I’ve been wanting to write about the Presidential candidates’ stand on science for a while now. In some cases it’s pretty clear: under Huckabee, for example, there’s little doubt that after a few weeks we’d be longing for the devastation wrought by Bush. For others, like Obama, it’s not as clear. He once said he wanted to take NASA’s money and give it to education (not understanding what NASA does for education), but he seems to have relented somewhat on that.
It’s now a wee bit easier to see what’s what, because Physics Today has a site with links to the Presidential candidates’ thoughts on science.
However, after looking through it, I don’t think their pages are all that reliable, since they depend on what the candidates have said in press releases, and not what they’ve said and done on the actual campaign trail. For example, on evolution, it just quotes what Huckabee said in an interview:
“If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that….I believe there was a creative process.”
Huckabee said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory in the public schools and he doesn’t expect schools to teach creationism.
“We shouldn’t indoctrinate kids in school,” he said. “I wouldn’t want them teaching creationism as if it’s the only thing that they should teach.”
However, in 2004, Huckabee was a bit clearer about this:
But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution.
Huckabee is scary dangerous. He repeats the really bad creationist talking point about fact and theory like it makes any sense at all… but at least his position, to rational people, is crystal clear. I think it’s remiss of the Physics Today folks, whom I generally highly respect, to leave such an important topic so badly incomplete. A little digging would have been very helpful here.
As we have seen repeatedly, what candidates say and what they do are, in general, vastly different things. Relying simply on their press releases to gauge their stand on science is at best hopelessly naive, and at worst very dangerous.
Over the next week or two I will look into this issue more. With Romney and Huckabee it’s pretty clear. Of all the candidates, as far as I know, only Clinton has made a clear stand on science, and was clear about evolution, too:
“I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying,” Mrs. Clinton said in the interview. “I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason.”
“I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions,” she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that “evolution is going on as we speak.
Evolution is not the be-all and end-all of science, of course, but these days it’s a pretty good canary-in-the-mineshaft for it.
McCain is at best hazy, having said after that one infamous Republican debate — where three out of ten candidates humiliated the US by showing that they didn’t think evolution was true — that evolution is supported by science, but that we should "expose students to other theories". Thing is, there are no other theories. There’s evolution, and there’s fantasy. So I’m not so thrilled with McCain either.
Mind you, the President does have influence here. The President can appoint judges, for example, and can influence Congress. And (s)he can set the national direction on many issues.
I’m not so naive myself as to be a one-issue voter, at least, not on this one issue. The past seven years have pushed this country to the thin hairy edge of disaster, and in many cases well beyond that edge. You will have your own opinions on the war, on the economy, on warrentless wiretapping, on torture, on purging attorney generals, on outing covert agents, and so on. Go ahead and vote your conscience on those. But on this blog I tend to lean heavily (though obviously not exclusively) on science. As I find out more, I’ll post more.
We’re coming down to the wire here, folks, and I am not being hyperbolic when I say the very future of our nation hangs on the balance here. Please, do due diligence on this. Find the information that concerns you, and vote accordingly. If science is that important to you, then by all means, let it guide you as well.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Thanx for the post.
I’d also like to find out more about Barack’s science policy. I read some months ago that he would double funding in certain research areas.
Maybe the BA could do a post on the candidate’s space and astronomy policy (if any).
Also, I think it’s just as important to find out where the candidates stand on evidence based policy decisions. Will Barack and Hillary make an effort to base their policy on the best possible science and evidence?
What about their policies on scientific freedom and independence from political control?
Who’s best for the environment? I haven’t heard much about the environment as an issue in the debates. Are Barack and Hillary committed to doing something real about global warming?
(I don’t care about the Republican candidates. If they can’t even admit that the war was a colossal mistake based on multiple lies then they obviously aren’t using evidence to form any of their conclusions.)
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I’ve got my own ideas - one of which is the I’m sure unpopular free secondary education. If it wasn’t seen as elitist it might be more acceptable to work towards and have a degree.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
What’s more important is whether or not the president will allow his personal beliefs to influence national policy. Mind you, noone is void of bias. However, the Constitution does a fantastic job of making it pretty clear how those biases should be considered. In short, they SHOULD NOT.
