Meet Your Neighbors - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 12, 2005

RE: Meet Your Neighbors

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

This makes 4 letters this week against evolution. All regurgitations of what people heard from the "Discovery Institute".

Although I missed it, I was told that "Nightline" featured "intelligent design" (with special reference to the Discovery Institute) the other night. (I missed it, but I trust the person who told me about it.) I wonder if this is all part of a semi-coordinated effort on behalf of that group.

Have an unusual number of churches -- and I'm thinking largely of "unaffiliated" Baptist churches & the "rock'n'roll" denominations -- been featuring "seminars" on creation/evolution lately? I've noticed a couple in my general vicinity, but didn't pay much attention to it until this week...

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Red, White, and Blue wrote:

...You're a fine one to talk about tolerance.

Please explain this comment Red, White and Blue. In science all opinions are not equal. Opinions that are supported by evidence carry weight in science. It that sense (and only that sense) can I understand your statement. But I didn’t make this up; that is science.

For religion and philosophy, there are no experiments to determine the true one (that I know of) so all opinions are equal, but less useful, in my opinion, as a way to arrive at truth.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your statement.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote: This makes 4 letters this week against evolution. All regurgitations of what people heard from the "Discovery Institute".

Invictus wrote: Although I missed it, I was told that "Nightline" featured "intelligent design" (with special reference to the Discovery Institute) the other night. (I missed it, but I trust the person who told me about it.) I wonder if this is all part of a semi-coordinated effort on behalf of that group. Have an unusual number of churches -- and I'm thinking largely of "unaffiliated" Baptist churches & the "rock'n'roll" denominations -- been featuring "seminars" on creation/evolution lately? I've noticed a couple in my general vicinity, but didn't pay much attention to it until this week...

This would be very interesting to find out, Invictus. According to the article in TIME (or was it USN&WR?) G.W. Bush let the cat out of the bag. The I.D. people didn't want this discussed at this time. They wanted to just attack evolution and point out "errors" in evolution at this time. Then they were going to work at getting the 'errors" discussed in high school classes to set up the push for "alternative explanations " i.e., I.D.

Since Bush made his play early this may have force them into full attack mode at this time. That is why I would like to know if any local churches have gone into this mode.

Man, why don't they just as the scientist what to teach, and if it isn't in the journals it isn't valid to teach?

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

I hope I didn't misunderstand your statement.

You response suggests that you did understand my statement. What bothers me about your response is that you suggest that we should believe everything until the truth is empirically validated through science. My reply is that one who belives everthing believes nothing. To put it another way, one who puts their faith in everything puts their faith in nothing.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist, we (including you) take leaps of faith every day. We walk on a log to cross the creek and have faith that it will hold up. We zip through a traffic intersection and have faith that another vehicle will not zoom through in front of us. A student goes to class with faiththat the teacher will be there. A teacher turns in the grades at the end of the semester with the assumption that the registrar will transmit them properly. Life is full of assuptions and hopes that have not been empirally validated by science. We base our decisions on past experience, common sense, and the level of risk we are willing to take. In that sense all of us (including you) act on subjective judgments. If we didn't our lives would be at a standstill. Science sometimes, but not always, helps us make those judgments. It is all a matter of probability. Science increases the probability that we will make the correct judgment. Sometimes none of us know those probabilities. If we took everything you have posted at faith value, we would be paralyzed by an incomplete science and could not on anything. In some matters we have to go it on our own. That doesn't stop us from making judgments. We (including you) judge the likelihood that our decisions are the correct ones. Laypersons are not as unsophisticated as you might think they are. My religious faith is just as certain as your faith that better days are in store for USM or that an oncoming vehicle will veer to the right or that fish don't bite on rainy days.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Red, White, and Blue wrote:

Scientist wrote:
I hope I didn't misunderstand your statement.
You response suggests that you did understand my statement. What bothers me about your response is that you suggest that we should believe everything until the truth is empirically validated through science. My reply is that one who belives everthing believes nothing. To put it another way, one who puts their faith in everything puts their faith in nothing.

I'm not sure you understand what Scientist has been saying here. "Scientist" doesn't put faith in anything that isn't backed up by a satisfactory amount (and quality) of empirical data. Now, some folks (creationists, mainly) like to turn that around & say that such a viewpoint is itself a "religion." Quite to the contrary, it's a philosophy. Innumerable Christians (and Jews and Muslims and Zoroastrians, for all I know) use that philosophy every day for the pragmatic purpose of understanding the physical world around us. (I'm using "pragmatic" in the epistemological sense here.)

The scientist in me wants to express it thusly:SPIRITUAL PHYSICAL

"Scientist" doesn't think something is "real" unless it's physically measurable some way. (Or at least, s/he would admit doubt about it.) Other folks don't think that way & I haven't found "Scientist" to be boorish or overbearing with anyone who disagrees. Different people think different ways & diversity happens to be one of the big EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGES of sexual reproduction. [Temporary tangent: Are the creationists really trying to eradicate sex? <OBLIGATORY TIP OF STETSON TO KINKY FRIEDMAN>]

The purpose of religions has always been to give people some means to sort out spiritual questions. The purpose of science has always been to give people some means to sort out physical questions. Using religion to answer physical questions (or using science to answer spiritual questions) is a lot like using a hammer to turn a screw.

Returning to the real issue here, I'm an educator. I've spent my adult life both educating people & studying many aspects of education as a profession. The very same groups that want creationism introduced into public school science curricula are the most vocal about the shortcomings of American public education. So I ask this question of anyone who seriously thinks that they want their religious beliefs taught in the public schools of America: As bad a job as American public education does in teaching your children to read, write, balance a checkbook & locate Eastabutchie on a map, do you really want the public schools teaching your kids religion?

You want your children to learn your religion in a structured environment? Send them to Sunday School. But don't use the public schools -- and my tax money that supports them -- to proselytize for your personal sectarian beliefs!

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Activeboard ate my homework. The preceding post should have this inequality:

SPIRITUAL <> PHYSICAL

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Invictus wrote:

"Scientist" doesn't think something is "real" unless it's physically measurable some way.

"Scientist" seems to think that he is the only one who has read in the areas of operationism and logical positivism. Months ago on the board he engaged others in the same debate we're seeing here.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Red, White, and Blue wrote:

Scientist wrote: I hope I didn't misunderstand your statement. You response suggests that you did understand my statement. What bothers me about your response is that you suggest that we should believe everything until the truth is empirically validated through science. My reply is that one who belives everthing believes nothing. To put it another way, one who puts their faith in everything puts their faith in nothing.

O.K. I did understand. Your statement, "What bothers me about your response is that you suggest that we should believe everything until the truth is empirically validated through science." is the opposite of what I would do. I would believe nothing unless it was backed by evidence and logical argument. Of course I understand that we have to make decisions without being sure and often must have "faith" using the "best available knowledge". But I try my best not to be put in the situation of having to decide based on no knowledge and only "belief".

There is a lot I don't know. I say, "I don't know" and I don't make up stories to cover those areas. I try not to make decisions based on those kind of stories. Some people maintain 'belief" in spit of a lack of evidence and often in the face of contradictory evidence.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Of course I understand that we have to make decisions without being sure and often must have "faith" using the "best available knowledge"

Now we seem to be getting somewhere. That's also my position. It's been around ever since Darwin stepped off the Beagle and disseminated his observations and speculations and it may even go back to John Baptiste Lamarke. uI would be remiss not to point out that I have heard convincing arugments for biological evolution presented from the pulpits of one church or the other during the past many decades.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Orderly Universe wrote:

Scientist, we (including you) take leaps of faith every day. We walk on a log to cross the creek and have faith that it will hold up. We zip through a traffic intersection and have faith that another vehicle will not zoom through in front of us. A student goes to class with faith that the teacher will be there. A teacher turns in the grades at the end of the semester with the assumption that the registrar will transmit them properly. Life is full of assuptions and hopes that have not been empirally validated by science.

I have had many discussions about this, Orderly Universe. It is hard to discuss unless we use precise definitions of "faith" and "belief". What you describe at first as a "leap of faith" is not what I call "a leap of faith". We all realize these are the best predictions based on all available evidence. We know people get sick and don't perform duties expected of them. (We build that into the our system.) This is no big deal. All of this is based on evidence and, as you say, probabilities.

We base our decisions on past experience, common sense, and the level of risk we are willing to take. In that sense all of us (including you) act on subjective judgments.

This is even true of scientist. Except I would add to "subjective judgments" "objective experiences" (experiments).

If we didn't our lives would be at a standstill. Science sometimes, but not always, helps us make those judgments.

Question: When does science hinder judgments?

It is all a matter of probability. Science increases the probability that we will make the correct judgment. Sometimes none of us know those probabilities. If we took everything you have posted at faith value, we would be paralyzed by an incomplete science and could not on anything.

I'm getting old and forgetful. What did I post that requires people "to take it at faith value"? I thought I was just describing science, in comparison to religion or philosophy.

In some matters we have to go it on our own. That doesn't stop us from making judgments. We (including you) judge the likelihood that our decisions are the correct ones. Laypersons are not as unsophisticated as you might think they are. My religious faith is just as certain as your faith that better days are in store for USM or that an oncoming vehicle will veer to the right or that fish don't bite on rainy days.

Did you mean to say this? To me you are saying you are not certain of your religious faith. I have hope the USM will improve. But that is not knowledge. I have no knowledge at all as to what the driver in another car will do. I sure hope they don't run into me. (D*mn, I thought fish did bite on rainy days. How many experiments were done?)

I don't disagree with your post except that I think we are talking past each other. Science is about discovering knowledge. There is a lot we don't know and use hope much of the day. There is no need to conflate the two, which lets subjective opinion pose as knowledge.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Invictus wrote:

I'm not sure you understand what Scientist has been saying here. "Scientist" doesn't put faith in anything that isn't backed up by a satisfactory amount (and quality) of empirical data. Now, some folks (creationists, mainly) like to turn that around & say that such a viewpoint is itself a "religion." Quite to the contrary, it's a philosophy. Innumerable Christians (and Jews and Muslims and Zoroastrians, for all I know) use that philosophy every day for the pragmatic purpose of understanding the physical world around us. (I'm using "pragmatic" in the epistemological sense here.) The scientist in me wants to express it thusly:SPIRITUAL PHYSICAL "Scientist" doesn't think something is "real" unless it's physically measurable some way. (Or at least, s/he would admit doubt about it.) Other folks don't think that way & I haven't found "Scientist" to be boorish or overbearing with anyone who disagrees. Different people think different ways & diversity happens to be one of the big EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGES of sexual reproduction. [Temporary tangent: Are the creationists really trying to eradicate sex? <OBLIGATORY TIP OF STETSON TO KINKY FRIEDMAN>] The purpose of religions has always been to give people some means to sort out spiritual questions. The purpose of science has always been to give people some means to sort out physical questions. Using religion to answer physical questions (or using science to answer spiritual questions) is a lot like using a hammer to turn a screw. Returning to the real issue here, I'm an educator. I've spent my adult life both educating people & studying many aspects of education as a profession. The very same groups that want creationism introduced into public school science curricula are the most vocal about the shortcomings of American public education. So I ask this question of anyone who seriously thinks that they want their religious beliefs taught in the public schools of America: As bad a job as American public education does in teaching your children to read, write, balance a checkbook & locate Eastabutchie on a map, do you really want the public schools teaching your kids religion? You want your children to learn your religion in a structured environment? Send them to Sunday School. But don't use the public schools -- and my tax money that supports them -- to proselytize for your personal sectarian beliefs!

Invictus: Your response is always so much better than mine, I think I will wait for your post before responding.

Scientist#2: Jump on in, the water is fine. I'm not an expert on the philosophy of science. I'm just trying my best to explain the difference between science and religious systems. All of this started with letters conflating the meaning of theory and calling I.D. a theory. I look forward to reading your post. Maybe I can take a break.

I hope you too are concerned with 4 letters (written by lay people) published in one week attacking a scientific theory .

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientsit wrote:

There is a lot we don't know and use hope much of the day.

