Is silly old Aunt Minnie winning the culture war?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Fifty years ago, at least in the USA, and I suspect also the rest of the English speaking world and western Europe, formally educated people simply did not believe in astrology.

I don't just mean math, hard science, and engineering types. I mean all formally educated people regardless of field, gender, politics or race.

If one knew anybody who believed in astrology at all, it was your silly old Aunt Minnie (and you know how she is).

Nowadays, I would say that astrology is very popular among formally educated people, especially liberal white women in the humanities.

Is silly old Aunt Minnie winning the culture war?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Fifty years ago, at least in the USA, and I suspect also the rest of the English speaking world and western Europe, formally educated people simply did not believe in astrology.

I don't just mean math, hard science, and engineering types. I mean all formally educated people regardless of field, gender, politics or race.

If one knew anybody who believed in astrology at all, it was your silly old Aunt Minnie (and you know how she is).

Nowadays, I would say that astrology is very popular among formally educated people, especially liberal white women in the humanities.

Is silly old Aunt Minnie winning the culture war?

It seems to me that there is now an intellectual relativism which goes along with moral relativism.

In the woo-world it goes like this:

"well, no one really knows, do they?"

Which is license for all sorts of loony beliefs. Taking the woo, Winston at face value, it appears that rather than laughing devisively, he actually gives creedence to the idea that a person can live without food.

[Hagrok]

Hmm, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find examples of fairly educated people believing some pretty crazy **** 50 years ago. Were they the exception to the rule? I don't know.

Could be that folks were just less vocal about their beliefs back then...

--Dan

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think there's another thing adding to the current insanity. Remember the great saying "One horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"? Well, that used to be fine. Now it's politically incorrect. Witness the horror over Shermer's suggestion in Scientific American that we ought to laugh at absurd claims.

We used to laugh at Aunt Minnie. Now we take her seriously.

~~ Paul

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Hagrok
Hmm, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find examples of fairly educated people believing some pretty crazy sh*t 50 years ago.

Pretty crazy sh*t, sure. Even scary crazy sh*t, such as Communism.

Or on the other side "brinksmanship". Know about that? Stay always on the "brink of war" against Communism.

But astrology? This is a level of irrationalism that would not be tolerated in an academic environment in 1954.

The less educated nowadays tend not to go for astrology because it's "of the Devil", but what is the excuse of the intellegentsia for being in favor of it?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
We used to laugh at Aunt Minnie. Now we take her seriously.

Humoring Aunt Minnie was once just common courtesy. Hey she's your father's/mother's old ignorant aunt.

That black cat has white feet, so it doesn't count Aunt Minnie.

Make Aunt Minnie feel good, she's just a simple old woman from the old country, don't bother about it. Or a simple old woman from back on the farm, depending on your background.

It's quite another thing when the Aunt Minnies of the world are your contemporaries, not just in age but in level of education.

Most painful is when it's younger people. Not imbeciles from the hinterland, but urban folks with college degrees.

Aunt Minnie has her revenge. She knows we were just humoring her. Now her ideological children are humoring us.

[Hagrok]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
But astrology? This is a level of irrationalism that would not be tolerated in an academic environment in 1954.

The less educated nowadays tend not to go for astrology because it's "of the Devil", but what is the excuse of the intellegentsia for being in favor of it?
Are we talking about Academians here, or just generally well educated people, e.g. those with college degrees of some sort?

I'm really not convinced that there's any more belief of Astrology in Academia now then there was in 1954. Then again, I wasn't a professor in 1954, or even alive.

You may have a point with astrology being more accepted among the general educated population. My guess would be that it simply has a lot more exposure now.. everything does.

--Dan

[Ipecac]

I was watching "The Apprentice" last night. (For those of you who don't know, "The Apprentice" is the latest show from Survivor creator Mark Burnett and involves a group of young people competing in business competitions to win a job from Donald Trump. Trump "fires" one person each week from the show.)

One of the five finalists, Kwame, a smart guy with an MBA from Harvard, said he believes in astrology, because "It's pretty accurate." Sheesh. I was suddenly hoping he'd be the one fired this week.

[tdn]

Here's a hypothesis -- We can blame it on the 60s.

Before then, a lot of wacky thoughts were fairly uniform. Believe in the Christian God, mistrust Jews, and loathe communists. But along came the Summer of Love, and all bets were off. You didn't have to love your dad's ideals. You didn't have to wear a suit. You didn't have to believe in the usual deities. Freedom to do what you want, at last!

That was a good thing. In the very dynamic 60s, a lot of great new ideas came in the door. But there is a price to be paid for that -- a lot of woo woo ideas came in as well. Suddenly, Eastern religions gained legitimacy. Crystals became a viable medical alternative. And if it smelled like incense, it was deemed Worthy. And if it cheesed off the squares, all the groovier.

Since then, hair has gotten shorter, music has gotten angrier, and clothes have gotten darker. But the new age ideas are still with us. I hold Nancy Reagan and Shirley MacLaine partially responsible.

It's not just astrology. Crystals, aromatherapy, magnets, tarotry... It's all bad.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Fifty years ago, at least in the USA, and I suspect also the rest of the English speaking world and western Europe, formally educated people simply did not believe in astrology.

I don't just mean math, hard science, and engineering types. I mean all formally educated people regardless of field, gender, politics or race.

If one knew anybody who believed in astrology at all, it was your silly old Aunt Minnie (and you know how she is).

Nowadays, I would say that astrology is very popular among formally educated people, especially liberal white women in the humanities.

Is silly old Aunt Minnie winning the culture war?

At least silly old Aunt Minnie was relatively benign. When those who have tremendous influence on policy makers take this stuff seriously, it is more frightening. Take, for example, Nancy Reagan (then) and Cherie Blair (now).

Pushy, insecure Cherie, with her frightened eyes, her uncertain religiosity and her New Age dabblings and £239 for a crystal pendant to counter negativity (why on earth might she need that?). Therapeutic mutual mud-massage with a style guru! Doesn't all that remind of you of (to be blunt about it) you? If it's not you, then who exactly is going to be buying Mind, Body, Spirit (free lavender oil, astrology chart and quartz crystal with this issue), or is picking up the green and yellow leaflets in all our local gyms and coffee-bars advertising yoga, tantra, sexual healing or unqualified psychotherapy?

Those who think that Cherie has been targeted because of misogyny have, I think, got it wrong. She is the victim of middle-class self-loathing, of our uneasiness with our own deracination and insecurity. After yoga, we will queue up to applaud - in concert - the cheesy socialist homiletics of Tony Benn, just as many Jews happily endure similar speeches from their American-accented rabbis. Those who appreciate these audiences with Tony often say they love him because, like God, he never changes. And many of them will have been voters who, in the high days of applied Bennery, deserted Labour and voted for the SDP. God without, Cherie within.

from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/cherie/comment/0,12713,868944,00.html

Their husbands had/have a tremendous belief in their 'destiny'. This suggests some kind of divine plan that they believe they are here to fulfil. All they need, it seems, is to find the route map. They used to say that behind every great man was a great woman. It has been my experience that the biggest loudmouths in a 'male club' environment all turned out to have nagging wives before whom they cowered.

