Aardvark 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. They can do all that, but they still can't alter scientific fact. Scientific laws are not subject to repeal by humans, however many votes they get.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 that's the problem with democracy. the average voter is a moron. that means half of them are worse. I don't think bitching about it amounts to facing your problems. They can do all that, but they still can't alter scientific fact. I'm pretty sure the Wedge Document authors, at the very least, have a very different definition of science than you do. And he who controls the universities wins. Scientific laws are not subject to repeal by humans, however many votes they get. Science education, on the other hand, is. It is common knowledge Santa is fake. To certain groups, as you point out mostly over 10. So I assume you're actually agreeing with us. You should no better than that.
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 I'm pretty sure the Wedge Document authors' date=' at the very least, have a very different definition of science than you do. And he who controls the universities wins. Science education, on the other hand, is.[/quote'] Which does not make it any more true.
pcs 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. We can save truth and justification for Philosophy. On the other hand, science education, to beat a dead horse, is a policy question.
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 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? I know nothing of the European nations as I have never been there nor studied it.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Which does not make it any more true. Or false. I know nothing of the European nations as I have never been there nor studied it. Well, something new for you to investigate.
Aardvark Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 I'm pretty sure the Wedge Document authors, at the very least, have a very different definition of science than you do. Science is about understanding objective facts about how the universe works. Care to dispute that? And he who controls the universities wins. Nope, he who is right wins. That's the great thing about science, it's ultimately about facts. Science education, on the other hand, is. In the end science education has to come back to science, and that's about objective fact, fixed, immutuable laws of science. Any attempt to get away from that is going to quickly fail.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Science is about understanding objective facts about how the universe works. Care to dispute that? Tell you what. Here's some homework for you. Go through SFN's archives and catalogue a good size sample of answers to that very question. Pay particular attention to when the question was asked in direct response to a point on policy in this forum. Then ask yourself if reading from a script is the best way to carry out a discussion. Nope, he who is right wins. The stakes and returns in that game are too low for my tastes. That's the great thing about science, it's ultimately about facts. Yippee. How you going to get others to see it your way? In the end science education has to come back to science, and that's about objective fact, fixed, immutuable laws of science. Any attempt to get away from that is going to quickly fail. Now you've finally stumbled into a policy discussion. Okay, you have a hypothesis; an education policy that deviates from the existing standard definition from science will not succeed (either in its aims or its longevity, you weren't exactly clear on that point). What does the literature say on this question? One of your better threads, PC, IMO. Wait until we get to the "defects in secularist political organization" discussion. If we get to it...
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Why can't you answer a question? You repeatably just tell people to do other stuff. I don't believe you've actually contributed many of your own thoughts, just asked people to prove more stuff.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Why can't you answer a question? You repeatably just tell people to do other stuff. I don't believe you've actually contributed many of your own thoughts, just asked people to prove more stuff. Because I'm an atheist who pretty much agrees with you. Except where it concerns silly things like y's folk belief in the Church espousing an FE theory and stuff like that.
