|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
I've heard the 'how' and 'why' (inadvertently, methinks) interchanged by one undergrad chemistry professor (1983). She stated science gives the 'how', only; later she stated science gives the 'why', only. I have emphasized the 'how' as that is what is then discussed from then on. To me there seems some profane confusion of terms: 'How' = *mechanistically caused by* (an event or something) 'Why' = *mechanistically driven by* (an event or something) (...Or something like that) Perhaps an honest disclaimer like: "Evo-Science knows neither the 'how' nor the 'why' with regard to its 'black-box' hypotheses, Evo-Science hypothesizing life's origins is severely flawed, etc.”)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Philip writes: And how am I being impolite? By asking you to support what you say? By asking you to explain concepts that make so sense to me? Not unless we debate more 'politely'. Your response to my original post was a seven word sentence that made no sense. I asked what the "no" was all about and asked you address three simple points I made. That's not rude or impolite. Your responses, on the other hand...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
I'll gladly debate/discuss with you if you quit the cursing and bashing me like I'm garbage or something. (I clam up, thus)
Peradventure, start over or refute just one of my statements that seem most obnoxious to you. ... And we'll take it from there. OK?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Philip writes: I'm still not sure how I have been cursing and bashing you. Admittedly, I did say "WTF", so I guess that constitutes "cursing"...sorry.
I'll gladly debate/discuss with you if you quit the cursing and bashing me like I'm garbage or something. (I clam up, thus) Philip writes: The point I have been trying to make is that I cannot really refute what you're saying because I have no idea what it is that you're saying. Peradventure, start over or refute just one of my statements that seem most obnoxious to you. ... And we'll take it from there. Let's go back to some earlier posts. In massage 251 you made the following comments:
Philip writes: I responded by asking you to explain how these relate to the ToE. I'll repeat my request now: At least it seems to me there's a limited evolutionary knowledge (if any) of: Quark etiology, light, inflationary-big-bang etiology(s), space-time continuum(s), gene-pool etiology(s), universal equilibration for life on earth, punctuated chromosomal mutations during the *Cambrian*, persons, spirituality, etc. 1. How do space-time continuums, light, and inflationary-big-bang etiology(s) in any way relate to the ToE. Additionally, what exactly are "inflationary-big-bang continuums? You went on to state the following (I have not copied it all, only that portions that I would most like to see a response for):Philip writes:
3) Fundamental Evo-science needs recalibration, redefinition of materials and techniques, and a publicized DISCLAIMER OF ITS LIMITATIONS with regard to evo-disputes and the cosmos. (Heck, Alabama physicians and lawyers are required to publish similar disclaimers on ALL their Ads. I asked you a variety of questions, which you ignored, so I'll repeat them again, in a toned down version so perhaps you will supply me with some answers. A publicized disclaimer? Anyone that works in science KNOWS the limitations of science. We don't really need a disclaimer, we already know that science will never know anything with absolute certainty. And why are you again only requesting this nonsense for "evo-disputes"? Could it be because you gladly accept medical science, scientists, and the brilliant work they have done in the past (and are continuing in the present), but yet you get upset when the same standards are applied to evolutionary theory? You continue with:
Philip writes: What, exactly, are these "special creation hypotheses"? Come on Philip...be the first person to EVER put forth a single testable creation hypothesis! Please give us this hypothesis! This is a big one Philip. The other stuff you wrote is mostly meaningless(IMHO) . but this is a big one. I eagerly await this TESTABLE hypothesis!!! Are you going to post it soon?
4) Special creation hypotheses ”fit’ to salvage the currently perverted ToE paradigms of the N.A.S.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Jar writes: Allowing even one super-natural event as scientific means that all of our scientific knowledge must be thrown out. We can no longer rely on medicine or any other field of knowledge. (You understand my dilemma) IF I were a 9th grade biology student, peradventure ... your 'valid' conclusion seems *strong* for me, connoting: *science-is-the-absolute*, *science-for-science-sake*, *science-reigns*, etc. Again, if I were a theistic 9th grader, I might I seriously entertain atheism, *a-god-of-forces*, lawlessness, or such ... unless there be a public disclaimer as to the extent science authority may be allowed venture? I agree biases must be kept in check, religious fanatics don't exploit, etc. But 9th grade students need protection from science fanatics and religious fanatics. Sincere science-educators might admit "fatal flaws", "black-box limitations", historical ToE fallacies, etc. Well do you view that your making private your personal theistic notion(s) is 'good' science? Currently (by your logic), I construe your 'guarded' theistic notions perhaps as: (1) Tentative hypotheses/conjectures that help 'explain'(2) Another *scientific* evidence of *some* metaphysical reality (though personal) (3) A possible serious evasion of metaphysical reality 'fitting' in (I may be wrong) This message has been edited by Philip, 12-21-2005 01:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
'Why' = *mechanistically driven by* (an event or something) The nature of "why" can get off into a lot of philosophical discussion. I think in this context it should be considered to be associated with a "reason" for something. I think, myself, that in a science classroom the "how" should be stuck to though "how" might be used but mean the same as "why" when someone is being careful.
Perhaps an honest disclaimer like: "Evo-Science knows neither the 'how' nor the 'why' with regard to its 'black-box' hypotheses, Evo-Science hypothesizing life's origins is severely flawed, etc.”)