But I suppose for every Aunt Minnie there must have been an Uncle Montague, and we all know what he was like.;)

[The Mighty Thor]

Have you noticed how often people who believe in all forms of psi effects use the word 'interesting'?

Astrology is 'interesting'.
Mediums produce 'interesting' hits.
Ghosts are 'interesting'.

etc.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Hagrok

Are we talking about Academians here, or just generally well educated people, e.g. those with college degrees of some sort?

I'm really not convinced that there's any more belief of Astrology in Academia now then there was in 1954. Then again, I wasn't a professor in 1954, or even alive.

You may have a point with astrology being more accepted among the general educated population. My guess would be that it simply has a lot more exposure now.. everything does.

--Dan

I was born in 1956 of atheist rationalist parents.

Since my father died in 1968, my mother has become religious.

I was disgusted in 1975 when the Hayden Planetarium in New York City (associated with the Museum of Natural History) went astrological. They have backed off a bit since. Does that answer your question?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by tdn
But along came the Summer of Love, and all bets were off.

August 1967. The dividing line. Before that, liberal Democrats were FDR, Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and such like.

After that, hippies! Right?

But Humphrey ran for president in 1968. Too late, and he lost.

Senator Harkin of Iowa is still one of the old type. Hoo hah!

Better Harkin than you hippies, I say. :p

[RichardR]

Originally posted by tdn
Here's a hypothesis -- We can blame it on the 60s.

Before then, a lot of wacky thoughts were fairly uniform. Believe in the Christian God, mistrust Jews, and loathe communists. But along came the Summer of Love, and all bets were off. You didn't have to love your dad's ideals. You didn't have to wear a suit. You didn't have to believe in the usual deities. Freedom to do what you want, at last!

That was a good thing. In the very dynamic 60s, a lot of great new ideas came in the door. But there is a price to be paid for that -- a lot of woo woo ideas came in as well. Suddenly, Eastern religions gained legitimacy. Crystals became a viable medical alternative. And if it smelled like incense, it was deemed Worthy. And if it cheesed off the squares, all the groovier.

Since then, hair has gotten shorter, music has gotten angrier, and clothes have gotten darker. But the new age ideas are still with us. I hold Nancy Reagan and Shirley MacLaine partially responsible.

It's not just astrology. Crystals, aromatherapy, magnets, tarotry... It's all bad. I think you have put your finger on the problem.

People these days are less likely to believe in formal religion. So for "spiritual" types, something else "spiritual" has to fill the void. Woo woo does the job.

Someone once said that New Age is religion without all the pesky rules.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Have you noticed how often people who believe in all forms of psi effects use the word 'interesting'?

Astrology is 'interesting'.
Mediums produce 'interesting' hits.
Ghosts are 'interesting'.

etc.

Yea, and Ian is interesting don't forget.

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Have you noticed how often people who believe in all forms of psi effects use the word 'interesting'?

Astrology is 'interesting'.
Mediums produce 'interesting' hits.
Ghosts are 'interesting'.

etc.

A biopsy can be "interesting"

Your Professor can say your essay answer was "interesting"

These are not good things either.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yea, and Ian is interesting don't forget.

QED

:D

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by RichardR
Someone once said that New Age is religion without all the pesky rules.

Salvation by means of thinking big beautiful thoughts! :p

[tdn]

Originally posted by RichardR
Someone once said that New Age is religion without all the pesky rules.

Oh, sure. You wouldn't believe how many people I've met that reject the (Catholic) church as a bunch of silly hokum and superstition, only to be believers in tarotry and past lives. In fact, they had every bit as much need for spirituality as anyone I've met, but they were just turned off of the old flavors of religion. Usually by authoritarian priests and adherants that were all fire and brimstone and hypocracy.

[sweetkb713]

Originally posted by Ipecac
One of the five finalists, Kwame, a smart guy with an MBA from Harvard, said he believes in astrology, because "It's pretty accurate." Sheesh. I was suddenly hoping he'd be the one fired this week.

Kwame has always been one of my favorites, but when he said that, did I groan! Come on, Kwame! You're a smart guy!

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by sweetkb713
Kwame has always been one of my favorites, but when he said that, did I groan! Come on, Kwame! You're a smart guy!

Exactly how I felt.

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Fifty years ago, at least in the USA, and I suspect also the rest of the English speaking world and western Europe, formally educated people simply did not believe in astrology.

I don't just mean math, hard science, and engineering types. I mean all formally educated people regardless of field, gender, politics or race.

If one knew anybody who believed in astrology at all, it was your silly old Aunt Minnie (and you know how she is).

Nowadays, I would say that astrology is very popular among formally educated people, especially liberal white women in the humanities.

Is silly old Aunt Minnie winning the culture war?

Perhaps it is science to blame?!
Or rather most peoples understanding of it...

There is a certain reluctance these days to laugh at outlandish claims as science has progressed to the point where incredible things are possible.
Perpetual motion con artists have always spouted scientific-sounding nonsense to back their claims up. This now seems to be spreading to every branch of woo-ism. It seems like every weird paranormal claim is accompanied with quantum theory pseudoscience.
To the average guy, this stuff sounds the same as when 'real' scientists start talking about genuine discoveries.

[local weather]

I am actually disgusted with the ideas that are actually mainstream in our culture today.

Angels that protect us.
Feng Shui.
Astrology.
Talking to the dead.

You would think that every year we move forward, ideas like these would fade more and more into the Stone Age past, but it seems like the are becoming more and more prevalent.

When I rant about this to my wife she always says "what's the harm in it, if it make them feel better, let them do it." Is this attitude ok?

I'm certainly going to make sure that my children don't buy into such bunk.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I think there's another thing adding to the current insanity. Remember the great saying "One horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"? Well, that used to be fine. Now it's politically incorrect. Witness the horror over Shermer's suggestion in Scientific American that we ought to laugh at absurd claims.

We used to laugh at Aunt Minnie. Now we take her seriously.

~~ Paul

I missed Shermer's horror. Where can I find it?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Oleron


Perhaps it is science to blame?!
Or rather most peoples understanding of it...

There is a certain reluctance these days to laugh at outlandish claims as science has progressed to the point where incredible things are possible.
Perpetual motion con artists have always spouted scientific-sounding nonsense to back their claims up. This now seems to be spreading to every branch of woo-ism. It seems like every weird paranormal claim is accompanied with quantum theory pseudoscience.
To the average guy, this stuff sounds the same as when 'real' scientists start talking about genuine discoveries.

