To the anti-ID education lobby

[HypnoPsi]

One to boggle the mind:

Okay, lets start with a disclaimer - I'm not an ID or Creationist supporter, I'm a believer in evolution.

Now, to the point.

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.

My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies - because that's where kids are supposed to learn about current social debates, right? And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate.

Someone even suggested getting Uni's to write letters to parents telling them that if their kids were taught this it could impact their prospects of getting into a good college.

I'm curious. What about the fact that every teenager in the US probably knows about this whole broohaha now anyway thanks to the very existence of the debate? I suppose what I'm asking is why have so many of you gone off the deep end? Why do you want to become "thought police"?
_
HypnoPsi

[Dr Adequate]

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something. Well, a closer analogy would be: "Like being taught something that isn't true."

Let's try it like that, shall we?The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like being taught something that isn't true. Yes, that looks about right.

[Francois Tremblay]

"People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children"

Yes, and they are correct.

[HypnoPsi]

Well, a closer analogy would be: "Like being taught something that isn't true."

Let's try it like that, shall we? Yes, that looks about right.Hold on a second. What about politics? That's in modern studies as well. Fancy trying your hand at trying to insist the opposite side from you is trying to teach "something that is not true" in that context?

Again, I don't believe in ID, I believe in evolution, but this "thought policing" mentality is worse than "millennium madness". Why on Earth would kids learning about the ID v's evolution issue in the current debates module of modern studies be so dangerous? You're basically conceding that it's persuasive and that science can't counter it, which is wrong.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

"People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children"

Yes, and they are correct.And do you think it's so bad that it shouldn't even be included in modern studies as a (very) current debate?

Pray tell, how are you going to protect children from something that's already a current debate in the society they live in?
_
HypnoPsi

[Dr Adequate]

Why on Earth would kids learning about the ID v's evolution issue in the current debates module of modern studies be so dangerous?[/i] There's a difference between teaching them that a controversy exists (which is true) and teaching them ID (which is tendentious rubbish).

In the same way, they should be taught about terrorists. But they should not be taught terrorism. Do you see the distinction?

[Dr Adequate]

And do you think it's so bad that it shouldn't even be included in modern studies as a (very) current debate? That is not the same as "teaching them ID".

We are raising an outcry against one thing. You are pointing out that something completely different would be harmless. Yes, it would. Why do you mention it?

[Jeff Corey]

...My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies ...HypnoPsi
We don't have anything called that around here.
And I am glad we don't.

[Bob Klase]

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.

The only real claims that I've heard up till now is that being taugh ID in 'SCIENCE CLASSES' is bad for children. I tend to agree that science classes should not teach things that aren't science. Unless of course we require them to teach alternative theories for everything that's "just a theory". Perhaps we could start with the Catholic Churchs alternative theory to Galieo's theories. Of course the Catholic church has finally admitted that they're wrong, but Galieo's ideas about the universe are still "just a theory".

[Jesus]

Why do you want to become "thought police"?
_
HypnoPsiHow is the desire for the passing down of accurate knowledge akin to being Thought Police? ID is bunk, and doesn't have a leg to stand on when compared to evolution.

Why don't we teach astrology in addition to astronomy? How about a geocentric model of the solar system in addition to the heliocentric one? We don't teach these things because they are false.

[c4ts]

One to boggle the mind:
The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.


It's bad for adults, too.

[Dymanic]

My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies - because that's where kids are supposed to learn about current social debates, right?
No problem. Just not in science class.

And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate
You continue to miss the point. EVC may be a current debate in our society at large, but there is no debate about it within the scientific community.

I suppose what I'm asking is why have so many of you gone off the deep end? Why do you want to become "thought police"?
It's a tough, dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

Maybe it's because so many of us here are so familiar with the worst excesses of "thought criminals". Psychic advisors and astrologers, peddlers of Feng Shui, homeopathy, and every variety of
snake-oil, they're everywhere. And WE're off the deep end?

You're basically conceding that it's persuasive and that science can't counter it, which is wrong.
No, we're saying that it can't be countered scientifically because it isn't science.

[eri]

Someone even suggested getting Uni's to write letters to parents telling them that if their kids were taught this it could impact their prospects of getting into a good college.



It very well could. The univeristy of CA system was turning down applications of students from fundamentalist Christian schools because they didn't have the necessary science education to enter college. In a few years, universities may be taking a critical look at the students from Kansas - as well as potential employees.

[Francois Tremblay]

"Intelligent Design" contradicts many scientific and technical disciplines, and explicitly opposes materialism, which is a permise of science. The Wedge Document likewise proves that ID is a political propaganda movement, not an educational movement. To accept ID in our educational systems in any shape or form is to surrender education to politics, and to openly attack science.

[Londinius]

The problem is that ID is going to be taught as a science subject. This is just wrong because it will confuse the students over the matter of science since it contradicts the scientific methods as used by other science subjects.

