Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,092 Year: 973/14,231 Month: 973/1,514 Week: 6/234 Day: 6/36 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(8)
Message 239 of 283 (650784)
02-02-2012 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Artemis Entreri
02-02-2012 4:43 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
quote:
I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the better studied, better trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.
This is the crux of the problem.
What is it about people that they think that they can just 'pick up' enough information through the ether to challenge people who have devoted their lives to specialise in a field? It is exactly this type of delusion that sees engineers argue that biologists are wrong about biology.
I can happily accept that any individual can be wrong about any individual point. What I can't accept is that some amateur is right when they attempt to shout louder than the entire scientific community and then whine when people don't agree.
AE, making up your own mind is important. I agree fully. The delusion that you have the necessary background knowledge to fully understand all of the concepts without relevant education as well as the ability to magically find all of the relevant data on the internet is magnificent in its hubris. Especially if you have never contributed any relevant, original work yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:43 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 9:20 AM Warthog has replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(1)
Message 253 of 283 (651307)
02-06-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Artemis Entreri
02-06-2012 9:20 AM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
quote:
Relevant education to understand elementary school level science class, and its instruction to 6 year olds (as stated previously here). Check, I have that knowledge.
I'll take your word that you have at least the understanding of science that a six year old does.
quote:
Any more brain busters?
No. I'll try and keep on topic on this one.
quote:
The delusion that one must understand the minutia of ALL biology to teach an elementary biology class is all on you. The delusion that 1st grade science class requires a science based degree, relevant original work, and relevant data is hilarious!
I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Try not to make things up. Even six year olds know that lying is bad.
quote:
You could have a bachelor’s in English and teach 1st grade science class.
I reckon you're right but that's entirely not the point...
quote:
Bluejay writes:
Is this really comparable, in your mind, to giving relatively untrained school teachers the prerogative to scrutinize what has already been scrutinized by multiple generations of better-trained scientists?
I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the better studied, better trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your response here in the context of this thread suggests that you think schoolteachers (including, of course English teachers) should be deciding for themselves what is 'sciencey' enough to teach their classes. It suggests that these teachers have the background knowledge and time to sift through obscure data and therefore be able to overrule the opinions of the scientific community. Don't forget subscriptions to all of the journals they'll need to have just to get at the data in he first place - otherwise they're often just stuck with the abstracts.
We're talking about deciding the consensus of what kids are taught about science, not how hard it is to wow them with a chemical reaction. This is about curriculum, not teaching. Science teachers should teach about what scientists have learned.
You are also saying the same thing about yourself. What data have you looked at to come to your all encompassing theory of the universe? What makes you think that your single viewpoint is sufficient to even know all of the questions? Where did you get your data and how did you have time to go over all of it? Not to mention testing it for yourself.
I still maintain that your arrogance is breathtaking.
quote:
You are too funny man.
I'm touched but I don't think anyone could be too funny. There is no maximum limit where heads begin to explode or anything, so don't worry.
Besides, there's not enough time. Not with all the research we have to do to keep up with you.
quote:
Get a grip on realitymaaaannnn.
ok, give me a sec...
...got it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 9:20 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 11:36 AM Warthog has replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(3)
Message 255 of 283 (651322)
02-06-2012 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Artemis Entreri
02-06-2012 11:36 AM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
quote:
Not that they should be deciding for themselves, but that they should be allowed to decide for themselves.
So they shouldn't be doing what you are arguing that they should be allowed to do?
quote:
Because all of that is necessary to teach 1st grade science. Riiight ::rolls eyes::
No, because a knowledge foundation is a structured thing and when some idiot comes along and decides to teach them that evolution is an atheist hoax and that divining rods are powered by the devil, it'll screw up their education. First grade science is the foundation for the next grade and so on. Without that, they can never get to the point that they can seriously decide for themselves - they don't have the skills.
quote:
I haven’t said otherwise
I didn't bring up education specifically - I was originally talking about armchair scientists, remember?. You're the one who misrepresented it to be about teaching kids...
once again...
quote:
The delusion that one must understand the minutia of ALL biology to teach an elementary biology class is all on you. The delusion that 1st grade science class requires a science based degree, relevant original work, and relevant data is hilarious!
Nobody is saying that you have to be a theoretical physicist to teach a 1st grade class about gravity. My original point is that there is always some idiot ready to jump up and down whining that their version of the truth is right and that the nasty scientists won't believe them.
Message 239
quote:
Its elementary school, here you go again with your slippery slope argument that you just cant get over.
If we're just talking about elementary school, then there's really no debating the science at that level. This is foundational stuff. Why should anyone want to change what is taught according to their own 'higher' understanding? What would you change with yours? The only reason for this is to introduce religion as science. Elementary school is not the place for religious quacks to confuse the meaning of science for children. That's what churches are for.
If I'm wrong about this, what are the things that schoolteachers should be allowed to do that they shouldn't be doing?
quote:
Whatever dude, I am not the one talking science journals and knowing the universe to teach 6 year olds the difference between a plant and an animal.
Tell me where I said that you need science journals and knowing the universe to teach 6 year olds the difference between a plant and an animal. I'm actually saying exactly the opposite. That teachers don't need to know this much to teach but that they also don't know enough to seriously question scientific consensus.