So, in a nutshell, I don’t care if the President believes that monkeys fly out of his/her butt and into pink space bubbles. So long as they don’t try to make it national policy or use my tax dollars to fund research into the existence of those monkeys, I honestly don’t give a damn.
Thankfully, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about science other than the government should just butt-out. I think that would be a fantastic way to erase the last few decades of Jesus-creep that we’ve seen make it’s way through this country.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Thanks, Phil! Keep us posted on Obama’s stand especially.
Rich in Charlottesville.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
sr2:
I would -hope- the government wouldn’t just “butt out” and not continue funding various of my favorite enterprises, like NASA & the NSF, and would start funding stem-cell research.
Rich, still in Charlottesville
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Sorry to be pedantic, pat, but university/college is tertiery education, not secondary. Secondary is high school.
*sigh* Australia used to have free university, but then the conservative baby boomers who got their finance and law degrees for free in the seventies decided in the 90s that only rich kids deserve a university education. My first year of uni was the first year of partial fees, and its crept further and further in the fifteen years since.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I’m all for hearing your opinion and in approval of using this blog as a source from which to glean information on this particular topic. In the blogosphere as a whole, this is an “A1″ site for this type of info (since you seem willing to dig
). I was a Richardson dude and anyone who’s actually looked at his resume may be disappointed in his towel-throwing. But, after W (and after finally understanding the mathematics involved), one thing I am not, any longer, is a third-party promoter. That means I have to choose between….ummm…..
Funny how the environment so quickly fell of the public’s radar. That proves that the best candidate must take on the role of educator. (One of my biggest complaint’s about W was his lack of relating to any public not in the ultra-con choir or over the age of 5).
@sr2-
well, how does your candidate stand on the monkey bubble issue?
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Summed it up early this year…
glad to hear that BO has relented a bit on NASA. Worth reading when you have time… and I’ll look for your post.
Science in ‘08. Logic for VPOTUS.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Hypocrisy runs the same for both sides, I see, when most ask, “Why creationists can’t / won’t consider any other theories?”, when you say in your post…”There’s evolution, and then there’s fantasy”, how ‘elitistly’ one-sided on your part! (It’s okay, as long as ‘YOUR’ view, is the ONLY reasonable explanation !)
I always wonder why the scientific community, which ‘problem-solves’ through process of elimination and considers ALL ideas or hypothesis’, in coming to the best conclusion/answer for a problem, will, to-a-tee, never, ever consider a faith/religious based connotation, as a clue to solving something…what drives this ‘fear’?…You might as well be a modern day version of the ancient Pacific Islanders, who shun all outside ideas or practices, because it conflicts with the world they know !
And kudos to yet another futile exercise, in trying to elevate another political election, into something relevant…(RE:The very future of our nation hangs on the balance here), How many times has that been said this past century, and NOTHING changes : The same idiots get elected, and the other bunch of idiots (from the opposite Party), just try to sabotage/negate any actions being taken, so as to cause a stalemate, (on everything), until the next election cycle, “so they can get their chance to get in there”…Then we start this all over again, and NOTHING gets done !!!…Don’t even get started on deficits or budgets, etc. (when have these EVER affected your day-in, day-out lives, in the real world !), you just vote for the guy who’ll hurt you least ! Nothing scientific, just common sense, get a grip !
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
philipjfry, it is not elitist to stop investigating avenues which have proven to be dead-ends. There is nothing new under the religious sun (setting aside the modern micro-religions, most of which hew to some strand of pre-existing theology anyway). A math teacher who tells a student they are wrong if they sum three and two to get six (given some basic axioms about properties of transforms) is not behooved to instead investigate diligently whether 2+3=6 has value to the class. The student is wrong, not excluded
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
philipjfry, you seem to be confused on what exactly the goal of scientific discovery is and quite frankly seem to have the entire situation reversed. Scientists do not try to make everything fit into a precomposed world view of the Universe, we leave that to religion. The goal of science is to shatter everything we “assuredly” know. The reason science doesn’t give ideas like Creationism any weight is because they themselves have none. The moment there is even a trickle of evidence to support creationism, you will see it studied and researched vigorously, just like any other idea. But the fact currently remains that, by its own definition, religion is impossible to prove, so in the world of science it is thrown out the window.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
[…] is a fan of Clay’s catchphrase)“, (2) the elusive English gender neutral pronoun “s(he)“, (3) the historically qualitatively quantitative “(In those days, getting a few […]
February 4th, 2008 at 12:06 am
So I take it, Phil Plait, you’lll be voting for Huckabee then?
