Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death Penalty and Stanley Tookie Williams
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 151 of 166 (275134)
01-02-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Silent H
01-02-2006 6:05 PM


Re: changing minds... ad hoc edition
Wow, you sure can use big words.
Yeah. You should try looking them up, sometime. But criticizing me for technical language on a scientific discussion board isn't going to get you very far.
Now you explain why that is wrong, or using a similar simple diagramming system, detail your argument above.
I did explain, and I did detail. Your simplified analogy doesn't describe the situation, and I've already explained why. But you've just dismissed that explanation because the words were too long for you to understand.
I'm not sure how to respond to that. If you're too stupid to understand the words I'm using, I don't see how that's my problem.
There is no logical reason anyone would have to provide such a test.
Absolutely there is. Have you forgotten why? Given a situation or experience, we're using whether or not it exists in our shared experiential world to determine whether or not it's a practical likelyhood, or only a theoretical one.
Remember? The problem is, you don't have a way to determine whether or not a given experience will happen or not - will be part of our shared experiential world or not.
That's why we need the test, to determine the difference between the practical and the theoretical. Remember?
What we can agree is our experiential world.
How can we agree on that? I can agree on what's happened to me, and you can agree on what's happened to you, but you've already said that world is larger than our past experiences; that it encompasses what we will experience, as well. So how do we tell the difference between what we've not experienced and what we won't experience?
Holmes, I ask for the difference between the practical things that haven't happened yet and the theoretical things that haven't happened yet, and all you give me is the runaround.
Why won't you answer the question? Doesn't it bother you that you're trying to establish the criteria by which the state might take a life, maybe even yours, and your argument rests on evasions?
There is no need to appeal to the possibility of future forms of experience.
How do you figure? You don't think anything new will ever happen?
. You are trying to conflate practical and theoretical knowledge.
I conflate them because they're the same thing. You've consistently failed to support your assertion that there's a difference.
How does one get coerced into getting themselves executed if they really don't want that to happen?
Why does it matter if they want it or not? Abetting a murder after the fact isn't a capital crime, so the death penalty wouldn't be appropriate for such a person.
Don't you see where you are simply using what you want to justify the rule system used, rather than using an actual system to justify a conclusion?
How could that be possible, when I'm in favor of execution for certain crimes? I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle, only in practice. Do you honestly believe that's consistent with what you've described?
C'mon, Holmes. Answer the questions. Address the points. These evasions are beneath you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 01-02-2006 6:05 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2006 5:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 152 of 166 (275257)
01-03-2006 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
01-02-2006 8:30 PM