I totally agree. The Spiritists of the nineteenth century really believed that they were doing science. They used the discovery of X-Rays and the extension of the visible spectrum as a paradigm. What, they asked, might remain as yet undetected that might confirm 'astral' or 'spiritual' modes of communication?

Today, the woo-woos use Quantum Theory (or I should say 'abuse' it) precisely because it is 'esoteric' to the general public. In its pseudo form, they realise that QT can appear to give support to immaterialist notions about the nature of our world.

And they still think they are doing science. If you can't baffle them with mystery, baffle them with pseudoscience seems to be the order of the day -- and it's nothing new.

[local weather]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor


Today, the woo-woos use Quantum Theory (or I should say 'abuse' it) precisely because it is 'esoteric' to the general public. In its pseudo form, they realise that QT can appear to give support to immaterialist notions about the nature of our world.

And they still think they are doing science. If you can't baffle them with mystery, baffle them with pseudoscience seems to be the order of the day -- and it's nothing new.

Absolutely...there are at least two "self-help gurus" out there who base a large part of their operation on so called quantum theory, almost as if quantum theory implies some sort of magic. If I could only remember the guys name who claims that people are actually solidified light...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by local weather
I am actually disgusted with the ideas that are actually mainstream in our culture today.

Angels that protect us.
Feng Shui.
Astrology.
Talking to the dead.

You would think that every year we move forward, ideas like these would fade more and more into the Stone Age past, but it seems like the are becoming more and more prevalent.

When I rant about this to my wife she always says "what's the harm in it, if it make them feel better, let them do it." Is this attitude ok?

I'm certainly going to make sure that my children don't buy into such bunk.

I really think that's an incredibly bad idea dictating what your children should, or should not believe. It is also incredibly arrogant and at the same time, extraordinary stupid to suppose you possess all the answers to the Universe.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor


I totally agree. The Spiritists of the nineteenth century really believed that they were doing science. They used the discovery of X-Rays and the extension of the visible spectrum as a paradigm. What, they asked, might remain as yet undetected that might confirm 'astral' or 'spiritual' modes of communication?

Today, the woo-woos use Quantum Theory (or I should say 'abuse' it) precisely because it is 'esoteric' to the general public. In its pseudo form, they realise that QT can appear to give support to immaterialist notions about the nature of our world.

And they still think they are doing science. If you can't baffle them with mystery, baffle them with pseudoscience seems to be the order of the day -- and it's nothing new.

Well let's have some details then. How are people using QM? What immaterialist notions?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by local weather


Absolutely...there are at least two "self-help gurus" out there who base a large part of their operation on so called quantum theory, almost as if quantum theory implies some sort of magic. If I could only remember the guys name who claims that people are actually solidified light...

What is "magic"? What is solidified light??

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I really think that's an incredibly bad idea dictating what your children should, or should not believe. It is also incredibly arrogant and at the same time, extraordinary stupid to suppose you possess all the answers to the Universe.

I suppose you level the same criticism at all parents who take their children to schule or to Sunday school?

[Clancie]

Posted by local weather

I'm certainly going to make sure that my children don't buy into such bunk.
How, exactly, can anyone "make sure" of this (or any other ideas and beliefs that their children might eventually choose for themselves)? :confused:

And, suppose you really -could- do it, local weather. Would "making sure" your children always will agree with you on what is "bunk" really be what critical thinking means?

[local weather]

Originally posted by Clancie

How, exactly, can anyone "make sure" of this (or any other ideas and beliefs that their children might eventually choose for themselves)? :confused:

And, suppose you really -could- do it, local weather. Would "making sure" your children always will agree with you on what is "bunk" really be what critical thinking means? [/B]

I would hope that I could teach enough critical thinking skills to my kids that they would be able to spot the bunk for themselves. I certainly didn't have to learn everything that was right or wrong from my parents, but they layed a good groundwork for me to learn how to judge something as worthwhile or not.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I really think that's an incredibly bad idea dictating what your children should, or should not believe. It is also incredibly arrogant and at the same time, extraordinary stupid to suppose you possess all the answers to the Universe.

Yes, it's a bad idea to dictate what your children should believe, but again, the idea is to educate people so that they know better than to think that some idiot of televison is actually communictaing with dead people.

And I would have to agree that it is incredibly stupid and arrogant to suppose that anyone possesses all of the answers to the Universe. I would question anyone who made such claims. BUT I don't see anything wrong with using reasoning and science and the know to weed out the garbage and pseudo-science that people try to pass off as beyond human understanding.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

What is "magic"? What is solidified light??

New Age nonsense. Magic is anything that people don't understand and just want to pass off to the supernatural. Solidified light is just some sort of buzz word that this guy was trying to pass off as his unified theory of love and human understanding.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

How, exactly, can anyone "make sure" of this (or any other ideas and beliefs that their children might eventually choose for themselves)? :confused:

And, suppose you really -could- do it, local weather. Would "making sure" your children always will agree with you on what is "bunk" really be what critical thinking means? [/B]

I agree with your sentiments entirely :)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I really think that's an incredibly bad idea dictating what your children should, or should not believe. It is also incredibly arrogant and at the same time, extraordinary stupid to suppose you possess all the answers to the Universe.

I can tell that you don't have children

Especially in the early years, you de facto dictate your childrens beliefs whether it is your intention or not. And the beleifs they form in their earliest years are going to be a template for whatever they may pick up on their own later. Chani's and my children are atheists, we would never forbid our children from going to church but I doubt they would be atheists if Chani and I were still a couple of good church-going Mormons. Maybe they would, but it is unlikely.

What is an incredibly bad idea is preventing your children form exploring whatever ideas they want to explore. But even then you still influence them no matter what your intent is. If my kids thought astrology was worth looking into I would never prevent them, but hey WOULD know my opinion of it and I am sure that would influence their opinion, no matter whether I wanted to influence it or not.

In short, local weather was just being realistic.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
[B]

I really think that's an incredibly bad idea dictating what your children should, or should not believe. It is also incredibly arrogant and at the same time, extraordinary stupid to suppose you possess all the answers to the Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I can tell that you don't have children



I don't have children, but I fail to see how you could conclude such a thing.



Especially in the early years, you de facto dictate your childrens beliefs whether it is your intention or not.



I most certainly wouldn't. I would explain both sides of an argument. I would never dictate my childrens beliefs.



And the beleifs they form in their earliest years are going to be a template for whatever they may pick up on their own later. Chani's and my children are atheists,



How old are your children? How much do they actually understand. Less than you I'll warrant and that's saying something! When I was a child I remember saying I was an atheist and adults being surprised and a bit shocked even. But there again, I thought of God as being some physical existent existing in the sky somewhere :rolleyes:



we would never forbid our children from going to church but I doubt they would be atheists if Chani and I were still a couple of good church-going Mormons. Maybe they would, but it is unlikely.



I don't see God as having anything to do with the church, or organised religions, or praying, or anything like that. Actually it might be more useful to think of praying as being an example of psychokinesis.



What is an incredibly bad idea is preventing your children form exploring whatever ideas they want to explore. But even then you still influence them no matter what your intent is. If my kids thought astrology was worth looking into I would never prevent them, but hey WOULD know my opinion of it and I am sure that would influence their opinion, no matter whether I wanted to influence it or not.

In short, local weather was just being realistic.



It's very unfortunate, but hopefully they will be sensible enough to reject your beliefs when they reach adulthood. There may or may not be something to astrology. One thing is for sure though. I sure as hell wouldn't reject it because of your belief, or any other skeptics, especially as none of you lot can actually provide any arguments as to why one should suppose that astrology is inherently implausible (or anything else which skeptics unthinkingly reject).

But "local weather" was talking about deliberately influencing his children.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But "local weather" was talking about deliberately influencing his children.

Name one parent that did not deliberately influence his child.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But "local weather" was talking about deliberately influencing his children.

Yes. To think. Critically. The horror!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by local weather


Yes, it's a bad idea to dictate what your children should believe, but again, the idea is to educate people so that they know better than to think that some idiot of televison is actually communictaing with dead people.




But you should bear in mind that there is nothing inherently implausible about the idea. The fact that there are a lot of charlatans out there, need not imply that they all are.



And I would have to agree that it is incredibly stupid and arrogant to suppose that anyone possesses all of the answers to the Universe. I would question anyone who made such claims. BUT I don't see anything wrong with using reasoning and science and the know to weed out the garbage and pseudo-science that people try to pass off as beyond human understanding.


Such questions as to whether there is a "life after death", whether there exist paranormal phenomena, whether reality is fundamentally mental etc, go beyond the province of science.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Yes. To think. Critically. The horror!

To teach children to think critically is fine.

To teach children to think sceptically is fine.

But to teach children to think skeptically is to "brainwash" them into an unthinking acceptance of the prevailing materialist metaphysic, and all this implies.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Name one parent that did not deliberately influence his child.

As to what metaphysic to adopt?? The fact that the vast majority of people do, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do! :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
If my kids thought astrology was worth looking into I would never prevent them, but hey WOULD know my opinion of it and I am sure that would influence their opinion, no matter whether I wanted to influence it or not.



I'm not saying there is anything to astrology. There may or may not be, although I hope there isn't. I don't like the idea that the position of the planets and stars determines my personality. That's as bad as saying genetics and the environment totally determines ones personality.

But if there is nothing to astrology how come I'm such a stereotypical pieces (sp?). Just coincidence? Amazing how much the skeptic wheels out coincidence to explain all things.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


To teach children to think critically is fine.

To teach children to think sceptically is fine.

But to teach children to think skeptically is to "brainwash" them into an unthinking acceptance of the prevailing materialist metaphysic, and all this implies.

Please, Ian, enough with the private definitions already. This isn't a word game, this is a truth game. Teaching children to think skeptically is teaching them to think rationally and critically and to equip them with the tools to get to the truth.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't have children, but I fail to see how you could conclude such a thing.

Because you show absolutely no understanding of what it is like to raise a child.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I most certainly wouldn't. I would explain both sides of an argument. I would never dictate my childrens beliefs.

Ah, but you would even if you present both sides of the issue. One's belief's cloud one's vision no matter how neutral one would like to be. One's children don't just learn from what one says, but from what one does and how one behaves. It is good to provide a child information, but know that you can't supply it in a vacuum.



Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How old are your children? How much do they actually understand. Less than you I'll warrant and that's saying something! When I was a child I remember saying I was an atheist and adults being surprised and a bit shocked even. But there again, I thought of God as being some physical existent existing in the sky somewhere :rolleyes:.

Our children understand more than many adults. They don't call themselves atheists for the shock value, but because they don't believe in a god. And my kids don't believe a god as anything but fantasy.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't see God as having anything to do with the church, or organised religions, or praying, or anything like that. Actually it might be more useful to think of praying as being an example of psychokinesis.

The belief in god isn't reliant on churches, organized religion or praying, but it is very much a learned concept.



Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's very unfortunate, but hopefully they will be sensible enough to reject your beliefs when they reach adulthood. There may or may not be something to astrology. One thing is for sure though. I sure as hell wouldn't reject it because of your belief, or any other skeptics, especially as none of you lot can actually provide any arguments as to why one should suppose that astrology is inherently implausible (or anything else which skeptics unthinkingly reject).

But "local weather" was talking about deliberately influencing his children.

My children are very sensible and very intelligent. They will and do make their own decisions and should they ever reject our lack of belief, then so be it. We will always love them no matter what. But as they are very bright children, I doubt they will move to the woo-woo side.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As to what metaphysic to adopt?? The fact that the vast majority of people do, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do! :rolleyes:

I didn't ask you what the vast majority of people do. I asked you to name one parent that did not deliberately influence his child.

Why don't you simply answer the question?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't have children, but I fail to see how you could conclude such a thing.

Trust me. It shows.



I most certainly wouldn't. I would explain both sides of an argument. I would never dictate my childrens beliefs.
You can explain until you are blue in the face. They will, in their earliest years, pick up one the one they actually see. Further, even if it isn't your intent and you explain otherwise, your approval will matter to them and they will feel (rightly or wrongly) that adopting your beleifs will get them that approval. I am supremely confident that when/if there is an Interesting Ian Jr. He will be an immaterialist like you, no matter what other philosophies you expose him to. At least during his childhood.

How old are your children? How much do they actually understand. Less than you I'll warrant and that's saying something! When I was a child I remember saying I was an atheist and adults being surprised and a bit shocked even. But there again, I thought of God as being some physical existent existing in the sky somewhere :rolleyes:

17,14, and 10. Now the 17 year old has Down Syndrom and has the level of understanding of a bout an 8 year old, making him the youngest, mentally. However the 14 year old understands a lot. She reads at a college level and philosophy is one of her favorite subjects to study. And she is probably a more die-hard atheist than her parents.

I don't see God as having anything to do with the church, or organised religions, or praying, or anything like that. Actually it might be more useful to think of praying as being an example of psychokinesis.

That's fine. It has nothing to do with my point though. My point is that if Chani and I had different beliefs, so would our children. If we thought of praying as psychokinesis, it is very likely they would too.



It's very unfortunate, but hopefully they will be sensible enough to reject your beliefs when they reach adulthood. There may or may not be something to astrology. One thing is for sure though. I sure as hell wouldn't reject it because of your belief, or any other skeptics, especially as none of you lot can actually provide any arguments as to why one should suppose that astrology is inherently implausible (or anything else which skeptics unthinkingly reject).

But "local weather" was talking about deliberately influencing his children.

If they reject it as adults, that's fine. That happens sometimes. My point was and still is that as children, their parents beliefs are going to influence theirs and there is no way to get around that.