(JOKING!!!)
February 4th, 2008 at 12:10 am
What’s the phrase “Canary in the Mineshaft” mean?
February 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Regarding the BA’s comments on McCain :
“McCain is at best hazy, having said after that one infamous Republican debate … that evolution is supported by science, but that we should “expose students to other theories”. Thing is, there are no other theories. There’s evolution, and there’s fantasy. So I’m not so thrilled with McCain either.”
I think that depends how we look at this.
If by “other theories” we mean non-Darwinian theories like :
* Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ &
* Fred Hoyle’s & Wickramasinghe’s (spelling?) ‘panspermia’
& even - just perhaps - historically comparing Lamark & Darwin’s versions .. (Which I did in high school if memory serves.)
Then I have no problem with it or McCain’s view.
I’d even have no problem with teaching creationism-ID if it is done briefly as a “Why this isn’t science” debunking excercise.
If McCain means the whole “Teach the controversy” and put ID-Creationism up as a “viable alternative” though - definitely NOT as that’s a very different matter!
From what I’m gathering (perhaps wrongly) in the Aussie media McCain is now a virtual certainty for Republican nomination anyhow.
Which is far preferable than Huckabee or Romney IMHON. As for my preferred choice, I’ve got to say either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be top of my preference vote - okay, I’m an Aussie but crikey, we (& Britain & so much else of the Western world) are effectively subject states of the USA now ..
Reckon the laws should be changed to give us and other nations dominated by the US a vote in their elections? I do!
If you want to rule the world (”Full spectrum dominance” & current policies show this is clearly true) & if you claim to respect democracy - as you say - then why not give all the peopel you rule (ie. planet Earth as a whole.) a democratic say in who governs them …?
Just a thought!
In my preference order of most desired to least desired US president :
1) Obama
2) Hillary
3) MCain
4) Romney
5) Huckabee
&
20000,000000 millionth) George II the mad Presiking you’ve got now!
My biggest hope for the future : the USA learns its lessons from its invasions of Iraq, Vietnam & tehBay of Pigs (among others) & finally, unequivocally, decide to STOP INVADING OTHER NATIONS & start being a good co-operative constructive global citizen!
Whoever becomes President I frankly don’t like the chances of that happening ..
Incidentally, I _do_ love much about America and Americans - just NOT their foreign policy. In this I think about 90% of the planet is with me.
—————————
All In My Humble Opinion Naturally (IMHON)
February 4th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Sam: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071126043106AAbSZbo
February 4th, 2008 at 12:54 am
#philipjfry
Beyond philosophy, a fundamental tenet of science is what you can infer. What does it allow you to predict? If you posit a deity, then prediction is out the window as either hubris or apostasy.
I’m not being flippant. The whole point of a theory in science is not to look for meaning but look for description. Early theories only grossly described what we see, because they had limited ability to predict. Our current understanding of physics, by contrast, describe rather precisely the motions of objects in space.
Since you can’t (or at least I can’t claim to) know the mind of God or in the DI words “an outside intelligence” it prevents you (or me) from making any positive predictions. A positive prediction is not what we won’t find, by the way. It is something akin to “mars will be at this position in our sky at this date and time.”
This is different from faith: faith tests the individual, not the other way around. Attempting to wedge faith into a predictable outcome negates its purpose: as a test for individuals without proof.
DI and AIG are in the unenviable position of being a pair of doubting Thomas’ attempting to corrupt the faith of others.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:54 am
@phillipjfry-
So, you’re saying that a supernatural-based answer has been tested and the observed evidence fits the hypothesis? Why have you been hiding this from the world? It’s big news!
@Sam-
It means as a quick litmus for the issue as a whole, as a canary is for poison gas in a coal mine.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Just watched Obama’s speech and interview he did at Google back in November. Here are a couple of standout quotes I think you all will appreciate:
“I am a big believer in reason, and facts, and evidence, and science and feedback.”