Re: changing minds... ad hoc edition
But criticizing me for technical language on a scientific discussion board isn't going to get you very far.
I wasn't criticizing you for using big words. I was criticizing you for using them in place of an actual argument. All you did was use large words as part of an assertion. That doesn't make it any less an assertion, or more of an argument.
I did explain, and I did detail. Your simplified analogy doesn't describe the situation, and I've already explained why. But you've just dismissed that explanation because the words were too long for you to understand.
But you didn't explain and you didn't detail. You asserted a position and when given a counterargument which included not just an explanation but first an analogy and then a simple diagram of the logical structure, you just reasserted your position in different words.
Here's how real logical argument works: One person makes and argument and another deals with the argument by advancing new information which attacks a plank of the original argument (as well as any that might build upon their own position).
And what's real nifty is that one does not need huge words to make one's point. That's what symbolic logic is used for. And you'd know that since you supposedly had symbolic logic.
Now deal with the argument I made, by offering NEW information, not new words.
If you're too stupid to understand the words I'm using, I don't see how that's my problem.
Look, I don't know if you believe I am lying about having a degree in this or not, but take a step back for a second and think about how much impact that sentence would have on someone with a degree in the subject. Yes I understand the words, that's why I can recognize you are not addressing my argument.
That's why we need the test, to determine the difference between the practical and the theoretical. Remember?
But we don't need such a test. If you are claiming that you cannot tell what forms of experience we share to make up our shared reality then you cannot claim to be a scientist or follow science. When asking the question of if X killed Y, there is only a certain amount of NATURAL phenomena that one can appeal to for evidence.
You remember the difference between natural and supernatural right? Perhaps the confusion stemmed from my using different words.
Intriguingly I stated what our shared experiential world was and you refused to address it in your response. It described our shared world according to natural mechanisms we obtain from experience.
Yes, theoretically there may be supernatural phenomena, or perhaps some natural phenomena we have yet to witness. But that does not change our ability to reach practical conclusions about practical reality and reach practical certainty... practical being a discussion of what we can know and not allusions to what may come to shatter all current natural understanding. That especially when we are asking a simple causal connection between X and Y.
Why won't you answer the question? Doesn't it bother you that you're trying to establish the criteria by which the state might take a life, maybe even yours, and your argument rests on evasions?
But I have answered your question. And no my responses do not bother me because they are forthright and not evasive. The are also reasonable, which yours cannot claim to be. Can you spot how many fallacies this so called "argument" contains?
How do you figure? You don't think anything new will ever happen?
I think that point is moot. The idea that certain questions cannot reach a practical conclusion because theoretically all natural concepts may be destroyed at some point in the future is fallacious.
And remember this is what we are discussing at this point in time. It is not some new experience of evidence we can obtain, it is a new form of experience which reveals a new world such that what we would obviously decide is the culprit is just a BIV set up by the mad scientist (to use an analogy).
Discussions of BIVs within the field have resulted in people understanding your form of argument is without merit. It makes the concept of knowledge and learning and decision making pointless. And that does not support your assertion that such an obliteration supports your position on the death penalty. What it does is removes yours and mine equally. Unless of course you are going to be arbitrary and say we should only include what helps your position and excludes mine.
I conflate them because they're the same thing. You've consistently failed to support your assertion that there's a difference.
I'm sorry what? I gave you the BIV scenario. You have as yet not addressed it at all. And by the way your overuse of the word assertion is starting to get annoying. Here is the BIV scenario again (more briefly)...
BIVs share a "practical reality" which consists of experiences that all BIVs share in a consistent manner, fed to them by a mad scientist. That is their "experiential world". Although real, as long as it is unknown, the possibility that they are just BIVs remains a theoretical reality to them. Thus they can act within their practical reality and gain practical knowledge about it. That it is an illusion makes NO DIFFERENCE to them in any practical sense. Only at such time as the mad scientist begins removing cause and effect connections (or any other consistency) within their experiential world, would appeals to practical reality be useless to them.
YOU brought up BIVs, I went with them, then you gave up. Talk about evasion. Let's see something already.
Why does it matter if they want it or not? Abetting a murder after the fact isn't a capital crime, so the death penalty wouldn't be appropriate for such a person.
That did not answer my question at all. I asked HOW can a person be coerced to do such a thing if they really don't want to? If they don't want to then they could escape the death penalty. Thus the only people who are able to slide under the radar are suicides willing to aid and abet a murderer.
Remember I already admitted that this is the only theoretical possibility, then you said it wasn't. That's what you were challenged to show, and here we are right back to my point.
If you admit that the only people that could slip through are suicides bent on aiding a real murderer, then we can move on to the next issue which you bring up here (though ironically already dealt with elsewhere in this thread).
I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle, only in practice.
Not from any reason based standpoint which is what you are trying to suggest. You are arguing that there is some sliding scale of evidence based on importance, and that because death is so important only a scale which denies all evidence as possible is sufficient. That is pretty convenient and as I have already argued makes little sense.
That means that rules get tighter and there are greater exclusions of theoreticals in your scale up until death is the question (the supposedly most important issue) and then all rules disappear and all theoreticals allowed. That's a loss of reason, not an increase.

