Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Tennessee Monkey Law!
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(3)
Message 34 of 126 (659065)
04-12-2012 10:32 AM


This bill has the potential to become more than what it says. All of us here are from different walks of life. Some of us are biologists, some are physicists, some are engineers, etc. We all know that most students aren't properly equipped to decide between two "competing" theories of which better represents reality.
For instance, I can completely relate this to my field, which is structural engineering. Most of the public aren't aware that every part of a structure has been very carefully designed and checked by dozens of engineers. There are competing approaches to designing everything from the foundation to the wall to the roof. I wouldn't trust a student to decide which is best for what project. Not for a second.
This bill proposes that students should be allowed to decide for themselves which is real science and which is not. This is the same crap we saw from the DI and creo attempts to insert their religious beliefs not too long ago.
So, no, this doesn't look like a monkey law. But it might as well be a monkey law due to the fact that students are incapable of telling the difference between reality and fiction.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 4:15 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 38 of 126 (659147)
04-12-2012 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taq
04-12-2012 4:15 PM


Taq writes:
From reading these forums, we know that there are many adults that don't understand what a scientific theory is. I would suspect that many of the Tennessee legislators who passed this bill probably don't really understand what a scientific theory is.
This is precisely why I've always advocated we sectionalize society, politics, everything according to their respective field of discipline. For example, let engineers dictate policies regarding engineering research and standards. Let biologists dictate what's best to teach about biology. Let physicists deal with things regarding physics. Let doctors deal with medical stuff. Etc.
I firmly believe a huge part of the problem regarding the progress of any field of discipline is the fact that it is often dictated by people who don't know jack shit about the field.
This law is a perfect demonstration of this.
I've stated this many times before. We live in a day and age when every dumbass in the world thinks he knows everything. What's worse is that now they get to vote by the masses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 4:15 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2012 1:15 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 126 (659223)
04-13-2012 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
04-13-2012 1:15 PM


NoNukes writes:
That would seem to make sense, but it is unworkable. For example, when the climatologists tell the engineers to stop burning carbon or our children will have to grow gills, and the engineers point out that burning carbon is the only possible way to supply society's energy needs, then who wins?
Then they work out a solution together. For example, climatologists are not dumbasses. They know that we cannot simply stop burning coals over night and not expect society to break down. Engineers are also dumbasses. They know that burning carbon won't last forever. Eventually, fossil fuel runs out.
The climatologists could tell the engineers their projections of how long we have before the point of no return or the critical point. Engineers then go ahead and try to come up with an energy alternative that doesn't involve burning fossil fuel.
The religionists then could come in and declare that god created this planet for us to rape and plunder and that it is best for us to burn fossil fuel so that we all could meet our creators earlier.
The point is we let people to be in charge of their respective fields. The various experts from these fields could work together to come up with solutions for potential problems.
This is why every time a presidential candidate is asked whether he believes in evolution or not, I always cringe. Who the hell cares if they believe in it or not? Unless they are a world's foremost expert on biological science, how the hell is their opinion matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2012 1:15 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 04-14-2012 6:51 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 44 of 126 (659326)
04-14-2012 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NoNukes
04-14-2012 6:51 AM


NoNukes writes:
So you believe everything you hear from Exxon and BP about energy policy? I don't.
Step back and think about it. Those guys in charge of exxon and bp are not energy scientists. They're capitalists. They're goal is to crew everyone else over to get richer. So, no, I don't believe everything they say.
For the rest of your post, I respectfully disagree.
Your entire argument rests on a single assumption, that the majority of the people know what's best for them and others. Before I go on, please read this article.
Dunning—Kruger effect - Wikipedia
Here's a real life example. I was talking with a group of people in a social gathering a few weeks ago when I mentioned something about the state of Israel. A woman interrupted me and said I incorrectly used the word "state". She went on to explain that the word state refers to individual states within a country. Everyone in the group nodded their heads in agreement. To my disbelief, these people have never heard of the word state in reference to a sovereign nation. This woman and everyone else in the group were quite confident that the word state could not be used in reference to Israel. After I rolled my eyes, I just nodded in agreement with them, knowing nothing I could say could convince them otherwise.
Let's face it. Most people out there are dumbasses. And FYI, I am also a dumbass. The difference between me and most people out there is I recognize it. Most people just go about their daily lives completely oblivious to the bigger world around them.
The last time I checked, the majority of the people still believe in creatioinism.
Or let's look at the current issue on health care. There was poll done by NPR last month that showed more than 80% of the people out there believe that individual mandate in the health care reform requires people to drop their current health insurance from their employment and get their own insurance and that's why they're opposed to individual mandate. After these same people are told that they could keep whatever they have right now, 90% of them switched side and supported individual mandate.
That's my proof right there that most people are too ignorant to decide who's best to run the country. Your entire premise is wrong.
Again, what I am proposing is we put the people who know what they're talking about in charge. Sure, we still elect representatives and the president, but these guys ought not to be able to dictate policies regarding science and other fields of specialty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 04-14-2012 6:51 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 04-15-2012 7:26 AM Taz has replied
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2012 9:07 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 48 of 126 (659348)
04-15-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by NoNukes
04-15-2012 9:07 AM


