Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
8 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK, Theodoric, vimesey, xongsmith (6 members, 2 visitors)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 901,288 Year: 12,400/6,534 Month: 1,893/1,988 Week: 14/460 Day: 14/60 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 63 of 136 (389323)
03-12-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by princesszin
03-11-2007 11:36 AM


Re: quoting strategies
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned the following poor debating tactic.
quote:
One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning.
Obviously this is not a good thing to do no matter what the subject of the debate is. I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning.
You quoted Miller to say in part
quote:
would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith.
Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision

Outside the portion I have quoted but you did, Ken M. gets to the part I quoted with a clause about "religion" and "science" being placed in opposition. Of course it is not "religion" and "science" that are in opposition but the writings of people speaking for either one that may be "opposites" as to some particular conclusion. I take it that because one can not be sure that the people involved in these deabtes are finding the opposite as to the material then available to discuss the subject either as within "science" or within "religion" that this is not where the choice is. I did not find that simply placing the things to be discussed as something antithetical is bad to begin with. A melancholy reflection seems to remand instead that the difficulty comes if "young people" are forced to make a "false" choice, on account of IF ID was to place pedagogy at extremes not mediated by the teachers themselves.
I DO THINK/agree that if ID was to place a new and false choice to students then that is not good but if the moderator or guide to what is good or bad is freedom to think itself as is indicated in the second part of the colored section of your quote, then I can not agree that the choice of rejecting faith or maintaining faith is what is at stake when it comes to morally upholding freedom itself.
The difference as to "choosing" and "turning" has to do with the differences of the mathematical and philsophical directum of ID NOT the sense vs the sound of ID itself. Miller merely sees what we all/anyone can see in ID, as it is today, much to do about philosophy and not as much about math.
It would not be that philosophy changes on faith in ID but that the discursive deviation THAT would cause for "choice", is currently not about concepts but about diverse choices of constructions FROM THEM. But these are missing in ID. Thus it really is a problem to MANDATE ID TEACHING until one sees mutiple constructions of the concept, as would be done in a mathematical frame of mind, no matter the philosophy, and without a homogenous and simple substance notion of Irreducible Complexity. What we have had here is that we were about to have law make restrictions where the non generalizable defintions were lacking. Math abhors restrictions to generalization but the current matter of the universality of ID replaced the choice of construction of elements and THAT is not something I for one could mandate as to be taught to high schools especially as this would be something that college students would not necessarily find simple to expose.
Freedom to pursue this course of achiving generality in place of universality however IS REQUIRED but if students do not know what they are free to pursue they will not do better than their teachers. So it is not really "freedom" that needs be cherished in this case but the perception of the difference of philosophy and math that needs be.
Miller may be overvaluing NOT having to do more math(number vs relation) as per the common philosophical horizon but my concern was to quote your quote and not change the meaning and criticize that it could be used against/inopposition to "creationists in general" *if* it is "freedom" that is the condition of agreement.
Do I succeed?
Edited by Brad McFall, : new title
Edited by Brad McFall, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by princesszin, posted 03-11-2007 11:36 AM princesszin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 8:33 AM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 65 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 8:43 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 66 of 136 (389457)
03-13-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by princesszin
03-13-2007 8:43 AM


Re: quoting strategies
It seems to me the only reason to quote someone and do nothing with the words themselves is only useful for affirmation. But in that case why not just write what you as an author thinks instead? I see no point, in a debate, to double-up the wordings, so as to in effect squelch by quantity. If something is correct, it only needs to be "said", once.
Did I manage to change the meaning then??
Edited by Brad McFall, : couple letters

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 8:43 AM princesszin has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 67 of 136 (389461)
03-13-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by princesszin
03-13-2007 8:33 AM


Re: quoting strategies
Ok, I see you object to the simple "opposing" of r... and s....
The quote said, "as a mandate to teach ID would...", it said, to my ears, "as if" a mandate to teach... There was a comma between "would" and "dishonors".
Now I can back up to this comma as well.
I was trying to show that the dishonor is not the same mathematically and philosophically, but today with two beers behind me it is probably not a good time for me to try to drive this point home, as you are also new to EvC and I do not want to "Brad McFall you" out of the box.
If your only point was to show in agreement with Miller that ID is not so good becuase it would "inevitably" (sic!) put science and religion in opposition then I really do not have a point to make for you. To me this is only an inevitability if the honors are not to be bestowed on the students making the choice.
If you desire me to make the dovetail less rough I will oblige later but for now that is all I can say if this is really going to the altar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 8:33 AM princesszin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 7:43 PM Brad McFall 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 © 2022