“I want people in technology, I want innovators and engineers and scientists like yourselves, I want you helping us make policy based on facts, based on reason.”
Reading the quotes don’t do it justice. He was quite emphatic.
He also said he wants to double science funding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo
February 4th, 2008 at 1:47 am
A few more Barack Obama science statement also from Physics Today:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/barack_obama/
His statements on science, as Phil noted taken from press releases more than quotes, lean toward applied sciences, technology and education. I’m an Obama fan but would vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I’m also an Edwards fan but he’s out of the running.
Obama is quoted by New Yorker Magazine’s David Remnick as stating on religion:
“Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.”
February 4th, 2008 at 1:53 am
I heard a few seconds of the most recent Republican debate, in which McCain said that we ought to be doing something about the environment and global warming. Some of us wonder why the right wing dislikes McCain, and perhaps it’s his tepid environmentalism as well as his opposition to torture and support of election reform. He’s just not crazy enough for them.
When I roll the cursor tomorrow and pause before clicking on Hillary or Barack, it doesn’t seem, today, that their approach to science will decide me.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:58 am
You can read Obama’s education policy from his site here (pdf file) He has repeatedly stressed math and science education with long-term goals. I support his education policy plans. He supports science R&D. Regarding NASA in that document:
NASA budget still has to go through Congress. I’m not too worried about his above position. He has also said positive things about space and space technology. So has Hillary - they’re campaigning.
You can read all of the pdf files of Obama’s plans here on his site. Environment, etc.
This site has also collected information on all the candidates, their views, and how they voted on major issues.
Well, that would be a change! Yes, it helps to listen to people.
There’s only one day left for 22 states to read up on the candidates. Thanks, BA, for reminding everybody.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Since I have “Live Bookmarked” your blog on Firefox, I saw this under the sub-menu
Did you know? Facebook edition
The Earth is Round!
Well, I thought, the BA had learnt something new.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Oh, I’m very sorry. That previous comment was supposed to be in “The Earth is round!” post.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Regarding the supernatural:
It isn’t quite the case, historically, that science has always excluded supernatural explanations. In the generation of Newton and Leibniz, Hooke and Leeuwenhoek, the line between the natural and the supernatural wasn’t clear. Chemistry was a mystery and biology was even beyond that, and the books they had contained centuries of testimony of miraculous events. Patiently they tested one assertion after another and teased fact from fancy, and never found any evidence of supernatural phenomena.
Newton supposed that God had to intervene from time to time to keep the planets in their orbits, but Laplace, who investigated the question in exquisite detail, said “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
Been there, done that. If there are any demons or angels around they seem to be very shy of skeptics. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for I have studied science.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:16 am
@phillipjfry: Prove there’s an entity one could call a god or that the supernatural actually exists and we’ll talk. Until then it’s like saying that the socks that go missing between the time you take them off and the time you start matching socks are being stolen by leprechauns. After all, it is a legitimate theory, right?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:38 am
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 3:39 am
If by “other theories” we mean non-Darwinian theories like :
* Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ &
* Fred Hoyle’s & Wickramasinghe’s (spelling?) ‘panspermia’
& even - just perhaps - historically comparing Lamark & Darwin’s versions .. (Which I did in high school if memory serves.)
Punctuated equilibrium is about the speed of evolution (long stagnation punctuated by phases of rapid evolution), and it opposes the traditional view of gradual evolution, absolutely not the Darwinian evolution itself. Panspermia is a theory how life arrived on Earth (i.e. an alternative to Earth-based abiogenesis). Note that the theory of evolution does not explain how life began, but how it evolved though there was probably some non-biological “evolution” before the first true replicator.
Lamarckism was a pre-Darwinian theory of evolution that could be seen as a competitor of Darwinism. However, it is demonstrably false. There is no known organism that can change its genotype and copy it to its offspring.
So, none of these are alternatives to the Darwinian evolution.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Re: Lamarkism.
Computer viruses can do that. And when we finally obtain practical gene therapy and targeted delivery so will we.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:27 am
When I hear a candidate (especially a Republican) who is “hazy” on the issue, I usually assume that they agree with evolution but are engaged in a balancing act to keep the Republican base happy. Unfortunately, this probably means they will compromise on the issue most of the time.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:41 am
I’ve got my own ideas - one of which is the I’m sure unpopular free secondary education. If it wasn’t seen as elitist it might be more acceptable to work towards and have a degree.
I thought high school was free in the USA? I am guessing you meant post-secondary education.
The spectre of that gets raised here in Canada from time to time. Free university degrees for the taking. I am opposed to it for a number of reasons.
1. Not everyone needs to go to university. In fact, we NEED more people taking trades (electrician, plumber, mechanic, etc.) because the population of skilled tradesmen is aging and not being replaced. If society needs any engineering, it would be to convince people that your willy ISN’T bigger just because you have a university degree.
2. A lot of people take university degrees that set them up to have no realistic way to return the cost of tuition back to society. A BA and African Women’s Studies (or worse, general arts) might be chock full of interesting information, but what are you going to DO after university? People asking for free post-secondary education are asking for society to foot the bill… for what? Although the arts and humanities communities may disagree, I don’t believe we need to be funding people taking basketweaving degrees out of taxpayer dollars.
3. Not everyone is cut out for university, and we shouldn’t be encouraging people to go to university just to punch a ticket. People should be going to university to study in their chosen field because they have a direction in life… not because it’s free and mom/dad think you should go.
As it happens, in Canada and the US you actually can get a university degree for free. Join the military, and/or win scholarships are two ways right off the top. Both require a lot of hard work and it may well be easier to just work a normal job and pay for university… but you do have a choice.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Wow! I can’t believe (if the quote is right) that Huckabee said Evolution is just a theory and not scientific fact! How utterly ridiculous!
Read a book people!!!!
February 4th, 2008 at 5:45 am
I got my university degree paid for by the military… I was a kid from a poor family. You do what you have to do.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Barack Obama. Well….
Life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna get.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:12 am
In response to Christian Burnham’s question, I think Hillary has the best stance of any of the candidates in relation to global warming. Barack isn’t bad, but he tends to keep emphasizing “clean coal.” On the GOP side, McCain appears to take global warming seriously, but his proposed energy plan doesn’t deal with it very well. Fred Thompson, who has fortunately dropped out of the race, apparently didn’t believe in it, and used the stupid denier talking point about no SUVs on warming Mars in one of his speeches.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Fry writes:
[[I always wonder why the scientific community, which ‘problem-solves’ through process of elimination and considers ALL ideas or hypothesis’, in coming to the best conclusion/answer for a problem, will, to-a-tee, never, ever consider a faith/religious based connotation, as a clue to solving something…]]
Because that’s how science is done. It originated with the natural philosophers of the Christian high middle ages, who were trying to get their students to stop saying something was true “because God wills it.” “You fools!” writes Nicholas Oresme to his students c. 1300 AD. “God can make a cow out of a tree, but has he ever done so? Therefore produce a reason why something is so, or cease to hold that it is so.” Science studies how nature works and how natural causes produce natural effects. It is not equipped to study the supernatural or miracles. It can’t say God exists or doesn’t exist, or was involved in creation or wasn’t involved in creation. That just isn’t the kind of thing science deals with.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Sam –
In premodern mining, bad air was detected by carrying a caged canary into the suspect part of the mine. Birds have a very high metabolism and much more easily have their respiration upset than mammals. So if the canary suddenly dropped unconscious, it was time for the human miners to pull out. In modern ecological studies, various species are sometimes said to be “the canary in the coal mine” for some important natural cycle. E.g. if the algae/plankton were to disappear from the sea, it would show that the whole ocean ecosystem was about to collapse, since the ocean trophic pyramid is based on algae/plankton.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:22 am
StevO — punctuated equilibrium IS a type of Darwinian theory. It’s still evolution by natural selection. It’s just a disagreement with the gradualists over the pace of evolution (long periods of stasis punctuated by brief episodes of speciation, or gradual speciation at roughly the same rate all the time). Evolutionary biologists are now trying to subject the debate to quantitative analysis, and the unit of evolutionary change (defined mathematically) is called the “darwin.”
February 4th, 2008 at 6:29 am
bad Jim writes:
[[Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for I have studied science.]]
I wonder if Fritz Haber would agree with you. Or Werner von Heisenberg. Or Enrico Fermi.
