RoR: Forum

Robert

Jason, even Objectivists can fall prey to public education

excellent

Post 41

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 2:36pm

Jason,

You are correct here but that doesn't mean that all other "opinions" deserve equal time -- or any time at all in science courses. Evolution theories are based upon valid knowledge. It is BY FAR the best theory we have that is based upon real perceptually verified evidence.

"By far the best" perhaps, but by your reasoning, we are unlikely to have any others.

Post 42

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 2:39pm

Dean,

There's always that qualifier when it comes to anthopology: current understanding.

You'd be amazed, if you would take the time to bother to know what was accepted belief in 1940, 1950, 1960, etc. AMAZED.

Post 43

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 2:55pm

Robert Davison,

"
You are always the most fun to answer because of your glorious self-righteous evaluation of the quality of your education and the brilliance of your mind."

I admit to being amused by this comment. : )

I think the word that describes you to me the best is "dilettante". You collect ideas the way an amateur collects butterflies. If they're colorful or somehow strike you as unique in some way they have equal value to you. You enjoy the drama of "big ideas" playing off of each other and you take offence when someone tries to take one of your "big ideas" off of the playing field. You also enjoy being argumentative for it's own sake as I've demonstrated to you before. What you don't seem to get is what is behind these "big ideas". Facts are the underpinning behind the principles that make up the "big ideas". A demonstrated lack of correspondence to facts is the reason that some ideas fail and are taken off of the playing field and why other ideas are still in the game. All "big ideas" are not equal when it comes to correspondence to facts even if they have great dramatic appeal to you. And the personal histories and personalities of the various people involved in discovering these facts has nothing to do with the rightness of wrongness of these facts. In fact, reality and the universe doesn't give a rats ass what any of us from now until the death of the sun think of it. It is what it is. And the only opinions worth a shit about reality, as far as I'm concerned, are the people that deal with the facts of reality on a day to day basis, including and especially the scientists busy improving our knowledge of nature every day. I don't give a shit about what you drama queens think about your "big ideas" or whether you respect the people who have worked hard to learn the scientific principles and mathematical tools required to understand the workings of the universe. It's not easy, not many people are willing and able to undertake it, the least you could do is show some respect. We owe the ease of our modern life to the people who respected the facts more than the accepted ideas of their time.

"That won�t change the �way� it will be taught, except that the amount of useless information may be decreased lightening the students load."

I'm amazed at this comment of yours as it contradicts what you've been saying for weeks. The anti-ID folks have been against teaching "ID" in schools as a waste of time teaching useless information, here you go now advocating decreasing the workload of future students by the same method. So I guess they'll be "smarter" in the future, but you don't respect the scientists of today so "why not?" as you would say, teach ID?

"Maxwell showed that a few relatively simple mathematical equations.."

I got my biggest laugh from this. Few EE students even take the rigorous classes on Maxwell's equations, not all of them make it through.

Post 44

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:02pm

Steve,

I suppose I will never understand your apathy on this issue. What would it take to get you concerned about education quality?

Returning from my first day of school, my mother asked me if I liked my teacher. My reply was, the teacher wasn't there, it was just some woman. I was very young, I don't know what I thought a teacher was, but I think I was right about the absence.

I have been concerned about government schools for 60 years, but until public education is no more, what can anyone do?

Everytime someone says to me we need more money for schools, I say bullshit. It doesn't seem to help, and after 40 years of leftist tinkering we're talking about a large pile of change.

The nation as a whole thinks government schools are benign; the sheeple believe that if anything is wrong, we just need to rearrange a few desks, And your hair is on fire over ID?

I do not care if they teach masterbation or astrology, I care that they teach.

Post 45

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:20pm

Marcus,

I think you are actually addressing a different question to the rest of us.

You are correct.

We are addressing whether or not ID is a scientific theory comparable in validity to evolution. It is not.

You are correct. But I want some alternative, even if it is nothing more than an honest look at some of the flaws of evolutionary theory as it is currently understood. I promise not to blush, even if anal probes by aliens get mentioned.

You are addressing the question whether or not a scientific theory should be treated unquestioningly as dogma. It shouldn't, we should always question our assumptions and reinterpret our understanding of theories based on new facts as they become known

.Thank you, no one else has been willing to say this.

However, there is nothing new about ID. It is neither novel, nor rational ;-)

You are correct.

Post 46

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:25pm

Mike,

Funny.

ID is not a big idea.

Post 47

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:07pm

Robert Davison -- Let me put this to you very very clearly.