[HypnoPsi]

And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debateYou continue to miss the point. EVC may be a current debate in our society at large, but there is no debate about it within the scientific community.What makes you think that I, an evolutionist, would be unaware of this?Maybe it's because so many of us here are so familiar with the worst excesses of "thought criminals". Psychic advisors and astrologers, peddlers of Feng Shui, homeopathy, and every variety of
snake-oil, they're everywhere. And WE're off the deep end?Well you, at least, seem to agree that hearing about it in philosophy class, religious studies class or modern studies class won't cause psychological damage to kids. A few of your buddies are off the deep end though.
_
HypnoPsi

[hammegk]

"Intelligent Design" contradicts many scientific and technical disciplines, and explicitly opposes materialism, which is a premise of science. .... To accept ID in our educational systems in any shape or form is to surrender education to politics, and to openly attack science.
At least you understand the actual controversy as some IDers may see it. It is interesting that scientists often state their materialism stance is not "anti-god", but that statement can only be true for scientists who are also interactive dualists, which, unfortunately is a position that cannot be logically defended.

However, on the premise that ID contradicts many scientific and technical disciplines, I'd say you mistake YECers for IDers. My take on ID does not do so; I do challenge the dogmatism of believers in The Theory (neo-Evolution).

[HypnoPsi]

"Intelligent Design" contradicts many scientific and technical disciplines, and explicitly opposes materialism, which is a permise of science. The Wedge Document likewise proves that ID is a political propaganda movement, not an educational movement. To accept ID in our educational systems in any shape or form is to surrender education to politics, and to openly attack science.Are you thus saying that ID can't even be taught in modern studies or religious studies class?

And what about the fact that materialism is itself a faith and accepted as such? Science, no matter how much it can define the structure and form of smaller and smaller things (right down to gravitons, fermions and now theorising about "superstrings" and "branes") can only ever be like throwing a tin of paint over an invisible thing. We can never know the substance of things even though we all accept they are clearly "real".

Christians, Jews and Muslims, take their awareness of beingness in themselves and around themselves and call it "God", while Buddhists, in contrast, don't imbue it with intellect and just seek Enlightenment about the Absolute. The crucial point here is that the awareness of beingness in the world/universe isn't "sensed" or mediated by the senses.

Speaking in Kantian terms, only the "noumenal" is sensed and represented in mind as "phenomena". Positing "matter" as the "true substance" of things, in contrast, requires "faith" and almost everyone agrees that all the "isms" of the philosophy of science (realism, materialism, idealism, phenomenalism, empiricism, etc.,) should be taught as part of science.

To insist we never teach anything that opposes materialism is to ignore several hundred years of the philosophy of science since the enlightenment.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

It very well could. The univeristy of CA system was turning down applications of students from fundamentalist Christian schools because they didn't have the necessary science education to enter college. In a few years, universities may be taking a critical look at the students from Kansas - as well as potential employees.Not having a science education is quite different from also hearing about ID.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

There's a difference between teaching them that a controversy exists (which is true) and teaching them ID (which is tendentious rubbish).But how, then, do you teach the controversy without teaching what IDers are saying?In the same way, they should be taught about terrorists. But they should not be taught terrorism. Do you see the distinction?Of course, but understanding terrorism is understanding terrorism either way.
_
HypnoPsi

[Mojo]

My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies - because that's where kids are supposed to learn about current social debates, right? And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate. I would certainly have no objection to this, especially if they were encouraged to look at the issue of why the theory of ID was put forward. I'm not sure whether the majority group on the Kansas board would approve of this though.

Given a level playing field, I wouldn't have a particular problem with discussion of whether ID is a scientific theory in science lessons. Getting students to look at the nature of the opposing theories and the strength of the evidence for them might actually be a good way of getting them to think properly about science. However, that's certainly not what's being proposed in Dover, where they want a brief statement read out with a recommendation of a textbook, with no discussion or examination of ID at all. I doubt that that's what they have in mind in Kansas either.

[delphi_ote]

What makes you think that I, an evolutionist, would be unaware of this?Well you, at least, seem to agree that hearing about it in philosophy class, religious studies class or modern studies class won't cause psychological damage to kids. A few of your buddies are off the deep end though.
_
HypnoPsi

Why do you keep rebuilding the same straw man over and over again?

[Dymanic]

>And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate

>>You continue to miss the point. EVC may be a current debate in our society at large, but there is no debate about it within the scientific community.

>>>What makes you think that I, an evolutionist, would be unaware of this?

Being aware, as you are, that there is no debate within the scientific community, it's hard to understand how you could support the idea that high-school science students should be taught otherwise.

Well you, at least, seem to agree that hearing about it in philosophy class, religious studies class or modern studies class won't cause psychological damage to kids.
I'm struggling here to grasp how you might have reached the conclusion (which you obviously have) that anyone here has suggested that hearing about ID could cause psychological damage, or that it is an idea which students need to be 'protected' from hearing about. If not for your claim not to be a creationist, it would be easy to view this as a simple case of psychological projection (creationists often experience a desire to protect their children from worldly ideas, and assume that worldly folks would experience the same desire in reverse). Since your claim to be an "evolutionist" renders this hypothesis unworkable, maybe it would help if you provided specific examples of anyone here making the suggestions you claim they have made.

[hammegk]

Er, yes, 'specific examples'. You are in the Kansas Evolution thread, yet don't find any comments there that are as HypnoPsi characterized? I know I got the same implications.