Science is the best method we have for studying nature. It is not a guide for moral behavior and it doesn’t produce good people, just people who think a bit more clearly about natural phenomena. You can be scientifically educated and still be a crazy SOB or an idiot outside your field of study — think of Phillip Lenard, William Turner, William Shockley, Konrad Lorenz, William Hamilton, or even Richard Dawkins.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:47 am
I can still remember good old Harry Truman, and yet in all the years that have passed I have only been excited by one candidate other than Obama, and that was Eugene McCarthy (a poet!). I can easily imagine Obama and James Hansen sitting down to talk and Obama listening with eagerness to learn and grow, and able to change his mind if need be. And I never expect a candidate to be “perfect.” No one else is.
Now, just how bad is the teaching of math and science in this country? Ask around and see if “Visiting International Faculty” is operating in your school district, as it is here in many southern states since there is an incredible shortage of teachers. They are recruiting heavily in the Philippines, a county I know well and which would never be my first choice for recruiting teachers of math and science. I own several rentals that are occupied by these folks, and nice they may be, but when I see a Filipino math teacher with a “In God we trust” on his front bumper, I know that he is not the person I would want teaching my children. I think I will have to get a bumper sticker made: “In Euclid we trust.”
February 4th, 2008 at 7:35 am
#Evolving Squid
The line about “Not everybody is cut out for…” is part of what I’m talking about. It would appear that to make it work, you would insist that everyone with a degree have a job. That’s not how it works, really. Having a degree is not an entitlement to have a good job; it’s a benchmark that says you’ve had more exposure to academia, and it is part of the cure for magical thinking.
I don’t believe that there is a body of knowledge that people should not aspire to. Nor do I believe that a degree sentences you to not be able to work a trade. If anything, it makes a tradesman more aware of what is going on.
Example: I’ve got a basic degree, and was therefore an officer. I worked with enlisted folks, most of whom did not have a degree. After catching one smoking five feet from an open fifty-five gallon drum of diesel used for cleaning tools in an asphalt laying operation in 115 degree Fahrenheit heat in the desert, I was told by her there was no danger because the ignition temperature of liquid diesel is higher than the burning temperature of the cigarette.
She’d been exposed to trade knowledge. My rudimentary knowledge of chemistry told me that the flash point of the vapors coming off of that liquid was probably much lower (the smell was really strong), and I told her to humor a dummy and just stay away from smoking near the open container. By the way, diesel’s flash point for the vapor is 125 degrees - much lower than the burning temperature of a cigarette.
Education would have prevented that situation, and would probably prevent quite a few more accidents as well as reduce predation by charlatans. Not stop, mind you, but it might work to make folks more skeptical.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am
While I agree that the presidential candidates’ views on science are very important, I also believe we need to look very closely at their domestic agendas. For example (btw, I am an Independent, so please do not refer to me a “Neocon” or some such nonsense), I read with interest an article about a statement made by Hillary Clinton over the weekend. The article starts, “Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance in order to achieve coverage for all Americans.”
I don’t know about you, but this scares me. If I don’t want to buy health insurance, I don’t want the government garnishing my wages, no matter what the national health plan might be. This is the kind of rash comment that makes me believe Hillary is not the right choice for the country.
So, we need to view the candidates on all of their views, keeping in mind that science is just one facet.
- Mikel
February 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
To MO Man…
Tell you what, I don’t blame you for disliking that bumper sticker. I think the Fillipino math teacher should take it off their car. Oh, yeah, and while you’re at it, why not just send me all that filthy money you have with that same stupid motto on it. I’m sure you don’t want that, either.
- Mikel
February 4th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I agree,
Due to the fact that we have had 8 years of the USA becoming a joke around the world, and getting further and further from the reality of nature and the ‘real world’. I HAVE to vote on just one issue this time. I wish I didn’t have to, I wish I could pay attention to more ‘normal’ issues. But this has become the election of ‘one’ issue for me.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Here we have a blog that encourages skepticism and yet Mikel reads one article about Hillary and accepts it at face value? A good tactic is to read, wait a few days for the rebuttals (if any), and in general wait for the bear to shake out of the tree. Jumping to the conclusion that a story is true just because you read it somewhere could even make you vulnerable to believing things you heard on Fox! And do notice the choice of the word “garnish.” Isn’t that already being done in one sense when Social Security is taken from your check, so is this just another case of “phrasing?”