NoNukes writes:
What is supposed to happen is that the people elect representatives who are smarter than average bear and that have the leisure time to do the research that the typical citizen will never be able to understand.
But that's just it. Did you read the article? It's a real phenomenon. We've all have encountered this before. People who are not educated or are not intelligent enough can't tell who's more educated or who's more intelligent. This is the reason why we have people who are climate change deniers and creationists being elected into the highest offices of the land.
The alternative you propose to give the people no say and to dictate solutions to them.
No, I didn't. I never proposed this. What I said was we still elect officials to certain positions based on their qualitifications. And by law, we limit their say to what they are qualitifed in. So, for example, if we elect a lawyer then he can't tell scientists what to do. If we elect a physicist, then he can't tell lawyers what to do. It's a pretty straight foward system.
Try not to think of our current system where we have a one all powerful government body (congress) deciding everything. Instead, think of several governing bodies working together. We would have a group of scientists, a group of doctors, a group of lawyers, etc. When a conflict of interests comes up, they talk with each other to decide what's best. So, say the group of physicists finds out the sun is about to explode and wants us all to build space ships to leave the planet, the economists can't say we can't do that because it's too expensive. Instead, the economists would tell the physicists what's the viable options. And then Engineers would then give the best solutions they can come up with.
I'm not saying I have all the answers. But looking at all these dumbasses electing dumbasses into office, I'm genuinely worried for our collective future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2012 9:07 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2012 3:17 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 49 of 126 (659349)
04-15-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
04-15-2012 7:26 AM


Percy writes:
minds me of the movie Amadeus. At one point Salieri kneels on the floor and asks God why He tortures him by giving him alone the ability to perceive Mozart's genius while denying him the genius itself.
Thanks for the reminder. Yeah, the phenomenon has been perceived by various intellectuals from time to time. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to officially point it out and give it a name.
If you think about it, we can also perceive the phenomenon through common sense. If you are not competent in, say, math, then how are you to know you are not competent in it?
What we need is more people who are willing to admit their own ignorance of certain things. When a child asks you something that you don't know the answer to, you don't have to make up some shit to tell him. Just say I don't know.
When I was a cop, I was confronted by a woman who told me while driving her small daughter asked her why cops drive a lot faster than everyone else. She admitted that she didn't know the answer and that to answer her daughter she had to tell her speed limit for cops were higher than speed limit for everyone else. Classic case of just making up shit to tell your child. Most people are like that. Most people don't even realize they don't know. And what's scary is they vote by the masses based on what they don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 04-15-2012 7:26 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 51 of 126 (659397)
04-15-2012 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NoNukes
04-15-2012 3:17 PM


NoNukes writes:
At any rate, I don't even think that proposal is workable. Exactly how many people do you think we ought to elect.
This gets a little more complicated. I also believe that voters ought to be tested on a regular basis on their level of competency. I'm an engineer. My past experiences include but not limited to working as an LEO, micro-biology researcher, computer programmer, and teaching. If I want to be able to vote in certain elections of certain fields, I'd have to pass certain tests pertaining to those fields. Since I know jack shit about geology or economics, I'm pretty sure I'd fail those general knowledge tests pretty badly so I couldn't vote when it comes time to elect officials who will decide the future of geology research or economics decisions. And rightly so, too.
Again, I recognize that there are certain things that are way over my head. I can't possibly begin to tell who's more competent in those areas. Any decision I make regarding who's more competent between 2 candidates is more like a guess, not a decision.
At this point, you're going to cry fascism. This is usually what people do when they hear my proposal.
What I don't understand is we test people for certain levels of competency before we license them to drive but we don't do this when it comes time for owning a gun, having babies, vote, etc. This is why dumbasses continue to live in their dumbass ways and breed at a rate several times more than those of us who actually plan things out.
It should be a perfectly viable solution for economists, scientists, engineeers, etc. to be staff positions or agency positions as long as the advice they give is heeded.
This is already the case. And we still get people like Romney and Santorum. Again, they scare the hell out of me.
Edit.
Take religious people, for example. I think it's kind of universal law I'm not aware of that if you know jesus then you're suppose to be an expert in everything. Don't believe me? Check out buzsaw's posts. Check out the various religionists on this forum. Hell, check out desdamona's posts. At some point, she claimed to be a home school teacher.
So, it's some kind of universal law that if you found jesus then you know everything about every field of academia out there.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2012 3:17 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by frako, posted 04-16-2012 3:35 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 57 of 126 (659572)
04-16-2012 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by frako
04-16-2012 3:35 AM