[HypnoPsi]

That is not the same as "teaching them ID".

We are raising an outcry against one thing. You are pointing out that something completely different would be harmless. Yes, it would. Why do you mention it?Read my original post. So long as we agree that learning about ID (as opposed to having it promoted), as long as it's not in biology lessons, doesn't harm kids then I don't see any disagreement between you and I.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I'm struggling here to grasp how you might have reached the conclusion (which you obviously have) that anyone here has suggested that hearing about ID could cause psychological damage, or that it is an idea which students need to be 'protected' from hearing about.As I said in my original post, that's just the impression I got from certain posts about this whole thing. If that's not the case then this debate is now, obviously, concluded. ID, along with philosophy, politics, modern studies, etc., get's taught elsewhere and everything is hunky dory.
_
HypnoPsi

[Dymanic]

And what about the fact that materialism is itself a faith and accepted as such?
It's accepted as axiomatic. It's important to understand what the axioms of science are, and I'd like to see students taught enough about the philosophy of science to appreciate why it is that ID is (as you have just correctly implied) a challenging of those axioms, rather than a theoretical framework based on them. There is a discipline within which axioms are examined and within which such challenges may be (quite properly) issued. It's called: philosophy.

But the proponents of ID do not present their argument as philosophy; they seek to have it introduced as the legitimate results of work performed by scientists. In my opinion, the large percentage of the American populace unable to make the distinction represents, at least in part, a failure on the part of the public education system.

Science education in U.S. public schools is designed to produce not scientists, but technicians (which it does rather badly). Rather than compelling students to merely memorize 'facts', it might be better to help them gain a broader understanding of the process by which an idea comes to be accepted as fact. That way, even those who go on to careers not directly related to science might be better equipped to process the ever-increasing stream of information (and misinformation) that comes their way.

[hammegk]

It's accepted as axiomatic.
Axiomatic, yes. Accepted that 'physical' need be specified only by materialists, which by a precise understanding of the term means 100% atheist. A choice of not-physical as the monism may move one no farther than to the position of agnostic.


It's important to understand what the axioms of science are,

Agreed. And that is exactly what the disclaimer -- albeit currently poorly worded -- wanted by Dover IDers is about. Atheism is not a requirement for science; agnostics do not throw up their hands mumbling goddidit but continue to pursue scientific inquiry. Nor for that matter, do theists, deists, or even Christians necessarily give up with a goddidit.

And yes, Philosophy of Science remains the cutting edge.

[Mojo]

Atheism is not a requirement for science; agnostics do not throw up their hands mumbling goddidit but continue to pursue scientific inquiry. Nor for that matter, do theists, deists, or even Christians necessarily give up with a goddidit. But this is what at least some of the proponents of ID do. The argument from "irreducible complexity" basically comes down to "I can't see how this could possibly have evolved, so it must have been designed." OK, they've substituted "it must have been designed" for "God did it," but it's still a cop-out.

[Dymanic]

agnostics do not throw up their hands mumbling goddidit but continue to pursue scientific inquiry. Nor for that matter, do theists, deists, or even Christians necessarily give up with a goddidit.

They do, though; they just may not realize it. One may either assume that the universe is consistent, and that what we observe is the result of a chain of natural cause and effect -- or one may assume that at any point, supernatural entities may (for reasons we cannot know) act (with forces we cannot know) to influence this causal chain. Those two propositions are mutually exclusive.. The latter may be true, but if it is, "The Lord works in mysterious ways" is as strong as our theories will ever get.

[Francois Tremblay]

Nor for that matter, do theists, deists, or even Christians necessarily give up with a goddidit.

Then they simply don't understand what it is they believe in, and they compartimentalize in order to stay scientists. There is nothing you can possibly say after "God did it". If "God did it", then there is no natural law, no induction and no values.

Science is based on natural law and principled research based on honesty and rationality. "God did it" is the opposite of that.

[delphi_ote]

Science is based on natural law and principled research based on honesty and rationality. "God did it" is the opposite of that.

Unless by "god" we mean "natural law." But then everyone would all get along, and that would be far too productive.

[Belz...]

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.

Ignorance is bad for everyone.

[Belz...]

Again, I don't believe in ID, I believe in evolution [...]

I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact.

Now, if you want to talk about the process of evolution, I'm game.

[Belz...]

Why do you keep rebuilding the same straw man over and over again?

I suppose it burns better than the other ones...