February 4th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I don’t believe that there is a body of knowledge that people should not aspire to. Nor do I believe that a degree sentences you to not be able to work a trade. If anything, it makes a tradesman more aware of what is going on.
I totally agree with those statements. But I don’t see how Bob’s quest for knowledge is a problem that requires my paying for it. Hell, in Canada, post-secondary education is ALREADY subsidized about 60% compared to the USA, and that’s not good enough for some people.
It’s not a matter of “get a degree, be guaranteed a job”. It is a matter of “taxpayers invest money, taxpayers expect something in return.” No country needs thousands of educated burger flippers, or professional students sucking from the taxpayer tit to get free educations in fields that have no realistic chance of returning on the investment.
I’d much rather spend the money helping people make decisions about where they want to go in life and get them on the right track early than spend the money putting some yahoos through university because it’s free and allows them to avoid getting a job for 4+ years.
I worked with enlisted folks, most of whom did not have a degree.
Yes, I was an officer as well in a different situation… in the Communications branch, some of the enlisted technicians had university degrees in science and engineering - even postgraduate degrees. But they just liked working with radios or radar or whatever. Good on ‘em!
Education would have prevented that situation, and would probably prevent quite a few more accidents as well as reduce predation by charlatans. Not stop, mind you, but it might work to make folks more skeptical.
You don’t need a university education to learn not to smoke around inflammables. You especially don’t need that university education paid for by taxpayers.
The free university people seem to forget that the money has to come from somewhere, and the people who pay that money will want a say in how it’s spent. I would reasonably expect that if it should ever occur in Canada or the USA that free undergrad degrees are offered, the degrees would very likely be limited to science and engineering only since that is where the greatest demand for knowledge is. People favouring the humanities will be up in arms, but are always hard-pressed to justify the value to society of yet-another-English-major.
and it is part of the cure for magical thinking.
Sadly, millions of university educated religious people prove that statement manifestly false. Although I agree that it *SHOULD* be true, it doesn’t seem to be in practice.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I’m sorry, but when the very first word in an article is a grammar error - the possessive “President’s” instead of the plural “Presidents” - I immediately lose respect for that publication and the content of the article.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Here is a very useful site from Popular Mechanics:
Geek the Vote
February 4th, 2008 at 8:57 am
@Evolvingsquid
There is of course a cost. But there currently is a cost as well. In the US, our litigious culture means that every time somebody does something that is preventable, it is assumed they are too ignorant or uneducated to know better. They then are paid a large sum.
I do not expect education to make everything glorious overnight; but if it made that person aware that their small amount of knowledge was not the whole picture, that’s different. It’s not that she didn’t know not to smoke around inflammables; it was that she was given a statement from an authority and did not have the applied knowledge to properly evaluate that statement. Yes, don’t smoke around inflammables. But according to her and her expert knowledge, liquid diesel was not inflammable.
You see the disconnect? Not making that leap to “well, what’s the ignition temperature of the vapor?”
How much money could be saved if people knew better, I don’t know and could not put a dollar figure on. I don’t like the idea that some people can’t learn, or that a degree is something to be wielded socially like a club. I’d rather a degree be ho-hum, and that people be encouraged to get education rather than derided for not having it.
Part of it is what I believe Carlos Mencia stated once: expectation. If we don’t set high expectations people will not have anything to reach for. Old anthropology texts and even current ones point out that minority disparities in testing occur around age 12, and I believe this is because at that age students learn what is expected of them in terms of achievement. If we push the twin ideas that some folks just aren’t meant for college and that tradesmen don’t need educations, we continue to propagate both educational elitism as well as resentment towards the disparity.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:03 am
As an external observer, the one thing that annoys me about the democrat campaign is this:
“Do we vote for the chick or the black (Oh sorry, afro american.) guy?”
I remember an article on cnn.com that stated that black women were really in big trouble now! Who would they pick? Their race or their gender?! Ouh! The big decision!
I’m sorry, I thought that we were more advanced than that as a race by now. I’m sick and tired of hearing people chose on the SKIN COLOR and GENDER. I thought what was important was the temper, the ideas, the stature, the potential as a leader? Girl, boy, indian, chinese, white, why does it even matter?