I'm glad to see you can use common, even fuzzy mentalistic, everyday words such as "know" and "hope." It's perfectly all right for a scientist to talk like that outside the laboratory. Most professionls do. Try using only scientific terms on a date ("My glands secrete for you," or "I'll bet your mother has great DNA") and see if she'll go out with you a second time.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Amazed Onlooker wrote:

Scientsit wrote: There is a lot we don't know and use hope much of the day. I'm glad to see you can use common, even fuzzy mentalistic, everyday words such as "know" and "hope." It's perfectly all right for a scientist to talk like that outside the laboratory. Most professionls do. Try using only scientific terms on a date ("My glands secrete for you," or "I'll bet your mother has great DNA") and see if she'll go out with you a second time.

Thanks for the advice, Amazed Onlooker. I will let you know if I get lucky.

The reason for the precise and technical words through much of this thread was because that was the door the barbarians are using. Didn't you read the statements: "Evolution is only a Theory", "Let's give equal time to all points of view" etc, etc.

I know of no way to combat this except by being precise as to the meaning of the words scientist use.

O.K. Invictus, show us how this should have been answered.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

The reason for the precise and technical words through much of this thread was because that was the door the barbarians are using.

"Barbarians" is a rather imprecise and non-technical term. Can I assume you mean those with religious beliefs?

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Red, White, and Blue wrote:

Scientist wrote: The reason for the precise and technical words through much of this thread was because that was the door the barbarians are using. "Barbarians" is a rather imprecise and non-technical term. Can I assume you mean those with religious beliefs?

I stand corrected. Maybe I should have said, " Those religious fanatics who want their religion taught as scientific theory." "However they would be against teaching the creation stories of Native Americans, Hindus, etc. etc and thousands of others."

What is the precise definition of barbarian?

A member of a people considered by those of another nation or group to have a primitive civilization.
A fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
An insensitive, uncultured person; a boor.

Maybe barbarian was correct after all by defintion 1 and 3.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Those religious fanatics who want their religion taught as scientific theory." "However they would be against teaching the creation stories of Native Americans, Hindus, etc. etc and thousands of others."

I would add to that the politicians who are using the issue as a magnet to attract votes; and school board members who are doing the same in order to placate their constituents. I have no scientific evidence to support my conjecture, but I'd be willing to bet thatyou voted for one of them.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

"However they would be against teaching the creation stories of Native Americans, Hindus, etc. etc

Careful there, Scientist, you're profiling again. I have known Native Americans who subscribe to the Biblical story of creation. They would be totally opposed to teaching it in the public schools.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:
O.K. Invictus, show us how this should have been answered.

As lewdly as possible, I'm afraid. But I'm glad to see this discussion turning to the real bottom line in Darwin's writing (what with all those glands secretin' & all). It ain't the "fittest" that survive but rather them that gets to breed.

I used to call it "survival of the sexiest" (aka "sexual selection") in my few lectures on the subject.

Of course, the overhead transparencies I used for those lectures were great!

Okay, so now we know that the "intelligent designists" are anti-science & have a political agenda. Let's add "prudes" to the list, too. Because the only way to eradicate evolution itself is going to be to eradicate sex.

My wife must be a creationist... <SIGH>

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Orderly Universe wrote:

Scientist wrote: "However they would be against teaching the creation stories of Native Americans, Hindus, etc. etc Careful there, Scientist, you're profiling again. I have known Native Americans who subscribe to the Biblical story of creation. They would be totally opposed to teaching it in the public schools.

Orderly Universe, I was refering to the original Native American stories before the white man brought the bible to them. I heard there are several different stories, but I don't know for sure and I don't know the stories. It would be interesting to hear them if anyone out there knows some.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Scientist wrote:O.K. Invictus, show us how this should have been answered. As lewdly as possible, I'm afraid. But I'm glad to see this discussion turning to the real bottom line in Darwin's writing (what with all those glands secretin' & all). It ain't the "fittest" that survive but rather them that gets to breed. I used to call it "survival of the sexiest" (aka "sexual selection") in my few lectures on the subject. Of course, the overhead transparencies I used for those lectures were great! Okay, so now we know that the "intelligent designists" are anti-science & have a political agenda. Let's add "prudes" to the list, too. Because the only way to eradicate evolution itself is going to be to eradicate sex. My wife must be a creationist... <SIGH>

You must be younger than I, Invictus. I still look at the opposite sex, but I forget why.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

But I try my best not to be put in the situation of having to decide based on no knowledge and only "belief".