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Oh I see. Strange but I guess better than watching tv
Aardvark Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Tell you what. Here's some homework for you. Go through SFN's archives and catalogue a good size sample of answers to that very question. Pay particular attention to when the question was asked in direct response to a point on policy[/i'] in this forum. Then ask yourself if reading from a script is the best way to carry out a discussion. Nice evasion there, unable to answer my point? Or do you seriously believe that science is not about objective fact? The stakes and returns in that game are too low for my tastes. Yes' date=' the returns of understanding how the universe and everything in it works. Small return obviously. Yippee. How you going to get others to see it your way? I don't need to do anything. It's the prevalent view amongst people with any form of scientific understanding. Now you've finally stumbled into a policy discussion. Okay, you have a hypothesis; an education policy that deviates from the existing standard definition from science will not succeed (either in its aims or its longevity, you weren't exactly clear on that point). What does the literature say on this question? Perhaps you would care to put forward any evidence at all for your odd assertions, or are you just going to continually move the goal posts? For your edification on the subject i suggest you check Lysenko and scientific education in the USSR. That could be your homework project. Have fun.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Nice evasion there... Strawman, argument from ignorance, equivocation, tu quoque! unable to answer my point? I think I did. Put down the script and read it. Or do you seriously believe that science is not about objective fact? You have all the information you need at your fingertips to answer that question. Yes, the returns of understanding how the universe and everything in it works. Small return obviously. Maybe not. If I were Hans Reinherdt, if SFN was the Cygnus, and if this thread were a big gaping Black Hole. I don't need to do anything. It's the prevalent view amongst people with any form of scientific understanding. Yes, because according to your hypothesis any attempt to alter that demographic is doomed to failure for some reason you've yet to explain. Perhaps you would care to put forward any evidence at all for your odd assertions, or are you just going to continually move the goal posts? Seriously, just because Sayonara said it doesn't mean you have to use the that 'goal posts' phrase every other post. For your edification on the subject i suggest you check Lysenko and scientific education in the USSR. That could be your homework project. Have fun. Your a few years too late. How do you make the leap from thirty years of Soviet-style graduate agriculture studies (and presumably one of many broader indictments of science and technical education in Communist countries) to the narrower aim of introducing supernatural dicta into the definition of science?
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Because I'm an atheist who pretty much agrees with you. Except where it concerns silly things like y's folk belief in the Church espousing an FE theory and stuff like that. So basically you're arguing for the sake of arguing since you don't even believe in the point you're trying to make.
ydoaPs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Seriously, just because Sayonara said it doesn't mean you have to use the that 'goal posts' phrase every other post. he's saying it because it's true
Pangloss Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 See here's the thing. Yeah it's annoying to have every little detail thrown back at you. It knocks you off course. Makes you struggle to remember what you were talking about. Make slip-ups and dumb mistakes. But it also makes you work harder to reach a conclusion. Because it's face it, "he's saying it because it's true" is hardly a definitive argument. Nor is simple contradiction. Or dismissing a group of people as morons. Some things are easy. Running a stable democracy isn't one of them. I expect serious citizens to step up to the plate. In my view, the flaws in our democracy lie, ultimately, at the foot of the inattentive, dismissive, and uninterested citizenry, ready to scoop up the most convenient "answers" from the next demogogue who happens by. Work harder.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 So basically you're arguing for the sake of arguing since you don't even believe in the point you're trying to make. No, I'm arguing because I don't believe the point you're trying to make. And neither should anyone, quite frankly. It's so poorly put together. he's saying it because it's true You take that on faith? You know, in my experience a good discussion consists of more than one or two line replies, so how about you and I dive into the meat of whatever the hell we were talking about yesterday.
ydoaPs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 You take that on faith? You know, in my experience a good discussion consists of more than one or two line replies, so how about you and I dive into the meat of whatever the hell we were talking about yesterday.no, i take it on facts. ffs, rtft
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 no, i take it on facts. ffs, rtft I'm not so sure you do. gsc, lmtr
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Because I'm an atheist who pretty much agrees with you. Except where it concerns silly things like y's folk belief in the Church espousing an FE theory and stuff like that. ....
JustStuit Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 It seems like you're arguing just to argue because you haven't posted any of your ideas - just argued. What is your view on people who lie on resumes. Unless you seriously believe it was a mistake.
pcs Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 It seems like you're arguing just to argue because you haven't posted any of your ideas - just argued. What is your view on people who lie on resumes. Unless you seriously believe it was a mistake. My view is you've alleged Deutsch's dishonesty without a factual and reasonable basis. I point to the absence of any evidence or valid reasoning on your part to establish your case. I'd go further to say that you're allegations stem entirely from a cynicism (it's human nature to lie) that quite frankly means we wouldn't get along IRL, but that's my own personal view.
Recommended Posts