You are trying to assert that ID deserves to be taught along side of evolution. I explained in my earlier posts that evolution is based upon perceptually verified evidence. Intelligent Design Theory attempts to assert that an intelligent designer is behind the developments that take place in reality. Evolution attempts to explain the process by which species, and ultimately humans have developed and it is a fairly successful explanation based upon the evidence we have. It is only a theory and it only attempts to explain the process by which species developed but it is based upon perceptually verified evidence and deserves consideration. The "original cause" of life will be an open question until there is perceptually verified evidence that leads to an answer. The reason that intelligent design DOES NOT deserve attention is because it begs the question. Since as yet there is ZERO evidence of the actual designer then we must at this point decide that the entire theory deserves to be ignored. This is true no matter how complex intelligent design "theory" may be. This is not a matter of opinion, and it is not a matter of being "ritualistic". It is simply a matter of applying logic and epistemological guidlines to a specific context and eliminating the arbitrary from consideration. If you do not understand this then Adam is right and you need to review ITOE. If you do understand it and you still think that ID is worthy of consideration then you are guilty of supporting subjectivism and relativism when considering questions of knowledge.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/14, 4:12pm)

Post 48

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 5:05pm

Jason Quintana wrote:

Robert Davison -- Let me put this to you very very clearly.

You are trying to assert that ID deserves to be taught along side of evolution.

Really? Are you sure? Is your statement complete?

Let me ask you: by whom does Robert claim that ID should be taught?

Has it occurred to you that Robert might be talking about government schools? Would that make a difference?

You are asserting that schools should teach only that which you believe to be true. But if it's a government school, why can't all other taxpayers have their beliefs taught?

Do you want the government to be the arbiter of truth?

Post 49

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 7:04pm

Jason,

You have not understood one world I have said. If you doubt me go back and read my posts from beginning to end on this thread. If you are too lazy to do that there are two choices l. don't tell me what I am trying to do or 2. confine your reading to post 45.

Post 50

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 7:11pm

Rich,

You are asserting that schools should teach only that which you believe to be true. But if it's a government school, why can't all other taxpayers have their beliefs taught?

Finely honed, incisive.

Amazing isn't it, how many of our younger friends can't see the forest. You'd think they would get tired of bumping into the individual trees.

One 2nd thought, maybe it's not so amazing after all, they were all recently educated by public schools and now by mostly public universities.

Post 51

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 9:39pm

Pasotto --

"Really? Are you sure? Is your statement complete?

Let me ask you: by whom does Robert claim that ID should be taught?

Has it occurred to you that Robert might be talking about government schools? Would that make a difference?"

No, it doesn't make a difference at all. Why would it? Proper education is proper education and bad education is bad education no matter who is teaching it. My argument here applies to ANY form of education. The teaching of arbitrary nonsense in the place of science is bad education NO MATTER WHAT. It doesn't matter where the education is taking place or who is in charge of conducting it.

"You are asserting that schools should teach only that which you believe to be true. But if it's a government school, why can't all other taxpayers have their beliefs taught?

Do you want the government to be the arbiter of truth?"

This is a classic example of drawing a red herring across the tail of an argument. The discussion here is not ultimately about whether the government should be the final arbiter of truth. It is about what constitutes good education. In an Objectivist forum it is widely accepted that we are able to come to conclusions about questions like this. The teaching of Intelligent Design theory along side of evolution theory and the presentation of them as theories of equal stature does not constitute good education for reasons I have given above.

Davison --

"You have not understood one world I have said. If you doubt me go back and read my posts from beginning to end on this thread. If you are too lazy to do that there are two choices l. don't tell me what I am trying to do or 2. confine your reading to post 45."

Unfortunately I did read all of your posts and they didn't seem to amount to anything. Most of what you write is fundamentally irrelevant to this specific question but here is one of your statements to Adam Reed (from post 28) that gets to the heart of what your overall argument and this was what I was addressing:

"As I said previously, �all arguments should have at least one counter argument as precaution against complacency or orthodoxy�; unless dogma is your goal, which I often suspect it is."

This is only true if the counter argument has merit -- to keep within the context of our topic "ID" theory has been shown to be based upon the arbitrary assertion that there may be a designer -- something that is not based upon any evidence and thus has ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT.

"Finely honed, incisive. Amazing isn't it, how many of our younger friends can't see the forest. You'd think they would get tired of bumping into the individual trees. One 2nd thought, maybe it's not so amazing after all, they were all recently educated by public schools and now by mostly public universities."