And of course no skeptic is going to influence your belief. You are an adult. Once you become an adult all bets are off, though most people still adopt the beleifs that they were raised with.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I'm not saying there is anything to astrology. There may or may not be, although I hope there isn't. I don't like the idea that the position of the planets and stars determines my personality. That's as bad as saying genetics and the environment totally determines ones personality.

But if there is nothing to astrology how come I'm such a stereotypical pieces (sp?). Just coincidence? Amazing how much the skeptic wheels out coincidence to explain all things.

I never said you said that. Astrology was simply the first thing of that nature that popped into my head.

As for that last argument, then by that same logic, how come I am such an atypical Leo? you can't have it both ways.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't have children, but I fail to see how you could conclude such a thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because you show absolutely no understanding of what it is like to raise a child.



This is because I haven't discussed it, nor will I ever do so since I find such a subject to be mind numbingly boring.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I most certainly wouldn't. I would explain both sides of an argument. I would never dictate my childrens beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ah, but you would even if you present both sides of the issue. One's belief's cloud one's vision no matter how neutral one would like to be. One's children don't just learn from what one says, but from what one does and how one behaves. It is good to provide a child information, but know that you can't supply it in a vacuum.


I agree.

As a matter of interest what happens if one parent is a "woo" and the other is a foaming "skeptic"? The children just get confused?? lol





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How old are your children? How much do they actually understand. Less than you I'll warrant and that's saying something! When I was a child I remember saying I was an atheist and adults being surprised and a bit shocked even. But there again, I thought of God as being some physical existent existing in the sky somewhere .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Our children understand more than many adults. They don't call themselves atheists for the shock value, but because they don't believe in a god. And my kids don't believe a god as anything but fantasy.



I find it extraordinary implausible that they have a very good idea of what "God" is. I find most people have a completely crass idea of "God"; namely the "god of the gaps".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's very unfortunate, but hopefully they will be sensible enough to reject your beliefs when they reach adulthood. There may or may not be something to astrology. One thing is for sure though. I sure as hell wouldn't reject it because of your belief, or any other skeptics, especially as none of you lot can actually provide any arguments as to why one should suppose that astrology is inherently implausible (or anything else which skeptics unthinkingly reject).

But "local weather" was talking about deliberately influencing his children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My children are very sensible and very intelligent. They will and do make their own decisions and should they ever reject our lack of belief, then so be it. We will always love them no matter what. But as they are very bright children, I doubt they will move to the woo-woo side.


But I believe the research suggest that "woos" are more intelligent than skeptics.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Please, Ian, enough with the private definitions already. This isn't a word game, this is a truth game. Teaching children to think skeptically is teaching them to think rationally and critically and to equip them with the tools to get to the truth.

I scarcely think so :rolleyes:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

As a matter of interest what happens if one parent is a "woo" and the other is a foaming "skeptic"? The children just get confused?? lol


Well from my own experience, having seen such situations. They will adopt the bleif of the parent with whom they identify with more. Usually the one they spend the most time with.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


And of course no skeptic is going to influence your belief. You are an adult. Once you become an adult all bets are off, though most people still adopt the beleifs that they were raised with. [/B]

I certainly haven't. Mind you, it's difficult to know what my parents believe in. They have absolutely zero interest in philosophy. Certainly don't think they believe in something like "life after death" though or paranormal phenomena.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I certainly haven't. Mind you, it's difficult to know what my parents believe in. They have absolutely zero interest in philosophy. Certainly don't think they believe in something like "life after death" though or paranormal phenomena.

I said most people. I think, if we can agree on nothing else, we can agree that you are not representative of 'most people'.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I didn't ask you what the vast majority of people do. I asked you to name one parent that did not deliberately influence his child.

Why don't you simply answer the question?

Why do you wish me to do this?

[CFLarsen]

Ian, I will gladly reiterate the sequence, since you seem to have forgotten.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But "local weather" was talking about deliberately influencing his children.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Name one parent that did not deliberately influence his child.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As to what metaphysic to adopt?? The fact that the vast majority of people do, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I didn't ask you what the vast majority of people do. I asked you to name one parent that did not deliberately influence his child.

Why don't you simply answer the question?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why do you wish me to do this?

Sniff test. When a direct question that will clarify whether a person can back up his claim with evidence does not get a direct answer, the person cannot back up his claim with evidence.

Stop fiddling, Ian. Just answer, or if you can't, just say so.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian, I will gladly reiterate the sequence, since you seem to have forgotten.



What evidence do you have which suggests that I have forgotten?




Sniff test. When a direct question that will clarify whether a person can back up his claim with evidence does not get a direct answer, the person cannot back up his claim with evidence.



What claim might this be?



Stop fiddling, Ian. Just answer, or if you can't, just say so.

Why do you want me to answer your question.

This is now the 2nd time I have asked you.

[local weather]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian



But you should bear in mind that there is nothing inherently implausible about the idea. The fact that there are a lot of charlatans out there, need not imply that they all are.



Such questions as to whether there is a "life after death", whether there exist paranormal phenomena, whether reality is fundamentally mental etc, go beyond the province of science.

There it is "go beyond the province of science" as if this is some sort of shield. Properly stated, it should be "beyond the our current knowledge" or somesuch. I'm sure at one time, the creation of fire by humans was fairly mystical as well, a gift from the gods, but it's not now. Visiting the moon was certainly an impossiblity for the majority of human existance, but it has happened.

As for nothing being inherently implausible about talkiing to the dead....I don't see what is at all plausible about talking to the dead. Dead people don't talk. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever actually spoken to a dead person. You can get inspiration from the memories of the dead, you can draw upon the knowledge of generations of dead through books and such, but you can't actually speak with a dead person.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I certainly haven't. Mind you, it's difficult to know what my parents believe in. They have absolutely zero interest in philosophy. Certainly don't think they believe in something like "life after death" though or paranormal phenomena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I said most people. I think, if we can agree on nothing else, we can agree that you are not representative of 'most people'.



I remember at a very early age asking my dad (father) where we go to after we die. I remember being totally shocked on being told we just cease to exist. My disbelief didn't last for very long though. I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to existence and that our present lives is just one small part of our total existence.

I've always known :)

[Suezoled]

Since Ian "knows" so much I propose everyone send their children to be raised to think critically by Ian himself. He seems to have all the answers. And think of the money you'll save from not having to feed, house, clothe that child, and possibly still get a tax deduction every year! Of course Ian himself would be paid a fee to educate the children and feed and clothe them, but as he knows so much, it's a small price to pay to give your children the best.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I remember at a very early age asking my dad (father) where we go to after we die. I remember being totally shocked on being told we just cease to exist. My disbelief didn't last for very long though. I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to existence and that our present lives is just one small part of our total existence.