They are in the wrong field.
Edited by Warthog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 11:36 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 12:03 PM Warthog has replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(2)
Message 264 of 283 (651681)
02-09-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 12:03 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
quote:
If that was true then evolution would have never been taught and we wouldn’t be were we are today.
This is laughable but it was answered before I got around to it, so I won't bother.
quote:
You're the one who misrepresented it to be about teaching kids...
Tell me what I am saying again. LOL you will do well around here with those tactics (they are extremely popular).
here's where I started...
quote:
AE writes:
I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the better studied, better trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.
Warthog writes:
AE, making up your own mind is important. I agree fully. The delusion that you have the necessary background knowledge to fully understand all of the concepts without relevant education as well as the ability to magically find all of the relevant data on the internet is magnificent in its hubris. Especially if you have never contributed any relevant, original work yourself.
AE writes:
Relevant education to understand elementary school level science class, and its instruction to 6 year olds (as stated previously here). Check, I have that knowledge.

So, I'll say it again - You are the one who misrepresented it to be teaching about kids. I am talking about the fact that you say you have the magic ability to know more about any field than a specialist. God-given right to be right?
quote:
I have already said this is some nonsense BS bill,
No you haven't. You did say it wouldn't work but you haven't once said you disagree with it. You never called it nonsense.
quote:
but you came to the party late so I guess I have to repeat everything.
What makes you think I arrived late?
quote:
we don’t allow this crazy protestant creationism in our schools
So why do you think it should be allowed in pubic schools anywhere? State rights to abuse the rights of children?
quote:
Elementary school is not the place for religious quacks to confuse the meaning of science for children.
I agree with you, but this bill doesn’t say anything about that.
Yes it does.
The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.
I believe that this is unconstitutional.
quote:
That is what parochial schools are for
Government funded schools should not be religious indoctrination centres and the constitution says so. For that matter, the concept of religious schools in general is dubious at best.
quote:
it’s just sad that these fundaMENTALists don’t put this energy into having their own private schools
They do and they're scary places. 'schools' like this keep getting shut down and opened up elsewhere.
quote:
or take the time to do more home schooling.
You're kidding, right? There's a whole industry devoted to supporting fundamentalist home indoctrination e.g.
Exploring Homeschooling: Are you Exploring Homeschooling?
http://www.utmostway.com/
etc.
quote:
It seems we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the bill and if Missourians should be able to implement it, and I not talking about teaching religion in science class.
This bill is about teaching religion...
quote:
I can’t believe these guys are try to do this in the form of legislation, I think it would be more sneaky and efficient to create their own textbooks, and then get schools to use their question science textbooks
They've tried that and been caught out too. This is a recurring pattern.
Speaking of recurring patterns...
quote:
There is always a place for state’s rights.
quote:
I defend self determination
quote:
There are other people here who favor Liberty
quote:
this is a self determination issue
quote:
I am not telling the people of Missouri how to live or how to vote, or how to run their schools, but you are.
quote:
And as we can see by your example, Authoritarians will stop at nothing to make everyone follow their rules
I can see where you're coming from. You are arguing that the state (or the people) has the right to determine this for themselves. I agree with the principle of self determination but this it a little different.
What this bill is really about is to create a gap to allow religion in schools in any way possible. It's a door opener. Once they're in, it's harder to get them out while they busily chisel hole in kids educations. These kids have had no say in this, so it's not really about self determination but indoctrination.
One thing I have always thought is both amusing and horrifying is that religious types who cry freedom loudest are always the ones who push hardest to force their doctrine one everyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 12:03 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-09-2012 10:22 AM Warthog has replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 270 of 283 (651760)
02-09-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Artemis Entreri
02-09-2012 10:22 AM


Re: here is the crux
quote:
see what's wrong? you are arguing here about a Missouri bill and when confronted you link an Indiana bill? do you have any clue what the fuck you are talking about? (wait don't answer, your actions are louder than your words)
Hah! You're right! I managed to screw up my references. Somehow got it into me that that was a recent addition to it. Shouldn't have had that last joint...
I agree with you that the bill said nothing directly about teaching religion. You are right and I was wrong.
I still see the danger with it as the combination of the the idea of teaching the controversy coupled with the general push for ID to be considered science. This is a repeating pattern of argument by creationists to gain legitimacy and the bill reeks of it.
quote:
you post tons of examples of things i have said to try and paint a picture about me and then in reference to Missouri you post some off the wall shit from Indiana
Of course, this doesn't change the majority of what I have posted.
quote:
and then your aha momenent with your snarky concealed link,
What snarkily concealed link? Do you mean the fact that I don't clog up my writing with distracting urls? If so, note that every post of mine is formatted the same. At least I try to back up my argument instead of sliding past things with diversionary babble like...
quote:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
"all too easy" --- Darth Vader
For the record, after rereading my last post, I would say that my aha moment was...
Warthog writes:
So, I'll say it again - You are the one who misrepresented it to be teaching about kids. I am talking about the fact that you say you have the magic ability to know more about any field than a specialist. God-given right to be right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-09-2012 10:22 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023