[HypnoPsi]

And what about the fact that materialism is itself a faith and accepted as such?It's accepted as axiomatic.So is God/Nirvana/whatever by amaterialists.It's important to understand what the axioms of science are, and I'd like to see students taught enough about the philosophy of science to appreciate why it is that ID is (as you have just correctly implied) a challenging of those axioms, rather than a theoretical framework based on them.That is absolutely correct, yes.There is a discipline within which axioms are examined and within which such challenges may be (quite properly) issued. It's called: philosophy.Correct again.But the proponents of ID do not present their argument as philosophy; they seek to have it introduced as the legitimate results of work performed by scientists. In my opinion, the large percentage of the American populace unable to make the distinction represents, at least in part, a failure on the part of the public education system.I'll tentatively support this. If there was another medium within which to present alternatives to "radical materialism" such as philosophy lessons then the IDers wouldn't have any excuse for insisting their ontolology is included alongside in a purely epistemological (scientific) subject such as biology.Science education in U.S. public schools is designed to produce not scientists, but technicians (which it does rather badly). Rather than compelling students to merely memorize 'facts', it might be better to help them gain a broader understanding of the process by which an idea comes to be accepted as fact. That way, even those who go on to careers not directly related to science might be better equipped to process the ever-increasing stream of information (and misinformation) that comes their way.That's exactly the problem in a nut-shell. With the current US education system being mono-ontological (radical materialism), competing ontologies don't have an avenue of expression - thus they want it "included" where they think there are the most striking examples of "radical materialism" usurping all other ontologies (in this instance evolution).

The real issue here lies within hat psychologists refer to as "triggering mechanisms" versus "underlying causes". It's the mono-ontological stance that is the "underlying cause" with evolution just being the "trigger" that get's people jittery.

Would I be right in saying that the majority of us now realise that the only real solution to this lies in philosophy lessons? If so, then I think people should become more solution orientated rather than problem orientated. (But, then, I've always been told I'm too much of an optimist. :))
_
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sure, teach some more philosophy. What grade should we start in, do you think? What would be the first-year curriculum?

~~ Paul

[Francois Tremblay]

Sure, teach some more philosophy. What grade should we start in, do you think? What would be the first-year curriculum?

The difference between reality and make-believe. The virtue of asking questions and keeping your mind open. Teaching children some real values and virtues instead of the unjustified, irrational pap they teach them, would be nice. Also, basic scientific ontology.

Later, in their "skeptical stage", you could teach them skepticism, critical thinking and basic epistemology. Just a thought.

Of course, none of this would ever be possible in a public school.

[Dymanic]

Sure, teach some more philosophy. What grade should we start in, do you think?
First grade.

What would be the first-year curriculum?
I'd consider beginning with basic computer programming. I can't think of a better way to get a good look at just what a tricky thing a human mind is; at just how much of the work of thinking is done for us; at how what takes place at the 'conscious' level (whatever that is) is mostly manipulation of the chunked outputs of cognitive subroutines that are not only black boxes, but invisible black boxes; at just how much we rely on assumptions, and how the ones that usually cause the most trouble are the ones we don't realize we're making. Isn't that pretty much what philosophy is all about?

[HypnoPsi]

Axiomatic, yes. Accepted that 'physical' need be specified only by materialists, which by a precise understanding of the term means 100% atheist. A choice of not-physical as the monism may move one no farther than to the position of agnostic.I agree entirely. Having students think about their beingness, their awareness, their consciousness and contrasting this with the alternative faith in matter does not necessarily lead anyone to any specific "religion". With the Dali Lama speaking out against "radical scientific materialism" in his latest book "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality", it is pointless to maintain that this is about nothing more than "Christianity by the back door". Philosophy lessons could potentially be as damaging to Christianity as they could be to radical materialism.Agreed. And that is exactly what the disclaimer -- albeit currently poorly worded -- wanted by Dover IDers is about. Atheism is not a requirement for science; agnostics do not throw up their hands mumbling goddidit but continue to pursue scientific inquiry. Nor for that matter, do theists, deists, or even Christians necessarily give up with a goddidit.

And yes, Philosophy of Science remains the cutting edge.What looks bad for the radical materialists within the evolution camp is the fact that the opposing view has shifted. It made an effort to compromise (in the only way it's adherents knew how). They realised that arguments to include Creationism in science class were untenable and, accordingly, went for the softer ID approach instead.

The radical materialists haven't been too quick to propose the compromise of philosophy lessons instead (where students will be exposed to alternative ontologies like Kantian empirical realism, idealism, phenomenalism, solipsism, etc., etc.,). Thus, the appearance now is that one faith-based ontology has tried to secure for itself an unfair advantage over all others.

I said above that the evolutionists insistance that all supernaturalism be exorcised from biology was the best thing that ever happened for the Christians. It was. They'll get philosophy lessons now.... eventually. And as soon as they do the force they have raised, that is now too large to just disappear from the scene, will act in every single instance that radical materialism seems to be trying to secure an unfair advantage for itself.

Both sides should have been careful what they wished for here. Something other than either Chrisitanity or radical materialism is what philosophy leads to. Who knows? Maybe schoolchildren will all become Buddhists.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I'd consider beginning with basic computer programming. I can't think of a better way to get a good look at just what a tricky thing a human mind is; at just how much of the work of thinking is done for us; at how what takes place at the 'conscious' level (whatever that is) is mostly manipulation of the chunked outputs of cognitive subroutines that are not only black boxes, but invisible black boxes; at just how much we rely on assumptions, and how the ones that usually cause the most trouble are the ones we don't realize we're making. Isn't that pretty much what philosophy is all about?No, and computer programing has as much to do with philosophy as evolution. Philosophy is a distinct discipline that should be taught on its own. Cognitive modelling belongs in computer studies class and most certainly shouldn't be presented as explaining cognition in human consciousness.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Sure, teach some more philosophy. What grade should we start in, do you think? What would be the first-year curriculum?Only a child educationalist could answer that one. I do know that philosophy is divided into the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of ethics/morality, political philosophy and other things in terms of ontology and the best way to proceed in terms of epistemology, though.

But how much can you lay on someone who's still a year or two away from their teens? I would personally start with basic parts of the philosophy of science and the philosophy of mind as the curriculum building up to other more complex matters as the students mature.
_
HypnoPsi

[hammegk]

They do, though; they just may not realize it. One may either assume that the universe is consistent, and that what we observe is the result of a chain of natural cause and effect -- or one may assume that at any point, supernatural entities may (for reasons we cannot know) act (with forces we cannot know) to influence this causal chain. Those two propositions are mutually exclusive..


Then they simply don't understand what it is they believe in, and they compartimentalize in order to stay scientists. There is nothing you can possibly say after "God did it". If "God did it", then there is no natural law, no induction and no values.
Unless you are a dualist, or materialist, the concept of supernatural is meaningless (and of course meaningless even then). If something effects or affects this universe, it's the same "stuff" the universe is. Choosing idealism rather than materialism as the monism of choice does not obviate science or the scientific method. And no, neither does it provide any added answers for the results of science. What is does do is provide a potential to allow 'free will' per se to actually effect/affect things in this universe in some way science may be able to understand. It also better addresses the endpoints of a couple things that materialists (and all of us) have trouble coming to grips with: 1) why is there a difference between what we perceive as terran life, and the rest of the universe which we perceive as "not-life" and 2) what is consciousness (HPC)?

For an idealist, the answer to 1) is "there is no difference", and for 2) the expression of "the universal stuff" when what we perceive as a homo sap brain & body is working properly is "consciousness".


Of course, materialists -- like all egotistical humans -- prefer that everyone be indoctrinated to accept their choice of monism (we'll hope no interactive dualists get in game) as The Truth, when it is just an axiom no better than its alternative. Rightly, or wrongly, Neo-evolution is on the cutting edge for this debate.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't know any parts of philosophy that are more complex than the philosophy of mind, particularly since the philosophy of mind immediately spills over into metaphysics, which is largely incoherent.

But here's a place to start:

Today, kids, we are going to talk about libertarian free will. Who wants to offer up a definition?

Or, we could start here:

Today, kids, we are going to discuss the Knowledge Argument. Who wants to present this thought experiment?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What is does do is provide a potential to allow 'free will' per se to actually effect/affect things in this universe in some way science may be able to understand.
Oh yes, thanks for reminding me. I need to put scare quotes around "libertarian free will" in my post above.

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

The difference between reality and make-believe. The virtue of asking questions and keeping your mind open. Teaching children some real values and virtues instead of the unjustified, irrational pap they teach them, would be nice. Also, basic scientific ontology.

Later, in their "skeptical stage", you could teach them skepticism, critical thinking and basic epistemology. Just a thought.

Of course, none of this would ever be possible in a public school.Of course not - and rightly so. Radical materialism is just one faith based philosophy among countless others. I myself could be called "empirical realist" or "rational phenomenalist", holding somewhat to Kantian/Schopenhauerian metaphysics making me, in essence, an "amaterialist" - meaning I am skeptical of "physicalism" and "eliminative materialism".

In philosophy class students should be taught philosophy; meaning they should be taught about Descartes, Ayer, Kant, Berkley, Hume, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Reid, Smith and all those other dead European guys. It should not be uses as a vehicle to actively promote any one agenda over the myriad alternatives.

Questions/beliefs about things like computer consciousness/nonconsciousness, evolution, theism/atheism, conservatism/liberalism are things that students look at independently after they understand philosophy.

Kids between the ages of 11 and 16 can't have too much thrown at them. In the eariest stages of teaching philosophy (age 11) the best thing to do would be to concentrate on the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of science comparing and contrasting Hume (the skeptic) with Kant (the believer) and Descartes (the dualist). Ethics and morality can be included nicely in that package and it would build a solid foundation for everything else outlined above in future years.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Message somehow got repeated. I've deleted it.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Of course, materialists -- like all egotistical humans -- prefer that everyone be indoctrinated to accept their choice of monism (we'll hope no interactive dualists get in game) as The Truth, when it is just an axiom no better than its alternative. Rightly, or wrongly, Neo-evolution is on the cutting edge for this debate.I agree with you that the idealist monism you are expressing doesn't provide more answers than materialism. But I think we can define a clear logical argument why the physicalism of the radical materialist definatley isn't the default position that they claim it is; for the very simple reason that beingness is known while the belief that matter has substance independent of said beingness can only ever be inferred.

Does that mean agnositicism? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced. I think the default is something more like a mish-mash of animism, panpsychism and pantheism.

And, yes, the reason that evolution has become the battleground of this debate is because the believers in radical materialism are insistent that - even though it is entirely faith based - it be the only ontology in child education and the dominant ontology in scientific endeavour.