I've always known :)

My religious upbringing was very unique but I think illustrates my point really well. My parents are examples of those sort of vaguely religious people who have some sort of belief in God but don't go to church, don't have any really well defined beliefs and their religious beliefs aren't major parts of their lives in any way shape or form. They had no objection to letting me explore any thing like that that I wished. My stepfather (who had a much larger part in my raising than my real father, whom I hardly know) was raised as a Christian Scientist and, though he wasn't one himself, he still had some of their beliefs; for example, he really did not trust doctors at all.

I was like that too until I was 14 or so. Then I somehow let myself get sucked into the Mormon Church. I remained a good Mormon boy until I was 18, when I realized that I didn't believe in any of it and, upon reflection I didn't believe in God in general. I have been an atheist ever since.

Now this kind of shows what I am talking about. When I was very young, my beliefs mirrored my parents, even though they never made any conscious attempt to mold those beliefs. As I approached adulthood, I began to make my own decisions about religious matters. However I still see bits of that upbringing in myself. For example, I do not like doctors. I tend to avoid going to the doctor unless some part is hanging on by a tendon or my wife makes me go. I know it isn't rational but I would go so far as to say that I have a (very mild) phobia of them. I am pretty sure that is my step dad's influence. Also, I think I am pretty tolerant of religion overall, and I think that is from my parents too.

I started with my parents beliefs, and later modified them to fit into what I became as an adult. Though there are exceptions, I think that is the way it usually goes.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is because I haven't discussed it, nor will I ever do so since I find such a subject to be mind numbingly boring.

Exactly my point. Thank you.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I agree.

As a matter of interest what happens if one parent is a "woo" and the other is a foaming "skeptic"? The children just get confused?? lol

I don't think that is necessarily case. If anything, the children will get exactly what you are advocating - a taste of both sides so that they can choose. My children have that as well as their father and his wife are very much woos. They have choosen by evaluating the evidence available.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I find it extraordinary implausible that they have a very good idea of what "God" is. I find most people have a completely crass idea of "God"; namely the "god of the gaps".

It is all semantics as god is just a make-believe concept anyway. What is important is that they understand that god is just a fantasy.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I believe the research suggest that "woos" are more intelligent than skeptics.

Not the research I have seen. When you do find that research, please post it here so it can be evaluated.

Edited to fix the errors caused by my thinking processes moving faster than my typing fingers. And space issues.

[Clancie]

Posted by nyarlathotep

Well from my own experience, having seen such situations. They will adopt the belief of the parent with whom they identify with more. Usually the one they spend the most time with.
Maybe. My observation has been different. I think peer group and popular culture have much more influence than parents' views--particularly if the parents' views are outside the mainstream of the pop culture/peer group--as in, for example, being...more pacifist...more intellectual...areligious...far more liberal politically...vegetarian (philosophical dietary differences)....not money/status conscious (i.e. not caring re: designer brands...best car...most expensive, biggest house...etc. etc.)...emphasizing reasoned opinions....being non sexist, non racist, (i.e. what's the derogatory pop culture phrase for it? Oh, yes. "PC")etc. etc.

There are many influences in the mainstream culture and the peer group that have far more influence on children than parents' views, imo, when parents represent distinctly minority views.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What evidence do you have which suggests that I have forgotten?

....

What claim might this be?

....

Why do you want me to answer your question.

This is now the 2nd time I have asked you.

Sniff test: Ian plays the fool, so he won't have to admit that he cannot name one parent who did not deliberately influence his child.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

Maybe. My observation has been different. I think peer group and popular culture have much more influence than parents' views--particularly if the parents' views are outside the mainstream of the pop culture/peer group--as in, for example, being...more pacifist...more intellectual...areligious...far more liberal politically...vegetarian (philosophical dietary differences)....not money/status conscious (i.e. not caring re: designer brands...best car...most expensive, biggest house...etc. etc.)...emphasizing reasoned opinions....being non sexist, non racist, (i.e. what's the derogatory pop culture phrase for it? Oh, yes. "PC")etc. etc.

There are many influences in the mainstream culture and the peer group that have far more influence on children than parents' views, imo, when parents represent distinctly minority views.

I think that is more of a factor the older they get, sure. I think very young children are going to be influenced much more by their parents views. It isn't until later that they might think "hey, my parents are weirdos and everyone is laughing at them" if the parents have a minority viewpoint.

I think we both may be right. Adopting the viewpoints of one's peers, if they differ from those of their parents, is an early, safe way for a child to test the waters of forming ideas that differ from those of their parents. It's easier for them to do that than just form their own ideas from scratch because they at least have their peers acceptance if nothing else.

I still think that the parents beleifs will play a part, though, because that is the filter through which they will see all later ideas.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I believe the research suggest that "woos" are more intelligent than skeptics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not the research I have seen. When you do find that research, please post it here so it can be evaluated.



Surely I do not need to do so? Surely it is obvious?? :confused:

I mean look at me for example :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Sniff test: Ian plays the fool, so he won't have to admit that he cannot name one parent who did not deliberately influence his child.

Why do you want me to answer the question?

(3rd time now I've asked :rolleyes: )

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why do you want me to answer the question?

(3rd time now I've asked :rolleyes: )

So you can back up your claim.

You can roll your eyes all you want, but your handwaving aren't fooling anyone.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Surely I do not need to do so? Surely it is obvious?? :confused:

I mean look at me for example :)

*puts on glasses. Sees Ian wanting*
*pulls off glasses. Sees Ian wanting*

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So you can back up your claim.

You can roll your eyes all you want, but your handwaving aren't fooling anyone.

What claim are you referring to?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I scarcely think so :rolleyes:
Ian,

Your short post would have been far more accurate had it omitted the fourth word. The problem is, sir, that there is a truth. The problem is, sir, that only rational inquiry so far has revealed portions of that truth. Not word games. Not bald assertions. Not metaphysical presumptions. Nothing but the hard work of questioning our knowledge and working out the next experiment.

The greatest gift we can give our children is a set of keys to this kingdom. To show them how to think about the things they are being told. To show them how to evaluate the various claims. How to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

Still playing games, eh?

It's OK, you are not fooling anyone.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

Still playing games, eh?

It's OK, you are not fooling anyone.

Games?? No, not at all. I'm simply curious as to the answer to my question. I'm wondering why you refuse to answer it.

Please tell me what claim I have made. I'm dying of curiousity here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Ian,

Your short post would have been far more accurate had it omitted the fourth word. The problem is, sir, that there is a truth. The problem is, sir, that only rational inquiry so far has revealed portions of that truth. Not word games. Not bald assertions. Not metaphysical presumptions. Nothing but the hard work of questioning our knowledge and working out the next experiment.

The greatest gift we can give our children is a set of keys to this kingdom. To show them how to think about the things they are being told. To show them how to evaluate the various claims. How to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Bill,

Stop being so pompous and idiotic.

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian
But I believe the research suggest that "woos" are more intelligent than skeptics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chanileslie
Not the research I have seen. When you do find that research, please post it here so it can be evaluated.


