Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:07 PM
31 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   One small step for science...maybe?
onifre
Member (Idle past 1028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1 of 29 (502105)
03-09-2009 5:11 PM


So, I read an article today concerning Obama over
turning the Bush stem cell policy.

I'm not so much interested in the fact that stem cell research is getting some government funding, finally! - Or that Obama overturned it. My interest is with Obamas support for science, and his direct mention of the removal of ideologies from science.

The Article; "Obama overturns Bush policy on Stem Cell

This particular quote is of interest:

quote:
"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Does anyone feel that ID, during this administration, will not be as influential or boisterous, at the very least in the publics eye, but at the most in our educational system?

*PS. I miss Buz :(

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 12:59 PM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 4 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 1:07 PM onifre has responded
 Message 7 by AustinG, posted 04-10-2009 11:03 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 29 (502186)
03-10-2009 9:20 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3393
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 3 of 29 (502240)
03-10-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
03-09-2009 5:11 PM


Whoo!
onifre writes:

Does anyone feel that ID, during this administration, will not be as influential or boisterous, at the very least in the publics eye, but at the most in our educational system?

I certainly hope so.

And, if this Stem Cell thing is anthing to go by, it seems like the US is headed in that direction.

It will be interesting to see if Obama takes any sympathetic actions at all towards the ID movement after making such a bold statement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 03-09-2009 5:11 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 4 of 29 (502242)
03-10-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
03-09-2009 5:11 PM


Does anyone feel that ID, during this administration, will not be as influential or boisterous, at the very least in the publics eye, but at the most in our educational system?

Not as influential. But even more boisterous. Now that their man isn't in charge, and now that there's someone who definitely doesn't agree with them, they're going to shout ever louder.

Trouble is, it's all into the wind (I hope).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 03-09-2009 5:11 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by onifre, posted 03-10-2009 4:47 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 5 of 29 (502282)
03-10-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kuresu
03-10-2009 1:07 PM


But even more boisterous.

Which media outlets do you feel will support them?

Trouble is, it's all into the wind (I hope).

I agree, but I don't even think they'll get the forum to do so. Not much sympathy for those guys(ID) outside of the far conservative right.

Maybe Fox News?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 1:07 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
olivortex
Member (Idle past 2855 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 6 of 29 (502300)
03-10-2009 7:05 PM


no more shortcuts please
Maybe hardcore anti-evolution theory patrols will give us a little less of that "Darwin------->Racism" bool, at least.

I love this particular part:

especially when it's inconvenient

What's more, I simply love this new president's full name for the Middle-Eastern flavour of it: Barack HUSSEIN Obama! Here in france we're used to giving lessons to the US but these elections have given us the right to shut up, wait and see.

I'm glad that he supports science, and i hope we'll see the results of his policy soon.


    
AustinG
Member (Idle past 3246 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 7 of 29 (505389)
04-10-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
03-09-2009 5:11 PM


Removing ideologies from science
quote:
My interest is with Obamas support for science, and his direct mention of the removal of ideologies from science.

Don't get me wrong, I support stem cell research; however, do we as a society really want ideologies out of science?

For instance, I don't want people to be injected and killed with fatal viruss in order to test vaccines. I'm sure you can think of worst examples of, shal we say, science without ideologies (Hitler's "science" expirements come to mind).

My point is that some ideologies must be kept; I guess you would call it ethics. Hope you see my point. Perhaps there is a difference between ethics and ideologies. In that case forget everything I just said ; ).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 03-09-2009 5:11 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 8:32 PM AustinG has not yet responded

    
Whateverman
Junior Member (Idle past 3505 days)
Posts: 6
From: MA, US
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 8 of 29 (508861)
05-16-2009 8:01 PM


I think it'd be impossible for ideology (and philosophy) to be completely absent from science. Simply put, scientists are people, and they (we) aren't going to be perfectly impartial. The best that can be hoped for is that it takes a back seat to the scientific method; that the search for "fact" overrides notions of what we want to find.

Education, on the other hand, is all about philosophy and ideology. One person's knowledge will be another's controversy (though I'm not suggestion education is completely subjective). In an indirect way, I'm suggesting that I expect ID to get more airplay, in part due to its appearance in scholastic circles.

I don't necessarily think that ID in schools is a bad thing. Assuming nothing changes, I would simply object to the idea that it belongs in a science class.

Edited by Whateverman, : Grammar


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2009 8:17 PM Whateverman has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 29 (508862)
05-16-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Whateverman
05-16-2009 8:01 PM


ID as science?
I don't necessarily think that ID in schools is a bad thing. Assuming nothing changes, I would simply object to the idea that it belongs in a science class.

ID is religion lite, creationism with the serial numbers filed off in the hope of fooling school boards and legislators. It is a direct descendant of the creationism --> creation "science" --> "What do we do now?" problem as those previous attempts failed to fool the courts.

If you look at it, the impetus for ID is not from scientific research, such as private industry or the universities. It is from a few scientists already committed to creationism, and from organizations such as the Discovery Institute, staffed more with lawyers and PR flacks than research scientists. And the Discovery Institute's whole approach was shown to be dishonest by their Wedge Document, when it leaked to the internet. Their goal is not to do better science, but as follows:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

See anything remotely like the scientific method in there?