Please don't bring silly ad hominem attacks into these discussions. Please answer what I have posted if you have a counter argument.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/14, 9:43pm)

Post 52

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 10:25pm

Jason, why do you shout?

One thing you haven't caught on to yet is that government schools are not about your kind of "proper education".

The discussion necessarily is about government schools since it is only in government schools that there is any controversy.

Yes, knowledge is discoverable and students are better served when they are taught what is true, but the fact that knowledge is discoverable implies that it must be discovered. The question is, what to do when there is disagreement about exactly what is knowledge and what is not. Simply asserting that only the truth should be taught and that you believe (er, know) that ID is false and therefore shouldn't be taught does not cut it.

Post 53

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:05am

The question is, what to do when there is disagreement about exactly what is knowledge and what is not.

Rick,

You want this to be taught in schools? Maybe you should be studying the philosophy of Kant instead of Objectivism.

Post 54

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:09am

Marcus, what I want is beside the point.

Perhaps you should read what people actually write. Perhaps you should at least try to understand what they write.

Post 55

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 8:14am

Jason,

This is only true if the counter argument has merit -- to keep within the context of our topic "ID" theory has been shown to be based upon the arbitrary assertion that there may be a designer -- something that is not based upon any evidence and thus has ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT.

The public schools teach social studies, which advance all manner of silly arbitrary theories, e.g. multi-culturalism, that have no merit. Since when is merit a criterion? In addition, whatever they teach is taught inadequately, inaccurately, and without "offense"; so if ID offends you, don�t worry the public schools will make it palatable for you.

If you attend a public university, search the catalog, like the proverbial side show, it will astound and amaze you.

If you can�t see that it makes no difference whether the government schools teach ID or basket weaving, I have nothing more to offer you.

Btw, You need to look up the meaning of ad hominem; it is an attack on a single individual, not a group.

Post 56

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 8:46am

Jason,

I think you and I would agree that a non-teleological deterministic hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth and its evolution is more plausible than intelligent design. However, seemingly insurmountable obstacles do exist in obtaining convincing evidence of a strictly materialist explanation. One of them is the interesting idea put out by the ID crowd of irreducible complexity. How did the first living cell evolve is a serious question that merits an answer by those who believe life is ultimately reducible to nothing other than inanimate components.

So if we are to be rigorously objective about what is fact and what is only belief concerning evolution, we must concede that the ID proponents have put forward questions that too many Darwinists reject out of hand as absurd without explanation. I think that's an evasion on the part of Darwinists. (Please understand I am talking about the scientists, not the participants in this discussion.) What's wrong with considering ideas like irreducible complexity seriously? There's nothing evil about it as the title of this thread suggests. It's a problem unanswered by the mainstream scientific consensus on evolution.

If my characterization of the genuinely scientific debate is correct, then I see nothing inappropriate about teaching children that irreducible complexity does pose a scientific challenge to Darwinism. Otherwise, the alternative is restricting what is taught to a survey of the Earth's history which includes the existence of fossils that appear to record a progressive complexity in its flora and fauna and include nothing about how this might have happened.

I understand you are concerned that theists are glomming onto ID. I have to ask, so what? They glom onto the big bang because it is consistent with their creation stories of Earth. Does that mean that the big bang model/inflation cosmology should not be taught in schools? To let the agreement or disagreement of theists determine what ideas merit scientific consideration does not strike me as very Objectivist.

Andy

Post 57

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:08am

About Andy Postema: Again, please don't feed the troll. Please.

Post 58

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:58pm

I'll be the judge of that, although I will admit to thinking he should self-edit a little. Use little words and talk fast.

To let the agreement or disagreement of theists determine what ideas merit scientific consideration does not strike me as very Objectivist.

The reason concern is warranted in this case is because ID is being used by the religous right as a tool for gaining toehold; it is a part of a broader strategy. It has virtually nothing to do with the theory itself. If the RWF'ers<tm> thought they had an equally good shot at getting Genesis into the curriculum, they would- that's what they fucking want in the first place. They're much craftier than that, though This is an easy, sensible-looking pitch that they can lay on their constituency, which then goes to the school board meetings, raises all kinds of Holy Hell, and gits 'er done for them. This is about market share. It is a brilliant, effective strategy, on a number of levels.

Part of it plays to parents who feel like they have lost control. It concretizes ambiguous religious thoughts (although it uses concrete that was made by the lowest bidder, bid won at gunpoint). It's a Trojan Horse, bottom line.

Why do we care what whackos think? Because the whackos are proactive little buggers, on the whole.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/15, 1:59pm)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/15, 2:00pm)

Post 59

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:23am