Hear, hear, Scientist! When the sky starts falling, I want to be in your camp.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

I've used "Barbarian" in past posts and I use it in the sense that Ortega y Gasset does --

a barbarian is a person who lives completely in the physical world and derives his standards of truth completely from the embodied experiences of pleasure and pain. In the crudest sense, the definition of truth is what makes her (and those who she sees as her community) happy. Things that make him uncomfortable are, ipso facto, untruths and so must be destroyed. For Gassett, this existence essentially subjective, uncritical, and to a great degree, narcissistic. The Barbarian is incapable of the abstraction of examining another point of view because her only reference for experience is the self. His recognition of others comes in the form of recognizing those who most resemble himself. So she lives in a world which is essentially bifurcated between good and evil, right and wrong, us and them. Barbarians, because they tend to view the world in absolutist terms, then tend to have absolutist tendencies when dealing with others unlike themselves -- conquest rather than coexistence is the categorical imperative.

Of course, for some, Gassett was an upper class, elitist snob who needed to get more "real world" experience.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

I've used "Barbarian" in past posts and I use it in the sense that Ortega y Gasset does -- a barbarian is a person who lives completely in the physical world and derives his standards of truth completely from the embodied experiences of pleasure and pain. In the crudest sense, the definition of truth is what makes her (and those who she sees as her community) happy. Things that make him uncomfortable are, ipso facto, untruths and so must be destroyed. For Gassett, this existence essentially subjective, uncritical, and to a great degree, narcissistic. The Barbarian is incapable of the abstraction of examining another point of view because her only reference for experience is the self. His recognition of others comes in the form of recognizing those who most resemble himself. So she lives in a world which is essentially bifurcated between good and evil, right and wrong, us and them. Barbarians, because they tend to view the world in absolutist terms, then tend to have absolutist tendencies when dealing with others unlike themselves -- conquest rather than coexistence is the categorical imperative. Of course, for some, Gassett was an upper class, elitist snob who needed to get more "real world" experience.

Thanks Stephen. Was there some reason why you shifted back and forth with the gender pronouns? Just curious to see if I'm missing another message.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Thanks Stephen. Was there some reason why you shifted back and forth with the gender pronouns? Just curious to see if I'm missing another message.

I've done this occasionally when the subject is indefinite and could be either male or female. The he/she thing and himself/herself gets old, although is sometimes necessary. In instances where I think whewre shifting the gender of the pronouns back and forth won't be confusing, I'll do that. It is a kind of short hand, although I'll admit it can be jarring.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Scientist wrote:

I know of no way to combat this except by being precise as to the meaning of the words scientist use.

Scientist,

Is any scientist at USM doing experimental laboratory research on evolution? Could you give me the name of one or two scientists elsewhere who are doing it? I'd like to read one of their experiments in a reputable scientific journal.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Phlogiston wrote:

Scientist wrote: I know of no way to combat this except by being precise as to the meaning of the words scientist use. Scientist, Is any scientist at USM doing experimental laboratory research on evolution? Could you give me the name of one or two scientists elsewhere who are doing it? I'd like to read one of their experiments in a reputable scientific journal.

Sorry I can't answer your questions. I'm not a Biologist. I did a Google search for journal articles. You could look over the abstracts only of articles in the journal "Evolution" (which I assume is reputable) at this link:

http://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/?request=get-toc&issn=0014-3820&volume=059&issue=07

Date: Aug 12, 2005

For yet more fun, here's some more Weird Science on the Religious Right. Intelligent design makes the bottom of the list, but my favorite section answers the question why "Hooked on Phonics" is a major advertiser on the "EIB Network."

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Phlogiston and others may like to read the debate at this link:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html