For example, not "keeping the faith" usually means one is hardly ever accorded respect as a bona fide "scientist" by the adherents to radical materialism. And, in this thread, it is being seriously proposed that philosophy lessons should be actively used to promote skepticism and the idea that cognitive modeling on computers explains consciousness (even descartes doesn't get a look in). And they wonder why people believe that evolution is being used as a vehicle for materialistic atheism by the back door?
_
HypnoPsi

[Z]

Boy, Hypno is just gonna keep waggling that straw man, isn't he?

For the casual reader, who may have missed it: 'radical materialism' is his straw-man. He believes that there are those who 'believe' that a 'fundamental matter/energy' is the source of everything', and that this is the source of modern scientific thought and skepticism in general; further, he believes that awareness, in general, is independent of sensory cognition and processing (including memory), and is therefore a singular 'known'.

The fact is, science is built on theories based on the observation that all things have thus far been composed of matter and energy, and that matter and energy have, as of yet, proven to be composed of still smaller components. Theories exist that these smaller components may, themselves, be comprised of still smaller components, but scientists and materialist in general are not running around espousing 'faith' in some mysterious fundamental matter/energy thing. That's Hypno's strawman.

Further, his assertion that 'awareness' is a given known is likewise false; since observation has also demonstrated several key aspects about cognition and thought processing that makes sensation and sensory processing key to the discernment between 'self-awareness' and 'general-awareness'; that these two forms of awareness can be reduced or eliminated purely through manipulation of the physical brain; and, most importantly, that whatever we consider these basic awarenesses, they do not equate to 'knowledge' of any 'divine entity' in any manner. To propose in any way that awareness equates to knowledge of a supernatural entity of any type is simply false, and is exactly what Hypno has tried, again and again, to do.

So, in short, what materialistic atheists are doing is simply promoting the science based upon observable phenomena and contemporary theories - theories they will more than willingly change if evidence proves contrary; while those of 'faith' are pushing for a denial of many of the foundational aspects of modern science, on the basis of mythical stories, imagined supernatural beings, and vague personal sensations of awe.

Just to clarify for those who are passing by.

[hammegk]

So, in short, what materialistic atheists are doing is simply promoting the science based upon observable phenomena and contemporary theories - theories they will more than willingly change if evidence proves contrary; while those of 'faith' are pushing for a denial of many of the foundational aspects of modern science, on the basis of mythical stories, imagined supernatural beings, and vague personal sensations of awe.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about. :)


"Just to clarify for those who are passing by."

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, hammy: where do you draw the line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

[Z]

In short, you don't know what you are talking about. :)


"Just to clarify for those who are passing by."

Ah, the usual hammy response, when he has no rebuttals left in his stockpile.

Don't worry, hammy - there's plenty of people who lack the education and intelligence to offer a rebuttal. You're not alone.

:bgrin:

[hammegk]

Don't worry, hammy - there's plenty of people who lack the education and intelligence to offer a rebuttal.

We agree on that. And there are also those who have both, but no interest in providing long-winded rebuttals to fools.

[thaiboxerken]

I could see teaching "ID" and various other creation myths in comparitive religion classes or social studes, however, the ID'ers will not agree on a compromise. They want their religion taught as science, their entire goal is to destroy evolutionary science.

[Dymanic]

Cognitive modelling belongs in computer studies class and most certainly shouldn't be presented as explaining cognition in human consciousness.
I certainly don't disagree with that, but if you really thought that's what I was suggesting, then I think you just illustrated my point by making an assumption which you apparently did not realize you were making.

I wasn't referring to any use of computers in an attempt to model or explain human cognition. I was referring to the way computer programming as an activity forces one to confront the nature of one's own cognitive processes.

Communication between humans depends to a very great extent on each person's ability to make accurate assumptions about what the other knows (as well as what he wants). I am convinced that the value (ultimately, the reproductive value) of strong performance at this sort of task is what drove the evolution of the human brain. The same equipment is also critical to philosophy as well as science, btw, and it therefore seems to me that evolution does have quite a bit to do with both.

It has been said that since Wittgenstein, the business of (analytic) philosophy has been largely devoted to the careful unpacking of complex problems whose origin is found in the imprecise use of language. It is this sort of 'unpacking' that I'm talking about. The moment one begins to make the attempt to express his thoughts in explicit enough terms that the results may be meaningfully acted upon by a compiler (as rigidly pedantic as any logical structure imaginable, and as unconcerned with the programmer's goals as any rock), he may be shocked to realize just how densely compact are some of the concepts which may be had for the price of a few syllables (whether those syllables are actually uttered aloud or not). He may come to realize that he has been spoiled by a lifetime of communicating with other humans who have, for the most part, been willing and able to do much of the work themselves: to correct -- on the fly -- errors in spelling or pronunciation or syntax; if necessary, even errors at the level of semantics (misplaced or missing referents, misjoined wuggims, etc) or even at conceptual levels above that (see: malaphors).

The luxury of such convenience comes at a price. It means that when you say you understand what I said, you may really only understand what you imagine you would have meant had you said it yourself; but what you heard may not have been what I actually said, and furthermore I may not believe you anyway, because I think I know why you might say you understand even if you don't, based on my ability to imagine why I might say that if I were you (considering that I am your parent, or your boss, or you a car salesman, or my rival, etc); and (especially if your inflection suggests it) I might want to consider the possibility that you mean that you understand something about me that I didn't intend to reveal. Etc, etc, etc.