frako writes:
If utilised correctly this might work, the thing is the tests should be on a high school level so that everybody could study on the topic and pass, and they should include common knowledge or what i like to call how the fuck is it possible that you dont know that.
I completely agree. The tests should be high school level. It should contain the most basic things that everyone ought to know. I just want some incentive for people to get off their asses and at least read the news for once in their lives.
Again, I am simply tired of seeing people like the tea baggers who are ignorant as hell but because they know jesus they think they know everything about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by frako, posted 04-16-2012 3:35 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 04-17-2012 1:05 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 59 of 126 (659583)
04-17-2012 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
04-17-2012 1:05 AM


RAZD writes:
What about tests for the politicians to pass before they can be a candidate?
Publish the results for the candidates that pass, with the correct answers.
The test should include constitutional law and general knowledge as well as questions on how science works, and questions specific to their chosen position they are running for.
Absolutely!
Thank you for not purposefully misunderstanding what I mean. Whenever I bring up this proposal of mine, people always call it fascism and all that BS. It seems like it's almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation these days without people entrenching themselves in some kind of extreme position or paint a strawman picture of the other side.
But yes, the point I've been trying to make is we should make people like tea baggers realize how stupid they are. And we ought to expose crank candidates like Sarah Palin or Christine Odonnell by making them them take these tests and answer questions directly.
For example, take a look at the following video.
There ought to be a law penalizing politicians for dancing around like that instead of answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 04-17-2012 1:05 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2012 3:01 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 63 of 126 (659600)
04-17-2012 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw
04-17-2012 3:01 AM


Re: Say What On Constitution?
Buzsaw writes:
You & Razd should have power to subject us all to what you think?
No, to what the facts are.
For instance, it is a FACT that taxes has not gone up AT ALL since Obama took office. But you and along with your christian people believe that taxes has gone up. This simple but very important self-delusion should alone disqualify you guys to vote all together.
Voting is a very real power put in the hands of the common people. Instead of making sure you have all the facts down before you vote, you guys self-delude yourselves and twist the facts to your delusional understanding of reality.
Tell me this much. You guys believe in a fair taxing system, don't you? Why, then, do the Obamas pay less taxes than their secretaries? Why, then, do people like Mitt Romney (who made $40 milion last year) pay 14% taxes but the rest of us are paying 20-25%?
Very simple facts in life that seem to escape you guys for some reason.
You vote with facts, not with ignorance and self-delusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2012 3:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 65 of 126 (659602)
04-17-2012 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
04-17-2012 8:36 AM


Percy writes:
Desiring the office should be grounds for disqualification. Elected officials should have to be dragged kicking and screaming into office.
I actually quite disagree with this attitude. Knowing your qualifications shouldn't negate your candidacy. It's the intent that matters, not whether there is intent at all.
Suppose back in 1940s Hitler came out to be the dark lord of the sith and Yoda knew he was the only one qualified to fight against the dark lord. But since Yoda knew he alone could fight and win against the dark lord, does this disqualify him from fighting against the dark lord of the sith?
Your logic, while sounding good in a fortune cookie, makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 04-17-2012 8:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 66 of 126 (659603)
04-17-2012 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
04-17-2012 9:31 AM


Re: and add none of the above
jar writes:
And add "None of the above" to each ballot position and if "None of the above" gets the most votes, then the position sits empty for one cycle. If a position sits empty for more than two consecutive cycles it is dropped until there is a referendum in the constituency that would be served by that position that gains a majority vote asking to try to fill it again.
We already have something like "none of the above". Turning in an empty ballot is an option, you know. I do that from time to time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 9:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 9:50 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 100 of 126 (660192)
04-21-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
04-20-2012 9:07 PM


Re: Say What On Constitution?
Buzsaw writes:
Most Americans, including all creationists and many secularists do not ascribe to some basic alleged facts and scientific theories.
Answer this one question, buzsaw. Ever since Obama took office, have we had any tax hike yet? Just answer this one simple question.
Edit.
I see that you quoted me in message 40. So, let me put it up in the whole context.
Watch that video again. Do you think he answered the question or not? If so, how? If not, is that the kind of morals you ascribe to?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2012 9:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 111 of 126 (660621)
04-27-2012 3:16 PM


Anyway, going back to the topic, how's this bill coming along?

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by subbie, posted 04-27-2012 3:33 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 113 by dwise1, posted 04-27-2012 3:43 PM Taz 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