From Irwin's "An Introduction to Parapsychology"

"Killen, Wildman, and Wildman (1974) have shown superstitious belief does correlate negatively with IQ, but Jones, Russell, and Nickel (1977)* report a positive correlation between global paranormal belief and intelligence" (emphasis as in original).

*Jones, W.H., Russell, D. W., & Nickel, T. W. (1977). Belief in the Paranormal Scale: An objective instrument to measure belief in magical phenomena and causes. Journal Supplement Abstract Service, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 7, 100 (MS 1577).

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Why do you even bother? You'll only encourage him.

Ultimately, people like Ian are a major threat to the cause of rationality, because he'll distract people away from fighting irrationality. That's his only real purpose: to get you to waste your time responding to him, instead of finding people capable of listening and thinking and talking to them.

Join the III! Strike a blow for thought!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Bill,

Stop being so pompous and idiotic.
Ian,

According to you, nearly everyone here is idiotic. You declare poster after poster a "moron," an "idiot," or worse on a daily basis. I am inurred to these declarations, sir, and quite tired of you resorting to them every time you are called on your disingenuous games

You are time waster, sir.

Your assertions here cannot be taken seriously. It is the role of parents to teach. It is part of that role to teach how to think. I am truly sorry you got such short shrift in that department, but I will say again: There is no "brainwashing" in teaching children skeptical thinking. It is the greatest gift parents could give their children.

Don't blow pompous all over me, you pompous ninny. On a daily basis you expect us to believe you are logical while you consistently demonstrate fallacious reasoning. On a daily basis, you engage in disingenuous debates here. On a daily basis you resort to bald assertions of "self-evident" and "obvious." On a daily basis, your fallacies are called and on a daily basis you arrogantly claim you have made none. Then we watch the floor fight while some skeptic here tries carefully to explain the fallacy to you and you shove your fingers in your ears until you realize you're spilling your beer. Then you pull one finger out, take another swig and shove it back in before you have to hear another word. If a word manages to slip into your ears nonetheless, you end up playing the Alice in Wonderland "A word means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less" card. You are the epitome of the March Hare. Mad as a hatter. At night, you hop around until you fly into even more irrational rages than you do during the days.

You tell us you are uneducated, prove it with your every word, and then mock those with education. You are a boor. A buffoon. A drunken sot who wastes our time.

Dust your butt off, clean the ear wax off your finger tips, and set down the bottle, you blithering idiot. I am certainly not going to discuss anything further with you outside of C/T until you stop playing your nitwit games.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

There is no "brainwashing" in teaching children skeptical thinking. It is the greatest gift parents could give their children.
Just refreshing your memory, Bill. The quote that started all this wasn't about "teaching children skeptical thinking".

The original statement was this:


I'm certainly going to make sure that my children don't buy into such bunk.
That kind of statement isn't about teaching children how to reason for themselves, Bill. It's about teaching which ideas are acceptable and which ideas aren't. And, yes, that -is- "brainwashing", even when they're ideas you yourself approve of.

(And, parenthetically, I also don't think that's the "greatest gift" parents give their children--I think unconditional love is. Not a very "scientific" position though, is it?)

Beyond that, does it really take 6 belligerent and insulting paragraphs just to say, "I don't like you" to someone? Seriously, you seem pretty worked up over it. Bad for the blood pressure, Bill. Relax. :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Ian,

According to you, nearly everyone here is idiotic. You declare poster after poster a "moron," an "idiot," or worse on a daily basis. I am inurred to these declarations, sir, and quite tired of you resorting to them every time you are called on your disingenuous games

You are time waster, sir.

Your assertions here cannot be taken seriously. It is the role of parents to teach. It is part of that role to teach how to think. I am truly sorry you got such short shrift in that department, but I will say again: There is no "brainwashing" in teaching children skeptical thinking. It is the greatest gift parents could give their children.

Don't blow pompous all over me, you pompous ninny. On a daily basis you expect us to believe you are logical while you consistently demonstrate fallacious reasoning. On a daily basis, you engage in disingenuous debates here. On a daily basis you resort to bald assertions of "self-evident" and "obvious." On a daily basis, your fallacies are called and on a daily basis you arrogantly claim you have made none. Then we watch the floor fight while some skeptic here tries carefully to explain the fallacy to you and you shove your fingers in your ears until you realize you're spilling your beer. Then you pull one finger out, take another swig and shove it back in before you have to hear another word. If a word manages to slip into your ears nonetheless, you end up playing the Alice in Wonderland "A word means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less" card. You are the epitome of the March Hare. Mad as a hatter. At night, you hop around until you fly into even more irrational rages than you do during the days.

You tell us you are uneducated, prove it with your every word, and then mock those with education. You are a boor. A buffoon. A drunken sot who wastes our time.

Dust your butt off, clean the ear wax off your finger tips, and set down the bottle, you blithering idiot. I am certainly not going to discuss anything further with you outside of C/T until you stop playing your nitwit games.

Umm . . . so you don't agree with me then?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
There is no "brainwashing" in teaching children skeptical thinking. It is the greatest gift parents could give their children.



You make the mistake of equating critical thinking with "skeptical thinking". It is quite clear that people on here, including you, see skeptical thinking as coming to particular definite conclusions about the nature of the world. Attempting to "educate" ones offspring so as to ensure they will think in a similar fashion is the very antithesis of critical thinking.

And to be quite clear, it really doesn't matter if the "skeptics" interpretation of reality is correct. Compelling ones offspring to unthinkingly embrace this worldview, even if correct, cannot be compared to children developing their own critical thinking skills, and forging the journey towards truth for themselves.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Clancie said:
That kind of statement isn't about teaching children how to reason for themselves, Bill. It's about teaching which ideas are acceptable and which ideas aren't. And, yes, that -is- "brainwashing", even when they're ideas you yourself approve of.
So what do you suggest? That we not teach our children anything, so as to avoid the dreaded label of brainwashing? You cannot expect a 4- or 6- or even 10-year-old to reason for themselves, past a certain point. Even if they are clever enough, they don't have the necessary information.

Does your idea extend to behavior? Can children reason out their own good behavior? Does it extend to selecting products in the marketplace? Can they do that themselves, too? Apparently you think they can do it in the marketplace of ideas.

I think you are misusing the term brainwashing. Brainwashing is a particular methodology. Most parents do not brainwash their children.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Sniff test: Ian plays the fool, so he won't have to admit that he cannot name one parent who did not deliberately influence his child.

Do you actually have any children? What you meant, I'm sure, was "name one parent who did not deliberately attempt to influence his child". The influence part is by no means a given.

And the answer's not too tough either; every "father" who doesn't even admit to paternity.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
That kind of statement isn't about teaching children how to reason for themselves, Bill. It's about teaching which ideas are acceptable and which ideas aren't. And, yes, that -is- "brainwashing", even when they're ideas you yourself approve of.