Philosophy is concerned with meaning. Meaning is derived from assumptions. Assumptions tend to have a lot to do with goals. Understand what I'm saying now?

[Z]

We agree on that. And there are also those who have both, but no interest in providing long-winded rebuttals to fools.

Oh, I don't think the readership are fools, though my rebuttal of HypnoPsi's relevant points could certainly be seen as 'long-winded'.

Nevertheless, the fool who calls another 'fool' without an explanation, is seen by others as a fool as well. It is best, when making a claim as to the apparent ignorance of another, to demonstrate that ignorance with reason, unless, of course, you can't - or unless their ignorance is self-evident. However, general response to the majority of what I post seems to indicate either a) a lack of foolishness, or b) that the majority of those who bother to post responses are equally foolish. Not that an appeal to the majority means much; a fool in the company of fools, or in the company of wise men, is still a fool. But a fool who hurls brief, meaningless one-liners is probably the worst sort of fool - except, maybe, the fool who uses ten lines to say nothing...

like me...

:D

[Francois Tremblay]

If this is the kind of nonsense people say about philosophy, no wonder most people think the subject is so arcane and irrelevant.

[Mojo]

We agree on that. And there are also those who have both, but no interest in providing long-winded rebuttals to fools.Well, why not provide one "just to clarify for those who are passing by?"

[brodski]

Well, why not provide one "just to clarify for those who are passing by?"

Or maybe he could actually do something useful like give us his definition of "macro-evolution" rather than just assert that it has never occurred, but he cant tell us what it is, because it has never occurred, or some such guff.

[Dr Adequate]

Or maybe he could actually do something useful like give us his definition of "macro-evolution"... I kept on asking him that on the other threads he was spamming until he finally gave the one-word answer: "Unknown (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46730)".
:dl:

[Belz...]

Axiomatic, yes. Accepted that 'physical' need be specified only by materialists, which by a precise understanding of the term means 100% atheist.

What would 65% atheist mean ?

[Belz...]

What looks bad for the radical materialists within the evolution camp is the fact that the opposing view has shifted. It made an effort to compromise (in the only way it's adherents knew how). They realised that arguments to include Creationism in science class were untenable and, accordingly, went for the softer ID approach instead.

Which is no less tenable.

[Belz...]

Of course not - and rightly so. Radical materialism is just one faith based philosophy among countless others. I myself could be called "empirical realist" or "rational phenomenalist", holding somewhat to Kantian/Schopenhauerian metaphysics making me, in essence, an "amaterialist" - meaning I am skeptical of "physicalism" and "eliminative materialism".

And yet, by your definition, your views are still based on faith, entirely.

[Shaun from Scotland]

One to boggle the mind:


My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies - because that's where kids are supposed to learn about current social debates, right? And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate.
_
HypnoPsi


Only in the same way that the Holocaust and Holocaust denial is most assuredly a current debate.

"And todays lesson children is Auschwitz didn't happen" in your childrens history class anybody?

[hammegk]

What would 65% mean ?
That would be a person who has chosen dualism, which means that person has taken a logically indefensible position, whether that person understands that or not. :)



I kept on asking him that on the other threads he was spamming until he finally gave the one-word answer: "Unknown".
Unlike most, I actually admit it when I have no basis for an answer.

It's same problem you have with defining the line that separates not-sentient from sentient. Are you still mired somewhere in time before the quark-gluon plasma era?


Well, why not provide one "just to clarify for those who are passing by?"
Another fool's errand is attempting to guess a questioner's the level of relevant knowledge unless the questioner actually asks a question.

[StoatBringer]

Again, I don't believe in ID, I believe in evolution,


I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as a recognised fact. Do you "believe" in gravity, or "believe" in the atomic theory of matter?

but this "thought policing" mentality is worse than "millennium madness". Why on Earth would kids learning about the ID v's evolution issue in the current debates module of modern studies be so dangerous? You're basically conceding that it's persuasive and that science can't counter it, which is wrong.

It's only a "debate" because vocal, organised creationists are making a big issue of it because they do not want evolution taught as science because it directly conflicts with their religious beliefs.

When they say that kids should be "taught the controversy", THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. The only controversy is of their own making, so that they can claim there is a controversy.

It's only persuasive because they are very good at targetting people in authority who will listen to them and generally hold compatible beliefs. To anyone who's got a scrap of scientific knowledge or has dealt with creationists before, it's clearly a load of bollocks.

There are plenty of other tiny-groups-with-an-agenda who claim that their crackpot view of things is somehow being covered up by The Establishment, but that's no reason to teach the imaginary "controversy" that they claim.

The fact that this stuff is even being seriously considered makes a laughing stock of the US educational system (or Kansas, at the very least).

[brodski]

I kept on asking him that on the other threads he was spamming until he finally gave the one-word answer: "Unknown (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46730)".
:dl:

:jaw-dropp
well that clears it all up then.


Well, thats conviced me, no-one can prove to hammys satisfaction that macro-evolution as happened, beceasue hammy dosent know what it is, and refuses to accept any defintion which is oferd to him, therfore evil-oution is all wrong.

its all so clear!