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 151 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2006 8:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2006 3:08 PM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 166 (275378)
01-03-2006 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Silent H
01-03-2006 5:46 AM


Re: changing minds... ad hoc edition
I was criticizing you for using them in place of an actual argument.
Nice try, but here's what you actually said:
quote:
Wow, you sure can use big words. Unfortunately they don't add up to anything. I showed you why the pen analogy did fit as I wrote it, using a very simple semi-symbolic logic example. You didn't address it at all and instead asserted the above.
If you don't understand the terminology, and it would be pretty embarassing for you not to understand set terminology when you were the one who started using analogies about sets, it's no wonder you don't understand how I've just refuted your argument. Like I've said, go back and read it again. I'm not sure how I can dumb it down for you any farther.
But you didn't explain and you didn't detail.
Absolutely I did; you just haven't understood yet. Go back and read it.
Now deal with the argument I made, by offering NEW information, not new words.
I've already dealt with your argument, Holmes. There's no need for me to present anything new. It's up to you to present something new, something besides shadow and evasion.
Yes I understand the words, that's why I can recognize you are not addressing my argument.
It's because you think I haven't addressed your argument that I know you're not understanding what I'm writing. It's quite simple.
If you are claiming that you cannot tell what forms of experience we share to make up our shared reality then you cannot claim to be a scientist or follow science. When asking the question of if X killed Y, there is only a certain amount of NATURAL phenomena that one can appeal to for evidence.
And what, exactly, is that amount? Time after time, Holmes, your argument is revealed to be nothing more than an appeal to your own personal subjective guess about what is likely and what is not.
Sorry, but I need a greater standard of proof to have the state kill a man who might be me. I'll accept that standard for just about everything else except for that. Arbitrary? Sure. Why not?
You remember the difference between natural and supernatural right?
Actually, no, I don't. Are you thinking of somebody else? The "supernatural" is actually completely meaningless to me. It's a word that means nothing, because what it purports to describe is nonsense - a distinction that is no distinction.
It described our shared world according to natural mechanisms we obtain from experience.
But we don't obtain the natural mechanisms. We obtain generalized approximations of them. The best we can always get, in your system or any other, is approximations of reality, not reality itself.
And, sorry, but once again, I want more than that if we're going to have the state execute someone who might be myself. Apparently you don't. That's fine with me. But you'll pardon me if, when faced with arbitrary moral choices, I occasionally make different ones than you.
That doesn't appear to be something that you're comfortable with. I suggest you get the hell over yourself.
And no my responses do not bother me because they are forthright and not evasive.
You've absolutely evaded almost every one of my points, by either referring to it as "not an argument", erroneously asserting that you've "already answered it", or outright ignoring it altogether. Absolutely nothing about your posts is forthright; the proof of that is how long they are, and how often we completely miss each other's point.
If you were forthright and not evasive, you wouldn't have to post so much garbage.
And by the way your overuse of the word assertion is starting to get annoying.
Boy, it just drives you crazy when people use the precise word to describe what they're talking about, doesn't it? What is that, exactly? Like you're so bad at writing with clarity and precision that you just can't stand it when other people do?
If the best attack you can level against my posts is that my words are long and I write with precision, we're done. You've already lost.
I asked HOW can a person be coerced to do such a thing if they really don't want to?
You've never had someone make you do something you didn't really want to do? You've never volunteered to do something you wouldn't otherwise want to do, because something worse might happen to someone if you didn't?
If you can't understand how someone might be coerced in this situation, then I submit that you possess a staggering lack of imagination and wisdom.
You are arguing that there is some sliding scale of evidence based on importance, and that because death is so important only a scale which denies all evidence as possible is sufficient. That is pretty convenient and as I have already argued makes little sense.
It makes perfect sense, and, additionally, it's how everyone, including you, make decisions and carry about their activities in the real world. Moreover it's perfectly represented in our legal codes, as evidenced by the sliding scale of evidentiary requirements as you rise up from things like traffic citations -where often little more is needed than the officer's word to convict you; to civil/business law - where the standard is the "preponderance of evidence"; to criminal courts - where the standard becomes "beyond reasonable doubt." Is it really so unreasonable to suggest that the scale goes up even further, and that for the application of the death penalty, we might apply a standard of "beyond all doubt"?
Unreasonable? "Makes little sense"? Makes perfect sense, in fact, and it's the way that you and me and everybody else already lives, as proven by the evidence from our legal codes which I have just outlined.
Absolutely perfect sense, unlike a single one of your posts in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2006 5:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2006 7:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 154 of 166 (275484)
01-03-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
01-03-2006 3:08 PM


Re: changing minds... ad hoc edition
Nice try, but here's what you actually said:
There was nothing contradictory between the two statements. Here they are again in full (notice that when not shortened the two look even more alike...
I wasn't criticizing you for using big words. I was criticizing you for using them in place of an actual argument. All you did was use large words as part of an assertion. That doesn't make it any less an assertion, or more of an argument.
vs
Wow, you sure can use big words. Unfortunately they don't add up to anything. I showed you why the pen analogy did fit as I wrote it, using a very simple semi-symbolic logic example. You didn't address it at all and instead asserted the above.
The only question I have is how you do not see that they say the same thing? You used big words, but the big words didn't change the fact that you used an assertion instead of an argument.
I've already dealt with your argument, Holmes. There's no need for me to present anything new. It's up to you to present something new, something besides shadow and evasion.
This simply isn't going to work against me. Let's say for argument's sake that you did lay out an argument. But then let's say for argument's sake that I missed it. Why don't you repeat that counter argument.
Please use symbologic logic (even a simplified version) in order to avoid any possible confusion.
The "supernatural" is actually completely meaningless to me. It's a word that means nothing, because what it purports to describe is nonsense - a distinction that is no distinction.
If it helps any maybe you can think of it as metaphysical vs physical?
The best we can always get, in your system or any other, is approximations of reality, not reality itself.
Again you have lost yourself in metaphysical discussion. We cannot reach certainty that any explanation does not have a different metaphysical explanation. We can however limit the amount of practical physical explanations. With whether X murdered why, the practical physical bounds are even further defined.
DeCartes and Hume were two "pioneers" in this form of skepticism. Hume especially is useful in this instance. He used an example of billiard balls. We can for all practical purposes say that one moves and its knocking into another causes the second to move, thought theoretically that might not be the correct causational mechanism at all. His work was on destroying absolute concepts of knowledge, but it is metaphysical knowledge. Others post Hume (and somewhat within Hume himself) examined that as long as it is consistent the practical knowledge is sufficient for explanation. And one CAN have practical knowledge.
That doesn't appear to be something that you're comfortable with. I suggest you get the hell over yourself.
The only thing I am uncomfortable with are statements that you are actually using a system, indeed demanding a system that is more stringent based on a scale of increasing stringency due to the importance of the question.
If you simply said you don't like it and so you don't want it, especially because you fear something might happen to you no matter the system in place... okay.
If the best attack you can level against my posts is that my words are long and I write with precision, we're done. You've already lost.
Well it seems pretty obvious to me that we are done. I answer your questions and you claim I don't. You claim to answer mine when there isn't an answer to be found.
For example I have mentioned BIVs a few times already to describe the difference between practical and theoretical knowledge or certainty, including the last post... where is your response?
If you really have nothing else to say, then I'm perfectly comfortable leaving anyone reading our posts to decide for themselves who made their point.
If you can't understand how someone might be coerced in this situation, then I submit that you possess a staggering lack of imagination and wisdom.
Then show me your very simple answer.
Is it really so unreasonable to suggest that the scale goes up even further, and that for the application of the death penalty, we might apply a standard of "beyond all doubt"?
Yes that is unreasonable, when all doubt has to include purely theoretical (metaphysical) doubts. That is to say when you have courts limited because there might be a conspiracy of invisible pink ponies using their padded pantaloons to force people to do things and alter videotape... you have not made your system MORE rigorous. You have abandoned systems altogether.
I gave an analogy to this. If someone felt that knowledge about the beginning of life is more important than whether an innocent man is put to death, would it be reasonable for them to demand science accept any and all theories?
And as I already told you, if that is true, if all theoretical entities must be entertained, then one must also entertain the theoreticals that not killing the defendant is actually killing him and maybe 20 more people, or that not killing is actually killing... THEY just want us to believe we are saving people so that they can kill more!
I would hope you see the problem with that. And to say you will only select the theoretical entities which support your position, is to be arbitrary even within your nonrigorous system. It is to say I only want to hear doubt, because I don't want X.
Absolutely perfect sense, unlike a single one of your posts in this thread.
Right. We can end it here then. I'm fine with it.