I wonder if Clancie teaches her children that genocide is acceptable - or not. Nah, that would be "brainwashing" to teach your children some values....

Originally posted by hammegk
Do you actually have any children?

Not that I know of.

Originally posted by hammegk
What you meant, I'm sure, was "name one parent who did not deliberately attempt to influence his child". The influence part is by no means a given.

No, that's not what I meant. Read it again.

Originally posted by hammegk
And the answer's not too tough either; every "father" who doesn't even admit to paternity.

I haven't heard anything. So far.

[hammegk]

Are you as stupid as you sometimes appear?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hammegk
Are you as stupid as you sometimes appear?

In what way?

[hammegk]

;)

Apparently not!

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've always known :)
Do you think that it is possible for someone to have "always known" something that is contradictory to what you have "always known"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by NoDeity

Do you think that it is possible for someone to have "always known" something that is contradictory to what you have "always known"?

I have no idea. What have you always known? That there is no self? That no other people really exist? That life is a dream within a dream? That we are just robots going through the motions living out our meaningless lives in a meaningless Universe??

Tell me what you've always known.

I'd be genuinely interested to know.

[NoDeity]

I don't know that I have "always known" anything.

It is apparent to me that I exist. I assume that the universe is objectively real. I accept the axioms of logic. I could be mistaken about all of that but I think that's unlikely.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean when you say that you have "always known" something. How does one know that one has "always known"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Clancie
That kind of statement isn't about teaching children how to reason for themselves, Bill. It's about teaching which ideas are acceptable and which ideas aren't. And, yes, that -is- "brainwashing", even when they're ideas you yourself approve of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wonder if Clancie teaches her children that genocide is acceptable - or not. Nah, that would be "brainwashing" to teach your children some values....



Teach?? You mean telling them?? Telling them what is right and wrong??

Try to understand.

They must be able to see and understand for themselves!

Unless they understand for themselves, you face the risk of getting that which you are so desperately trying to prevent.

You must not say to your children that A, B and C is correct without any accompanying reasons or justification. You must nurture their intellectual and emotional development so they understand and emotionally identify that A, B and C is correct.

Are you able to understand this??

Forget responding. I know what your answer will be. Always believe what your parents say. Do the things that have always been done.

And what do we get??

I'll tell you what we get.

We'll get what we've always got. An unthinking acceptance about what our parents say, what our immediate peer group says.

Human beings will make the same mistake that they've always made. Just believe what their immediate peers believe. Not learn to think for themselves. And what happens??

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Mankind will make the same mistakes. But this time we have the power to annihilate ourselves.

This is what comes through a stagnant unthinking acceptance of the so called "fashionable". This is what comes through being totally enslaved through current so-called "wisdom".

We need to think for ourselves. Not just accept what others confidently tell you what must be true.

We must think for ourselves.

We must be heroes.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Teach?? You mean telling them?? Telling them what is right and wrong??

No, I mean teaching them. The issue is what to teach, not tell.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Try to understand.

Try to learn how to read. And stop imagining things.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No, I mean teaching them. The issue is what to teach, not tell.



Try to learn how to read. And stop imagining things.

Is it the case, or is it not the case, that skeptics on here are advocating that we should teach our children to think skeptically? This means, I take it, that we should teach our children to think in such a manner as to reach skeptical conclusions. Right?

If so are you all in agreement that this is an extremely bad idea?

Do you lot not think that, instead, we should teach our children to think critically??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Is it the case, or is it not the case, that skeptics on here are advocating that we should teach our children to think skeptically? This means, I take it, that we should teach our children to think in such a manner as to reach skeptical conclusions. Right?

If so are you all in agreement that this is an extremely bad idea?

Do you lot not think that, instead, we should teach our children to think critically??

What is the difference?

Why do you think skepticism is such a bad idea?

[hammegk]

Skepticism and logic are wonderful tools. Pick your premises correctly and you can "prove" anything (except the premises).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
Skepticism and logic are wonderful tools. Pick your premises correctly and you can "prove" anything (except the premises).

Bullsh. We have been down this road so many times. I cannot believe you still try to pull this wool over the readers' eyes. This is exactly why science exists. To establish the premises.

We can prove the premises all the way back to the handful of axioms I have outlined countless times.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

"Facts are meaningless. You can use them to prove anything that's even remotely true."

A similiar situation holds with logic. Logic can prove anything that's even remotely valid. hammegk, however, does not care one whit about validity. Or truth, for that matter. He just wants the "argument" to continue for as long as possible.

[hammegk]

And since that pair of As'es assert it to be True, what more proof could possibly be needed. Anyone requiring such proof is a "f*cking retard" in TAM2 terminology. (Oops; did I mean Aces?)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well let's have some details then. How are people using QM? What immaterialist notions?

I missed this when it was posted. I think Ian knows darned well what I meant, and is familiar with the QM 'proves' psi argument as given here:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/s_rdp/summary-rdp.html

R.D. Pearson BSc., *C.Eng.M.I. Mech.E
* -Prior to retirement and switch to physics

March 5, 2003

Introduction
Quite a number of people have realised that quantum theory must link with evidence proving the continued existence of consciousness following death of the brain. The most recent contribution of this nature I have seen is the excellent article The Quantum Marriage, by Will Hand (1). He shows, for example, that quantum theorists were driven to accept that on the small scale of the atom, what we interpret as "reality" only occurs at the instant of observation. This is the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of a phenomenon called "wave-particle duality": an important feature of quantum theory. Quantum theorists found that, on these small scales, what had been regarded as minute objects, the electrons, photons and other components associated with atoms, seemed to exist as sets of interfering waves until observed. Only then did these waves "collapse" to become real particles. The extraordinary situation, which has prevailed for nearly a century is that, despite the clear acceptance of the role of consciousness in creating reality, all mainstream scientists still insist that consciousness vanishes on brain death. The obvious paradox, which is never mentioned, is that matter could not exist prior to any brain! The development of quantum theory has, therefore, already proved that some form of consciousness had to pre-exist the creation of matter. Yet scientists, across every discipline, go to immense trouble to discredit all evidence showing that consciousness can exist independently of matter. Most enlightened people, like Hand, have had personal experience demonstrating to them that at least some so-called, "paranormal" experiences have to be real phenomena and cannot be explained away by delusion or fraud as most scientists and parapsychologists insist must be the case. Then some of the enlightened seek explanations from twentieth century physics. This is perfectly sensible and reasonable but is not the way my own contribution came into being. I started without any intention of considering survival or any other aspects of the paranormal. I had simply started to take an interest in physics as it stood. Then in 1984, I realised something was wrong with the logic associated with the "big bang" theory. This has it that all the energy and matter of the universe was created in a gigantic explosion taking only a split second. From then on the total substance of the universe, its energy plus matter, remained constant and, being pulled back by mutual gravity, the flying debris would decelerate ever afterwards.

Have you never heard of this, Ian?