No, you don't. Their goal is not to follow the data wherever it leads, but to end up with science as we know it eliminated, and a new science subservient to Christian and theistic masters in its place (sounds like they would favor a theocracy, eh?).

So no, ID is not science. It is anti-science from its beginning, a deceitful Trojan horse aimed at the science classes first, and the general population afterwards.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Whateverman, posted 05-16-2009 8:01 PM Whateverman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 8:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Fallen, posted 05-16-2009 9:40 PM Coyote has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 10 of 29 (508863)
05-16-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AustinG
04-10-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Removing ideologies from science
I'm sure you can think of worst examples of, shal we say, science without ideologies (Hitler's "science" expirements come to mind).

Isn't that science with extreme ideology?

Enjoy


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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AustinG, posted 04-10-2009 11:03 PM AustinG has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 11 of 29 (508864)
05-16-2009 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
05-16-2009 8:17 PM


Re: ID as science?
ID is religion lite, creationism with the serial numbers filed off in the hope of fooling school boards and legislators. It is a direct descendant of the creationism --> creation "science" --> "What do we do now?" problem as those previous attempts failed to fool the courts.

That's where it started, for sure, however ID is not under their control. It's the old "be careful of what you wish" problem.

What I see is a broadening of the creationist front, now that they have the option to move into ID and away from YEC. Denton comes to mind.

Personally, I would like to see ID in a Philosophy of Science course - what would seem to be it's strong-point, but to teach it through logic first.

Enjoy.


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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2009 8:17 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 12 of 29 (508868)
05-16-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
05-16-2009 8:17 PM


Re: ID as science?
ID is religion lite, creationism with the serial numbers filed off in the hope of fooling school boards and legislators. It is a direct descendant of the creationism --> creation "science" --> "What do we do now?" problem as those previous attempts failed to fool the courts.

So, I guess you would classify the ancient Stoics as "creationist lite" for arguing that nature indicates an intelligent designer?

"Can any one in his senses imagine that this disposition of the stars, and this heaven so beautifully adorned, could ever have been formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Or what other nature, being destitute of intellect and reason, could possibly have produced these effects, which not only required reason to bring them about, but the very character of which could not be understood and appreciated without the most strenuous exertions of well-directed reason?" (Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, section XLIV)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2009 8:17 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2009 10:06 PM Fallen has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Theodoric, posted 05-16-2009 10:31 PM Fallen has not yet responded
 Message 15 by onifre, posted 05-18-2009 1:08 PM Fallen has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 13 of 29 (508870)
05-16-2009 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fallen
05-16-2009 9:40 PM


Re: ID as science?
So, I guess you would classify the ancient Stoics as "creationist lite" for arguing that nature indicates an intelligent designer?

The ancient Stoics aren't trying to sneak a fundamentalist religion into high school science classes after it has repeatedly been excluded by the courts.

IDers are.

Just look at the Wedge Document, which was never intended to leak out to the internet, for their true goals.

(Those goals are not the promotion of science, but the elimination of science as we know it. ID is certainly not science!)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fallen, posted 05-16-2009 9:40 PM Fallen has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 14 of 29 (508873)
05-16-2009 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fallen
05-16-2009 9:40 PM


Re: ID as science?
quote:
So, I guess you would classify the ancient Stoics as "creationist lite" for arguing that nature indicates an intelligent designer?

Don't you think it is kind of weird that you are going back over 2000 years to find an example to attempt to generate a controversy. The Stoics were no different then most people in that time period. Practically everyone believed in the supernatural of one sort or the other.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but science has come a long way since the first century BCE. I guess I do not understand why you bring up Stoicism and Cicero. Why should his believing in a creator matter to anything?

You might look more into what Cicero believed.

Here are a couple points from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Stoicism as Cicero understood it held that the gods existed and loved human beings.

Religion was useful because it helped to control human behavior and could be used as a tool for public policy;

So your point in bringing up Cicero and the Stoics was????


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fallen, posted 05-16-2009 9:40 PM Fallen has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 15 of 29 (509075)
05-18-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fallen
05-16-2009 9:40 PM


Re: ID as science?
So, I guess you would classify the ancient Stoics as "creationist lite" for arguing that nature indicates an intelligent designer?

I would classify Cicero as a person of great intelligence during a time of great ignorance.

Cicero writes:

Can any one in his senses imagine that this disposition of the stars, and this heaven so beautifully adorned, could ever have been formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms?

Yes, and eventually Newton and Einstein did just that.

Or what other nature, being destitute of intellect and reason, could possibly have produced these effects, which not only required reason to bring them about, but the very character of which could not be understood and appreciated without the most strenuous exertions of well-directed reason?"

No "nature destined of intellect and reason" required, just plane ole, non-intelligent gravitational forces.

I understand Ciceros' argument from incredulity, but yours, in this day and age, seems a bit outdated.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fallen, posted 05-16-2009 9:40 PM Fallen has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019