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 153 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2006 3:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2006 7:52 PM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 166 (275491)
01-03-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Silent H
01-03-2006 7:20 PM


Re: changing minds... ad hoc edition
Just going to skip most of it; little in your post is anything more than posturing.
I gave an analogy to this. If someone felt that knowledge about the beginning of life is more important than whether an innocent man is put to death, would it be reasonable for them to demand science accept any and all theories?
Absolutely. But we don't conduct science by democracy; in fact, there really aren't any rules for conducting science at all, simply some casual guidelines that everybody tries to follow along, and that the refereed journals demand from their submissions.
You can do just about anything you like in your garage and call it "science"; this is how creationism works, after all. Of course just because you call it science doesn't mean that anyone else is going to.
But our legal system is different. Because we live in a democracy, we have to establish laws from a concensus of the people who they're going to be applied to.
So, no. I don't see the unreasonableness in what you describe. If it's that important to that guy, let him hold that standard. What power does he have, though, to compel anyone else to play along?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2006 7:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 5:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 156 of 166 (275630)
01-04-2006 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
01-03-2006 7:52 PM


Sympathy for the Creationist?
So, no. I don't see the unreasonableness in what you describe. If it's that important to that guy, let him hold that standard. What power does he have, though, to compel anyone else to play along?
There is a definition of science that the govt uses. That was eventually revealed in the Kansas debates regarding ID. The argument the ID camp (and some creationists) use is that determining the TRUTH is so important that ALL theories must be entertained.
Thus the board altered the definition of science so that instruction in science would be "improved" or "strengthened" by allowing essentially any and all theories to be examined.
Your argument supports that, but I don't believe you agree with that at all.
It is true anyone can do anything and call it science, but you have berated enough people here for doing just that.
In fact modern science DOES have a methodology, so do courts for handling evidence. The point of these methods... derived over years of reflecting and improving on the methodology... is to focus effort on practical or reasonable possibilities, so they do not waste time entertaining theories that have no possibility of being determined, and even if they did would have no practical benefit if they were treated as existing.
When systems become more rigorous they usually remove more theories from possibility by bounding what can be addressed, and ask for more evidence from within the remaining sources of evidence.
In the end, forced entertainment of any and all theories is less rigorous a system and involves less reason. It demands repeal of logic and learned empirical rules regarding acquisition of knowledge. It appears greatly self-serving when this demand arbitrarily then asks entertaining ONLY those theories which lend support for your position, and in no other circumstance would you agree such a system would be rigorous and worthwhile.
If your position is now that modern science can be called anything, be conducted in any way, and instructed in any way, entertaining all theories including purely metaphysical constructs, then that should be very interesting to watch you argue against creationists in the future.
What would be your basis for argument against them? If it is just that they won't have the power to convince others, then you are fully supporting what creationists are contending all along... science is nothing but modern religion smashing down those they do not like.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-04-2006 05:26 AM

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 155 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2006 7:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2006 10:33 AM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 166 (275714)
01-04-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Silent H
01-04-2006 5:26 AM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
It is true anyone can do anything and call it science, but you have berated enough people here for doing just that.
They get to do it. I get to berate them.
What's the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 5:26 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 1:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 158 of 166 (275772)
01-04-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
01-04-2006 10:33 AM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
They get to do it. I get to berate them. What's the problem?
If you do it too, then you are being hypocritical to berate them, as well as getting upset when they berate you for doing what they themselves do.
In any case, my main point was that modern science has a history which has resulted in a real methodology. Perhaps you can call anything science, but technically modern science is not just anything.

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 157 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2006 10:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2006 5:42 PM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 159 of 166 (275844)
01-04-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Silent H
01-04-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
In any case, my main point was that modern science has a history which has resulted in a real methodology. Perhaps you can call anything science, but technically modern science is not just anything.
I haven't disputed this. The real scientific methodology wasn't determined by consensus, so it doesn't matter what one person thinks is science, or doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 1:28 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 5:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 160 of 166 (275848)
01-04-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
01-04-2006 5:42 PM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
The real scientific methodology wasn't determined by consensus, so it doesn't matter what one person thinks is science, or doesn't.
I'd agree in general, but there are limits. Doesn't it matter if that one person happens to be you or your kid's science teacher?