This wouldn't make any sense. Evolutionary science couldn't possibly be talking about life's origins since it is, by definition, about living things. Chemistry is, however, starting to open up the black box of life's origins and we can start to make some tentative suggestions about it. However, if when you say "evo-science" you do mean biology then we do indeed know a great deal about how life changes over time. If you think otherwise it is a simple matter of deep ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Evolutionary science couldn't possibly be talking about life's origins since it is, by definition, about living things. I'm not a good linguist, just hyper-concerned and accountable. What publishable disclaimer(s), might you propose to keep the N.A.S. and/or 9th grade biology-educators in check. Perhaps, elaborate more on your daughter's. Or, what about your statement: "Evolutionary science couldn't possibly be talking about life's origins since it is, by definition, about living things." ...seems like an excellent disclaimer to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't understand your post at all. It seems simply a compendium of irrational suppositions.
(You understand my dilemma) No, not at all.
Sincere science-educators might admit "fatal flaws", "black-box limitations", historical ToE fallacies, etc. What fatal flaws? What TOE fallacies? What black-box limitations? Sorry, but unless you can provide some examples I can't have a clue what you are talking about.
Currently (by your logic), I construe your 'guarded' theistic notions perhaps as: I don't see how you can possible get any of those concepts from anything I've said. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What publishable disclaimer(s), might you propose to keep the N.A.S. and/or 9th grade biology-educators in check. Perhaps, elaborate more on your daughter's. Or, what about your statement: What makes you think they need to be kept in check. ID and Classic Biblical Creationism are neither science or good theology. They need to be relegated to the area of philosophy and supposition and kept out of ANY science class. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
FliesOnly writes:
This clams me up FO; now I request a minor apology. . It's nonsensical bull shit rambling like this... oh fucking PLEASE give us this hypothesis! ... The other stuff you wrote is mostly meaningless garbage Note: you don't have to concede on anything I say; and I recant in hypocritically *backing you into a corner* out-of-the-blue. But, your (toned down) persistence is appreciated, in a probationary manner for now, in the hopes of promoting ”good will’, ”truth’, and/or 'appropriate feedback'.
Philip writes: 4) Special creation hypotheses ”fit’ to salvage the currently perverted ToE paradigms of the N.A.S.
FliesOnly writes: What, exactly, are these "special creation hypotheses"? Here’s 3 (personally) necessary hypothetical conjectures that seem to me to salvage the currently 'flawed and perverted' ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. ... seeing it already delved too wrecklessly into its preposterous 'origins' propaganda (http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/): 1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth2) God (specially) created living entities 3) God (specially) created "psyches" I'm not advocating to write these hypotheses verbatum in 'an N.A.S. disclaimer'. A collection of judges (without my flawed-linguistic skills) may come up with something. The point being, I feel dreadfully accountable for 9th graders abused by biologists delving beyond their scope. How far into 'life's origins' do you want them to teach my 9th graders? Really? Also, consider commenting on NosyNed's controversal suggestions to this problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth 2) God (specially) created living entities 3) God (specially) created "psyches" Any such statements would be, thank GOD, unconstitutional as well as really really bad science. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Philip writes:
None of those is a scientific thesis. None of those belongs in a science class. None of those is appropriate as a statement of the National Academy of Science. 1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth2) God (specially) created living entities 3) God (specially) created "psyches" Impeach Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Philip writes: I will address these conjectures shortly. But first let's look at this portion of your response. Here’s 3 (personally) necessary hypothetical conjectures that seem to me to salvage the currently 'flawed and perverted' ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. ... seeing it already delved too wrecklessly into its preposterous 'origins' propaganda (http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/): I asked for an explanation as to what you consider to be the "flawed and perverted" ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. I'm still waiting. It's difficult to debate if I do not know your position. You do provide these however:Philip writes: and I hope you do understand that none of these are hypotheses...correct? None of these are testable, you do realize that...correct? 1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth2) God (specially) created living entities 3) God (specially) created "psyches" The N.A.S. is a scientific organization (which I would have thought was plainly obvious from their name), and as such, adheres to the scientific method.
Philip writes: So you are proposing that the N.A.S. write a disclaimer stating that evolutionary theory could be wrong cuz...well...cuz maybe God did it? I'm not advocating to write these hypotheses verbatum in 'an N.A.S. disclaimer'. A collection of judges (without my flawed-linguistic skills) may come up with something. Also, a judge in Dover PA recently did write somewhat of a disclaimer on the idea of the ToE and Intelligent Design. Maybe you should go read his decision. Here's a link:MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Philip writes: Such as? I certainly cannot speak for any 9th grade biology teachers, but in what way have they delved beyond their scope?
The point being, I feel dreadfully accountable for 9th graders abused by biologists delving beyond their scope. Philip writes: As far as the science can take them. Seems like the prudent thing to do, wouldn't you agree.
How far into 'life's origins' do you want them to teach my 9th graders? Really? Philip writes: No thanks, I'll let good ole NosyNed speak for himself...but admittedly, I know of no controversal suggestions he has put forth.
Also, consider commenting on NosyNed's controversal suggestions to this problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
FliesOnly writes: Philip writes: As far as the science can take them. Seems like the prudent thing to do, wouldn't you agree. How far into 'life's origins' do you want them to teach my 9th graders? Really? Pray tell, how far might that be (no more circling discussion please)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Philip writes: As far as the science can take them. Honestly, how is this circling the discussion? The ToE explains the diveristy of life on this planet. It does it via hypothesis formation, experimentation, and statistical analyses. What are your fears? What are these 9th grade biology teachers telling the children that has no scientific merit. I really don't know, that's why I'm asking you. Pray tell, how far might that be (no more circling discussion please)? NOT something you simply disagree with. I want you to attempt to explain to me how, whatever it is they are teaching, is not scientific. I may very well agree with your position...but you never seem to actually state your position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024