[paulMerton] I've been a fool to myself! [\Paul Merton]

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What would 65% atheist mean? Atheism percentage is measured as 100 - (percent of gods believed in). A 100% atheist believes in no gods. A Christian believes in 1 god out of, say, 5000, so is a 99.98% atheist, and so on like that. A 65% atheist believes in a pantload of gods.

~~ Paul

[Pastor Bentonit]

:jaw-dropp
well that clears it all up then.


Well, thats conviced me, no-one can prove to hammys satisfaction that macro-evolution as happened, beceasue hammy dosent know what it is, and refuses to accept any defintion which is oferd to him, therfore evil-oution is all wrong.

its all so clear!

[paulMerton] I've been a fool to myself! [\Paul Merton]
Yes, it is painfully clear. In the world according to hammegk, no organisms change much (case in point: cats do not change into dogs or vice versa; thus macro-evolution is false).

Would that we all were trolls, happily trolling along! Oh, the merry, easy life..!

[brodski]

Unlike most, I actually admit it when I have no basis for an answer.


I respect you honesty in admitting thatbyou cannot define macro-evolution.

Howeaver do you not see the contradiction in stating that the is no evidence for X, but refusing to define what X is?

If you cannot decide what is macro evolution and what is micro evolution how do you know teh evolution we have witnessed is micro rather than macro? and what is to stop a serise of "micro" chanegs adding up to a "macro" change?

[brodski]

Yes, it is painfully clear. In the world according to hammegk, no organisms change much (case in point: cats do not change into dogs or vice versa; thus macro-evolution is false).

Would that we all were trolls, happily trolling along! Oh, the merry, easy life..!

I may be a poor, ignorant, humanities graduate, but I thought that the theory of evolution doesn't predict organisms changing over time, but it does predict groups of organisms changing over time.

My, my, with all this straw about we better watch out for naked flames, the forum could go up like a bonfire.

ohh, ohh, if the forum does go up in flames sometime this week, can I nominate the "guy"? :D

[MRC_Hans]

One to boggle the mind:
Within a certain, limited, definition of "mind". :rolleyes:

Okay, lets start with a disclaimer - I'm not an ID or Creationist supporter, I'm a believer in evolution.

Translation: I don't really have a point to make, I just thought this would be a great subject to create some controversy.

Well, another option when you run out of ideas of your own is simply to shut up.

Now, to the point.As if you ever came to a point.

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.Being taught ID is bad for anybody. Being informed that ID exists, as a religious concept is harmless.

My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies - because that's where kids are supposed to learn about current social debates, right? And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate.Informing about the debate is fine. However, you keep talking about teaching ID. However, waht exactly is it you wanna teach? What IS ID, apart from some utterly lame refutations of evolution and some goddidit?


Someone even suggested getting Uni's to write letters to parents telling them that if their kids were taught this it could impact their prospects of getting into a good college.

I'm curious. What about the fact that every teenager in the US probably knows about this whole broohaha now anyway thanks to the very existence of the debate?Of course they know about it, and they certainly should. What they should not is to be taught it as if it is a viable scientific concept, or even that the nonsensical refutations offered by ID'ers have any scientific merit.

I suppose what I'm asking is why have so many of you gone off the deep end? Why do you want to become "thought police"?We don't want to be thought police. We want to keep religios fundies from being thought police.



Hans

[drkitten]

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.

My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies - because that's where kids are supposed to learn about current social debates, right? And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate.


That's not an option on the table. I don't think any scientist would object if the existence of the controversy were taught in current events or the equivalent, in the same way that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be taught, or the Northern Ireland troubles. However, teaching of any of those areas would be politically very contentious and in order to be taught properly, it would have to be taught on a very strict evidence- and fact- basis. Which would basically end up making the ID proponents look like fools, more or less along the lines of the Dover, PA case.

What the ID proponents want is to have ID taught as a serious scientific theory, which it isn't, and it ends up undermining the entire foundation of science education. We'd be, in essence, teaching these kids that 'Science is a search for a truth-based understanding of the world, except when it isn't and when it's simply a matter of a politically dictated doctrine with no regard for reason or evidence."

What is it that you wan tto teach in modern studies?

-- That the ID debate exists? This is harmless.

-- That ID is a scientific theory? That's a flat-out pernicious lie.

-- That evolution is "just a theory" with little evidence or explanatory capacity? That's also a flat-out pernicious lie.

If you are happy lying to children for political motives, and trampling on the Constitution to do so, then I'm afraid we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Mojo]

What is it that you wan tto teach in modern studies?

-- That the ID debate exists? This is harmless. I would question even this to some extent. There is a debate, but not in the sense that proponents of ID would have us believe. They would have people believe that there's a genuine scientific controversy, and that ID is slugging it out with evolution by natural selection on something like even terms, hence, for example, their lists (http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf) of scientists (they really ought to try to find a few more called Steve). This is not the case. The controversy is political and religious in nature. As far as science is concerned, evolution by natural selection is not a controversial theory.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We could teach ID in "the perils of doing science in the courts" class.

~~ Paul