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 159 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2006 5:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2006 6:13 PM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 161 of 166 (275853)
01-04-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Silent H
01-04-2006 5:48 PM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
Doesn't it matter if that one person happens to be you or your kid's science teacher?
You don't think there's a process for certifying teachers, or for removing them from the classroom if they fail to accurately instruct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 5:48 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 7:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 162 of 166 (275869)
01-04-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by crashfrog
01-04-2006 6:13 PM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
You don't think there's a process for certifying teachers, or for removing them from the classroom if they fail to accurately instruct?
Maybe I should have been more clear... I was kind of just making a joke so wasn't going for the fine details. While anyone can do what they want and call it science, when it comes down to important things like education, that is not possible, right?
Certification of science teachers would involve making sure they knew and could relate proper methodology. That would be decided somewhat by consensus of those within the field, right?

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 161 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2006 6:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2006 8:48 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2006 10:38 PM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 166 (275890)
01-04-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Silent H
01-04-2006 7:02 PM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
While anyone can do what they want and call it science, when it comes down to important things like education, that is not possible, right?
No, it's still possible. Anyone can call anything they like "science". But nobody else, including members of the board of certification, for instance, has to agree.
Clearer? Or is just one of those things where you're going to disagree with me no matter what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 7:02 PM Silent H has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 164 of 166 (275918)
01-04-2006 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Silent H
01-04-2006 7:02 PM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
Certification of science teachers would involve making sure they knew and could relate proper methodology. That would be decided somewhat by consensus of those within the field, right?
Are you advocating this in addition to certification for teaching? Teachers are first taught to teach - that is their major - and what they teach is secondary to that degree.
My experience with present schools (my son's) relative to my personal experience in school show a disturbing trend to generalized teachers that are then assigned to various classes depending more on seniority than on expertise, ability or even current knowledge.
In schools large enough to have several teachers covering the same courses there would be a mechanism available to pick the better teacher, if that were (a) information available and (b) the desired goal of the {student\parents} (as opposed to picking the one that gives the "better" grades regardless of ability)
Has anyone noticed that this is waaaaaaaay off topic?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2006 7:02 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Silent H, posted 01-05-2006 4:03 AM RAZD has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 165 of 166 (275960)
01-05-2006 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
01-04-2006 10:38 PM


Re: Sympathy for the Creationist?
Are you advocating this in addition to certification for teaching? Teachers are first taught to teach - that is their major - and what they teach is secondary to that degree.
That's a pretty good point. Yes I am advocating that where it does not exist as standards already (districts or schools), in large part because I was lucky enough to go to schools that generally had degreed candidates in fields teaching those subjects.
I guess as far as my general point was concerned I should not have said certification, but rather allowing a teacher to continue teaching a subject. Even where certification does not require standard education in a field, they usually are (from what I understand) expected to adhere to instruction of a knowledge set within a field, and for science that would include proper methodology.
My experience with present schools (my son's) relative to my personal experience in school show a disturbing trend to generalized teachers that are then assigned to various classes depending more on seniority than on expertise, ability or even current knowledge.
I had actually forgotten (possibly suppressed) some of the shocking experiences I have had with those looking to become teachers. I had to help many because I was in science and they needed to figure something out. They suggested the same thing that you did, that the concept was to have a generalized teacher who specialized in "teaching" rather than a subject.
When I asked why they did not have an interest in learning the subject (rather than getting my help here and there on specific points) the answer was invariably that they didn't really care about science, they just wanted to teach!
Actually maybe that experience was buried by the more shocking experience of having nurses and other premed students say the same thing. Why do I need to know about chemistry, and how to convert? I just want to help people!
uhoh.
Has anyone noticed that this is waaaaaaaay off topic?
Its a long and winding road.

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 164 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2006 10:38 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-05-2006 5:02 AM Silent H has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024