BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Talking past each other
Hey Hey
post Mar 06, 2010, 04:22 PM
Post #1


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009...each-other.html
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 07, 2010, 06:24 AM
Post #2


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



I have engaged with many religious people on this and many other issues. Unfortunately such attempts simply get ignored without response, opting instead to simply repeat the same claim. Most skeptics I know anything about are quick to understand the perceptual distortions of what a scientist does. Yet try to engage the conversation on this point and you'll quickly realize that getting most of them to even consider a purely hypothetical difference in perspective of what science is appears too threatening to their world view to be tolerated. Look at Craigles response to the blog, who puts forward the notion that crime-forensic tv programs is a "good example" of scientific principles being put to use. Not even close. The claim is as fictional as the tv shows. Craigles also stated hypothesis can be justified with one or more studies or experiments. Not even close.

So how would anybody go about debating Craigles? His choice to disagree is enough for him, and he's not going to forgo the claim that you simply 'chose' to disagree with him. Not even hypothetically. In such a mindset even accepting such a hypothetical assertion is a 'debate trick', rather than dealing with anything real. When you figure out how to engage Enki or explorerultra meaningfully here I'll eat my words. So no, I don't see the blog as making the least bit of progress toward a dialog.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Mar 09, 2010, 05:17 PM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



We have to get them when they're young. The religious people know this and exploit their vulnerability.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 10, 2010, 06:55 AM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



QUOTE(Rick @ Mar 09, 2010, 08:17 PM) *
We have to get them when they're young. The religious people know this and exploit their vulnerability.
Yes they most certainly do. The Discovery Institute (DI) is a very active participant of this strategy. They had a major setback in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, where their Trojan horse Intelligent Design (ID) took a legal beating. Yet there wedge strategy continues. They are a well funded public policy force with an agenda well defined by the wedge strategy. They have invested a lot of time, money, lawyers, and political maneuvering in this agenda. Texas is a main hotspot for them, but have gotten legislative agendas passed in several states.

Since the fall of ID in court their Trojan horse now goes by the name of "Academic Freedom". They set up board members and public officials to get legislative bills passed in various states under the name of Academic Freedom. In reality it consist of is the claim that educators have the right to teach both evolution and creationism/creation science/intelligent design/design theory. In practice it consist of calling evolution a theory, then unloading a boatload of propaganda on how evolution is wrong by claiming it says things it doesn't. In legislation the refer to evolution and ID as other theories in a pretense of that the bill is not just about evolution. DI's winter 2006 newsletter said this:
QUOTE(http://www.discovery.org/a/3217 (link on page))
Fighting for Academic Freedom
We have entered a new front in the debate over intelligent design—the need to protect academic freedom, particularly on college campuses. Our opponents, having abandoned the hope of limiting public debate on the issue, have now turned their attention to quashing opportunities for students to hear pro-ID arguments.
They go on to say:
QUOTE(http://www.discovery.org/a/3217 (link on page))
Of greater concern, however, is the treatment of scientists and college faculty—including graduate students and professors—who conduct intelligent design research, “teach the controversy” about Darwin’s theory, or even think ID thoughts.
Only they appear to be quiet happy getting people fired on state education boards for their own agenda, such as Christina Comer in Texas which lead to 'Christina Castill Comer v. Robert Scott, Commissioner, and Texas Education Agency 2009'.
Christina Comer on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQacQy1KJ9M
Meanwhile they pick issues like this from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/
to bolster their claims. In reality the guy was hired for a research project on evolution, then after being hired informed his boss he didn't want to work on "evolutionary aspects" of the grant for which he was hired. Sort of like being hired as a covenience store clerk then telling the boss you don't want to work with the cash register.

With the help of Bobby Jindal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4AphTz-nKU
Senate Bill 561, "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act" (anti-evolution bill), was enacted.
http://ncse.com/news/2008/03/antievolution-legislation-louisian-001431
As a result the 'Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology' moved their meeting from Louisiana to Utah:
http://ncse.com/news/2009/02/major-biology-conference-shuns-louisiana-004312

The plot is far thicker than what I can convey here, but this is where the battle is being waged. It's not so much that we need to get them early by shutting out other opinions, but we *MUST* stop the propaganda in school curriculum and allow the truth to be taught. Take special notice that ID propaganda sneaks outright false claims (lies) of what the theory of evolution actually says into their ID claims, to falsely make evolution look silly, and calls this "critical thinking". It's this propaganda that must be fought, peoples minds are their own.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2017 - 10:35 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles