inference leads you to believe that electrical science, which is represented fully within an observable context, is less likely to be correct than theories which invest explanatory power into the unobservable? A few saints and such were pro-flatters, but I got my wires crossed sorry, it was Geocentrism (sun goes around the earth) that many sects of Christianity had to give up to remain relevant. Presumably around the same time the Church innovated what we in modern times know as science. I don't need a plan. IDies will marginalize themselves out of existance all on their own or adapt and cease to be IDies. I've already demolished your reasoning for why you think that will happen. So will you now hold to this on faith?
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 are you serious? Are you in the habit of believing things without requisite evidence? Not a very strong position for someone with your views.
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 I don't think the average American citizen knows bull about ID and many of them are conformists looking for a group. The majority of them unknowledgable.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 The other side can't seem to do anything more than refute our statements. Maybe if they posted more on their opinions. ;) Well, they can get elected to legislatures, governorships, school boards and even the Presidency. They can appoint judges, regents, and they can move on an agenda to remake science education to their liking or undermine it in ways that achieve the dual objectives of breaking the secularist grip on academia while reducing the public cost of education. Oh, and they can probably do other things as well.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 dude, it's called common knowledge. Like Santa Claus?
Aardvark Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 If science and truth are a matter of opinion polls then lay out the red carpet for the grey aliens with their probes. And be sure to be careful for all the ghosts around.
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 It is common knowledge Santa is fake. So I assume you're actually agreeing with us. Unless your backing up your claim by saying that children under 10 agree with you.
ydoaPs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Well, they can get elected to legislatures, governorships, school boards and even the Presidency. They can appoint judges, regents, and they can move on an agenda to remake science education to their liking or undermine it in ways that achieve the dual objectives of breaking the secularist grip on academia while reducing the public cost of education. Oh, and they can probably do other things as well. that's the problem with democracy. the average voter is a moron. that means half of them are worse.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 I don't think the average American citizen knows bull about ID and many of them are conformists looking for a group. The majority of them unknowledgable. There is a hypothesis that populations tend to score high on RWA, and you definitely have your own hypothesis there about the role conformity to group norms plays in our political, social and religious choices. It also belabors the point to note most people regardless of their nationality do not receive a college level education period, let alone one in the life sciences, philosophy or religion. So wouldn't your hypothesis also predict that Europeans are generally more secular for the same reasons?
Recommended Posts