I'll note that it is almost one hour, so don't start watching until you have a good block of available time.
Hopefully I'll find some time this weekend, I would like to see it.
I think the era of the Phil's of this world is passing. With the availability of information on Internet, it is becoming impossible to keep children in a protective cocoon of ignorance.
I agree. I think we're on the verge of a new era, one with possibilities that can't be imagined right now. The internet didn't just provide a way for people to learn. It's also provided a way for people develop the ability of dealing with others... whoever those others may be. And this ability has come extremely quickly.
What's that saying in science? Something about nobody ever really shifting paradigms, but it's just the younger generation that grows up with the acceptance of the new system and eventually the old stubborn guys just die off?
I think that something similar to the extreme of Newton -> Einstein in physics is happening to "the social world." It's only going to happen once, it's going to be a massive shift, and there's nothing that can stop it now, it's simply just a matter of time as soon as the old stubborn guys just die off.
In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette." Can you imagine the governmental system if it was dominated by evidence-driven decision making? It really makes me wish I could live for 300 years just to see what happens...
Then again, I'll also admit I can sometimes be a faithful optimist. But the hope is there, anyway...
The one thing about the internet though is that it also provides a larger platform and megaphone for the quacks to spread their nonsense. It works both ways unfortunately. The question is whose voice will be more influental and which worldview will people more readily be attracted to and adopt.
Yes, I agree. But I'm still hopefull.
Have you heard of the "really big deal" that's going through schools and such right now?
Smoking is still there... but it's not the really big deal. Drugs are still there... but it's not the really big deal. Fighting is still there (now with police involvement)... but it's not the really big deal. Sex is still there... bit it's not the really big deal.
What's the really big deal? Bullying.
I'm 34 years old. I'm willing to bet that anyone older than me remembers bullying in school as "something you just have to accept and learn to deal with on your own" ...if you were lucky. Today, it's one of the most controversial, serious tasks all teachers and students deal with.
Really? The public school system is actually dealing with bullying?
I don't mean that to sound as if I'm belittling the implications of bullying... I fully agree that it's serious business. What I mean is... the idea that the government controlled, public dominated school system can understand that this is a big issue and that they have to deal with it is... awe-inspiring. The fact that such a "stupid system" has the wherewithal and intelligence to identify an issue like this and develop procedures to deal with it... all within 20-25 years... fills me with an immense amount of hope for the human race as a whole.
I think a lot of it has to do with the internet.
Kid shoots up schoolhouse? 50 years ago you'd be lucky if the next county over knew anything about it. Now everyone knows about it even if it happens in Africa.
It's a big deal, and a slow-moving, idiot filled, government-run system such as "the public school board" has been able to identify the issue and create ways to deal with it. Simply because they can no longer ignore it thanks to the internet and our other social connections.
Right now, every new kid going to school in North America is being indoctrinated with the idea that bullying is bad. They hear it at home, they hear it at school, they hear it in the news... everywhere they go. Is everyone going to change their ways? Of course not. Is the majority of the population going to respect their fellow man a bit more? Absolutely.
This isn't the only thing, just one of the large ones I've noticed.
There is a generation of kids growing up that are more accepting and understanding that any other group of humans ever before. And not just by a little bit. Will they get run over by other evil people? Maybe. Will they be able to use these new tools to identify "evil people" better than others in order to prevent getting "run over"? I think so. The implications of such a group of humans running the planet one day... I hope I get to see it.
Sorry, turned into quite a rant there. Didn't mean for that to be personally focused on you or anything. Just felt like saying some stuff.
Take a general sample of kids under 20 years old from US/Canada/Europe (and likely other areas as well...). I'm willing to bet that they are the most unbiased, non-racist, non-discriminatory group of people you've ever meet.
All unbiased and all non-discriminatory? I doubt it very much... But significantly better than any other general sample of people? I'd bet a month's salary on it.
But you said "In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette." "
Now you say "Take a general sample of kids under 20 years old from US/Canada/Europe (and likely other areas as well...). I'm willing to bet that they are the most unbiased, non-racist, non-discriminatory group of people you've ever meet."
What does that have to do with evidence driven decision making?
People are eventually exposed to evidence-driven decision making at some point in their lives.
Let's say we have a 40 year old man who has some very deep-rooted "non-evidence-driven" ideas that go against reality. When he is confronted with the evidence of reality, it will be a very personal shock. One that he will likely not be able to get over. Therefore, he ignores the evidence and builds a wall up against "evidence-driven-decision-making" since his experience with it is very negative.
