Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 2:54 AM
20 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,600 Year: 6,637/19,786 Month: 1,178/1,581 Week: 0/393 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Creationism Bill Passes Oklahoma House
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3394 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 16 of 20 (89801)
03-02-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
03-02-2004 12:27 PM


Whoops. Time here for the foolhardy to step up and mediate between two valued contributors.

holmes writes:


I'm uncertain why you have been so emotional with regard to my posts...

Looking over the post in question, it does not seem emotional at all. In fact, it is a model of how to engage firmly but unemotionally. No insults, no rants.

Harlequin is suggesting you read his comments more carefully. That is a good suggestion. It indicates some level of frustration, but that will happen when someone is misinterpreted. There was no insult given, and in fact, you do need to read more carefully.

You did get a lot of cold water on the Board of Information idea; which is discouraging even if it is a joke. The background concerns remain valid.

In any case, let me reprise:

  • Holmes proposed the "BoI" in post 5, fairly off hand.
  • Harlequin responding in post 6 to other aspects of that post, but not on the BoI since he presumed it was a joke.
  • Holmes in post 7 conceded it was a joke, but with a grain of truth; and sought the grain.
  • Harlequin in post 8 summarised some problems with the notion.
  • Holmes in post 9 agreed it was wishful thinking, and asked this question (my italics):
    holmes writes:

    I am curious though what you feel would be so problematic in making sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked... like say religious theorists do not get to tell congress what scientists think, say, and have discovered.


  • Harlequin in post 10 responded in two parts. With respect to the first phrase (in italics) he pointed out (correctly) that he this is not what he considers problematic. His post 8 clearly indicates that what is problematic is the notion of a independent organization free of partisan policy; a point with which holmes actually agreed.

    With respect to the second phrase (after the italics), he points out (correctly) that it would be unconstitutional to constrain people based on religion from making submission to congress concerned what is being said and discovered in science. Basically, what holmes needs is not to prevent certain groups from speaking to congress, but for congress to have some structures or procedures which help them listen to the most useful inputs. That is; what is problematic is the constraint on the religious as a way of making sure information used in policy is good information.

  • Holmes in post 11 loses the plot somewhat; compounding earlier confusions with a really drastic misunderstanding of Harlequin's post.

Bear in mind the following distinct issues:

  • It is unconstitutional to constrain religious theorists from speaking to congress on what science is about.
  • It is problematic to have "an independent organization free of partisan policy demands" in charge of informing congress of the issues.
  • It is not (necessarily?) problematic to "make sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked".

Your comments above above about being contradictory and about reversals or inconsistencies actually mix up these issues. I don't see any reversals at all in Harlequin's comments; and the extracts you quoted from Harlequin are insufficient to show what it is that Harlequin identifies as unconstitutional, and what he implies is problematic.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2004 12:27 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2004 3:59 PM Sylas has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 20 (89809)
03-02-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by MisterOpus1
03-02-2004 2:26 PM


the word "rabid".

The personal environment of c/e is much harsher than the public electronic version. I grew up but not out of it. Many experience it as something exotic. It is not. It is my life. There is no reason that Mayr had to say the use of "irrationals" is typological or that I was being not as rational as the difference of math and physics. The seperation of Church and State IS NOT the same thing as LOGICAL SEPERATION OF DATA but the ACLU doesnt know this and refused to help me. But this is about "anti-evolution" Bill. If I am correct that what WAS a posteriori design has become legit a priori then an "anti" Bill simply means to recognize this FACT. My bet is that evos will once exposed this way try to say that modern Creationism never made the design argument a priori from an aposteriori past but it will be "creos" who have a better take on it. I am not in aposition to evaluate this bill. But living in NOLA and knowing that creationism is taken more seriously than evolution on the street there and knowing how this philosophical perspective on the CHANGE in the sociological mix of the design argument (read Gould and we can discuss his particular take in another thread if you wish) enables at least the philosophy of science to be rasied facilites my inclusion of personal references. I am quite certain that Niels Eldridges' insistence anti-Creationism would not stand the similar sound of hoxology and doxology in Gould's lingo but I moved on from a detailed discussion of Eldridge's anti c position. So I see it wrong to call any BILL introduced "anti" evolution. I fear that material categories are being multiplied to support any connectivity in biological change simply for political reasons. The only solution. Political remedies. Rhode Island said there could be no double teaching in higher education. Perhaps the bill creates this ih lower education. I dont know as I havent followed the links yet. I am near to complete physcial reasons for my view as well. This will show my personal relations to more off than my virtual forum communications.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-02-2004 2:26 PM MisterOpus1 has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3954 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 20 (89817)
03-02-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MisterOpus1
03-02-2004 12:37 PM


I did a little digging, but I cannot find the direct transcript. I'm sure it must still exist somewhere (available at the very least in hardcopy using a FOIA request).

But here are some links to decriptions about what happened...

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol10.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/4_24/63692996/p1/article.jhtml

Here's something else I found along the way that was kind of repulsive, definitely check out Kennedy's support of ID movement's garbage (near bottom of second link)...

http://www.arn.org/docs/idushouse_700.htm

http://arn.org/docs2/news/congressurgesdarwinistsdeny011002.htm


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-02-2004 12:37 PM MisterOpus1 has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3954 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 20 (89827)
03-02-2004 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Sylas
03-02-2004 2:28 PM


It appears I am not making myself clear in this thread at all.

I did not mean emotional in the WAY he responded, I was referring to his apparent need to critique things I have brought up, even if I said they were not important to me.

He has seemed so determined to shoot any POSSIBILITY that these ideas might work that he uses rather strained arguments. A simple mmmmmmm, I'm not sure that would really work, would have been sufficient, or even I think this other way might be better.

But whatever...

For the sake of everyone's sanity I'll not debate your analysis of the argument thus far, and concentrate on what I consider the only real points, which is the conclusion you laid out.

quote:
It is unconstitutional to constrain religious theorists from speaking to congress on what science is about.

Agreed, and this is not what I was talking about. If the problem is with my inability to communicate properly, fine. I did not mean to suggest religious people cannot talk about anything. However, what I WAS trying to suggest is that whatever ANYONE says for use before Congress could be fact-checked so that false statements are not made.

This could be a combination of research/correction, and fining people for making false statements (ala perjury).

I gave as an example religious people being allowed to say whatever they want and their words treated as unquestionable facts, because that is what is pushing the very subject we are talking about. There are few "fair and balanced" hearings going on. Congressmen stack the decks and there is no fact-checking. Thus religious types get to speak for themselves and for scientists and that is all.

Bush is also doing this with his environmental and bioethics panels. He just fired two more prominent scientists so he did not have to hear what science has to say.

A number of scientists recently signed a public paper criticising this very type of thing which is the trend of this administration. I am only trying to suggest ways to start dealing with a reality that is already on the ground.

quote:
It is problematic to have "an independent organization free of partisan policy demands" in charge of informing congress of the issues.

To form one, or to have one? They have supposedly independent investigating commitees all the time, so I am uncertain why it would not be possible to have one more, and on a more permanent basis.

The CIA is itself a form of permanent information gathering, though on specific subjects regarding foreign economics/politics/military. They even publish their own worldbook for public use. It is to be independent and nonpartisan.

What would be difficult (beyond normal bureucratic realities) in setting up the same type of organization (information gathering) to focus on science subjects?

Obviously people can address personal conclusions or ethical conclusions from subjective criteria applied to objective reality, while formulating policy. This will simply make sure what is objective stays objective.

And heck, I'd love to see the government helping store and disseminate scientific information as they do for facts about geography/politics.

quote:
It is not (necessarily?) problematic to "make sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked".

And really this is my only interest.

Perhap I am mistaken but I do not believe this will be possible, without introducing some form of independent fact checking into the system we have now. Currently the system is for congress and the president to assemble ministers to preach to the choir.

Unless this precedent is changed formally, (IMO) the temporary position holds now will become permanent... impotently crying and whining before, during, and after religious types drive the legislative machine which crushes science education into a tool of religion.

[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2004]


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Sylas, posted 03-02-2004 2:28 PM Sylas has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2004 12:28 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 20 of 20 (92515)
03-15-2004 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
03-02-2004 3:59 PM


hi
hey holmes -- so this is where you hide out (from the other C vs E board) -- same battle different front?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2004 3:59 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019