Now let's say we have young kids who have been indoctrinated ("non-evidence-driven") with ideas that do agree with reality. When they are confronted with the evidence of reality, it will be a glee-ful "Hey! I'm right!" experience. One that they will enjoy. Therefore, they create an environment that begins to thrive on "evidence-driven-decision-making" and they begin to understand the joy/ease-of-mind/honesty/firm ground that comes with letting evidence ("reality") lead the decision making process.
The more things kids are indoctrinated with that actually are facts about reality... The more chances kids have to confirm those indoctrinations on their own... (the internet) The higher the probability they will choose to accept "evidence-driven-decision-making" as "the way to do things right" when they reach the development level of starting to sort things out on their own.
Discrimination isn't wrong because "we think people should be equal." Discrimination is wrong because "there's no factual evidence that shows that different people are unequal." (Generally speaking, on the whole...)
Being taught that descrimination is bad will one day be confirmed (probably sooner rather than later because of the internet)... the more positive confirmations they have with facts of reality will lead to forming their own decision-making abilities around facts of reality.
...or so my faithfully optimistic theory goes ...Plus, my reply to you came after my other reply where I just finished talking about discrimination and bullying... I think they do all tie together with evidence-driven decision making. But maybe not as nicely as I want it to.
But the issue remains; we do not seem to be teaching kids to discriminate and looking at social media (internet, cable TV, Twitter, Pinterest, the apps in App Stores, ...) it seems that the trend is towards emotional and immediacy as driving forces and not discrimination.
Ah... I think I see what you're saying.
I also totally agree. I don't mean to imply that the coming generation I'm talking about is "perfect" or somehow going to be impervious to scams or mistakes or dishonest tactics.
I'm just saying that I think they're going to be better than us at it as a general population (and that doesn't really take too much). I think it's going to be significantly better than us, too. But even that is still a long way from "as good as it can be"... or even "good" (hopefully we'll get there, though... in a few hundred years).
The tools they have available, and the possibility/potential for being better than us is incredibly higher than it was even just 20-30 years ago. The rest is nothing more than my own faithfully optimistic theory on how it can pan out.
There were lots of exciting possibilities, real time voting, education, but the consensus was that it would end up at the lowest common denominator, 100s of entertainment channels.
Look at what is seen today on the History Channel, the NatGeo channel, the Science channel ...
My point only seems to have some backing because it does seem to be happening and it does seem to be having a difference.
Like bullying in schools becoming the very large issue it should have been years ago. This is a product of the internet's "lowest common denominator" (that is... "entertaining", high-impact news).
What I'm saying is that the stuff I'm talking about depends upon the "lowest common denominator" of the internet. Which is why I personally think that it has so much power... but only time will tell.
Basically (and possibly ironically?) I see this:
The internet, through it's lowest common denominator of spreading sensationalistic news... has forced the beginning of an indoctrination of "open-mindedness" into the education system (example - "bullying is bad"). Because it's not being "learned as an individual" and more "taught as indoctrination" as the basic public school system works... that's also the "lowest common denominator". So, my thoughts is that all these open-minded people are going to be socially connected... and they're basically going to "bully" people into also being open-minded and relying on facts.
I understand that the correct way to do this would be to re-invent the education system such that the indoctrination wouldn't be necessary and people could actually learn "for real" why this is a good thing.... but my point is that this is all happening anyway.... it's actually being forced along by "the lowest common denominator" inherent within the systems that are in place.
What I'm saying is that this is the first time in history (that I'm aware of) that a generation is being forced along this path by way of the lowest common denominators within the systems they are going to grow up within.
My "faithfully hopeful theory" is that this will provide a significantly higher number of people that will actually learn "the real and right way" of critical thinking to come to the same conclusions. And then (again, hopefully) maybe they will be able to change the systems from "lowest common denominator" into better, real education and such.
But I agree it's still possible for it to mean nothing at all, or to be all swept away by the next "Justin Beiber." I just think it's so significantly different... that it just might have a good chance of taking hold.
Material suspended in flood waters falls out of suspension according to density and particle size. The mere fact of alternating layers is the simplest way to eliminate a flood as a possible cause of the layers of the Grand Canyon.
Thank-you for this. I was unaware that the layers alternated in such a way. The coupling of simplicity and power within this argument against a natural flood causing the layers of the Grand Canyon is nice to see.
Maybe someone could say the flood was God-guided (or magical), but I cannot understand how anyone could attempt to explain this fact by dealing with a naturally-guided flood. It's just impossible. Like Jesus' resurrection. Naturally impossible. The only explanation would be by God's will.
I suppose the only issue would be that if you hinge your belief in God on a natural-flood forming the layers of the Grand Canyon (or "taking the Bible literally")... then you either have to ignore plain, simple, obvious facts or restructure your belief in God.