We had such a thing here. I remember our provincial government boasting half their ministers were women. I don’t CARE they are women. I hope they took these women because they were capable people, not because they had a vagina and they wanted to look socially advanced. Such a blank debate.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am
“With Romney and Huckabee it’s pretty clear.”
When you bring to light the ignorance of Huckabee’s comments and then make that statement you imply that Romney shares them. Is this indeed the case? I have not heard what he has to say on the subject.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I do not expect education to make everything glorious overnight; but if it made that person aware that their small amount of knowledge was not the whole picture, that’s different. It’s not that she didn’t know not to smoke around inflammables; it was that she was given a statement from an authority and did not have the applied knowledge to properly evaluate that statement. Yes, don’t smoke around inflammables. But according to her and her expert knowledge, liquid diesel was not inflammable.
But you’re making a false dilemma. There’s no guarantee that a university education would have helped her situation either. University educated people do stupid things too.
Proper work-related WHMIS training WOULD have helped in that situation - but you don’t need to go to university for that.
In the US, our litigious culture means that every time somebody does something that is preventable, it is assumed they are too ignorant or uneducated to know better. They then are paid a large sum.
That situation is repairable simply by passing “reasonable man” legislation - a law that says that if, in the opinion of the court, a reasonable man would have found a situation to be silly (like putting a hot coffee in your lap) the suit is dismissed (i.e. you can’t sue McDonalds for making hot coffee) with costs awarded to the defendant. So the onus in the McDonalds/coffee thing would be on the defendant to prove that it is reasonable to put a cup of hot coffee in your lap while driving as opposed to the in-vehicle cup holders. Good luck with that…
That allows people with reasonable claims to sue, and weeds the idiots out of the system.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Evolving Squid writes:
[[and it is part of the cure for magical thinking.
…
Sadly, millions of university educated religious people prove that statement manifestly false.]]
Squid, do you understand what the psychological term “magical thinking” actually means? To equate religious faith with “magical thinking,” besides being offensive, is bad science. Anyone who gets annoyed with a vending machine may be experiencing magical thinking. Do you have any proof, any proof at all, that the thought processes of theists involve more “magical thinking” than the thought processes of atheists? I mean a double-blind, peer-reviewed study. If not, what is your justification for making such a remark? Just prejudice?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Michelle, repeat after me:
Democratic campaign
Democratic campaign
Democratic campaign
“Democrat campaign” or “Democrat Party” or “Democrat candidate” is a pejorative invented by the GOP. Do you call the GOP the “Republic party?”
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
If not, what is your justification for making such a remark?
Religion is unequivocally magical thinking.
Getting annoyed at a vending machine may be magical thinking, but is probably just frustration.
Thus, millions of university educated religious people do, in fact, prove that a university education is not a cure for magical thinking (the original statement being discussed). In fact, I’ll go farther and agree with you that the fact that atheists graduate university and still believe in luck, etc. further supports that conclusion.
QED.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Barton: Gimme a break, I’m canadian.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Then why don’t you tell me what the difference is between praying for rain and wearing your lucky shirt to a sporting event.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
To equate religious faith with “magical thinking,” besides being offensive, is bad science.
I was going to let this drop, but I think it’s important to the overall topic at hand, especially in light of the general beliefs of US presidential candidates.
Barton: What part of religious faith is not magical thinking?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Re: Lamarkism.
Computer viruses can do that. And when we finally obtain practical gene therapy and targeted delivery so will we.
I wouldn’t count computer viruses as organisms.
Sure, I didn’t say that Lamarckism couldn’t work in theory. I encounter Lamarckism on daily basis on my work with evolutionary algorithms in mathematical optimization. A true Lamarckian organism might easily be fitter than a Darwinian organism. It is just that Lamarckism apparently doesn’t exist in nature.
I got my university degree paid for by the military… I was a kid from a poor family. You do what you have to do.
You could fix your education system. It is outright stupid that only people who can pay (or who are ready endanger their lives for vain) are eligible to the higher levels of education. In a tax-based system like ours those all of those who are bright enough to pass entrance examinations are eligible to study for an academic degree without a tuition. System like yours tend to increase the rift between rich and poor which really does not benefit anyone. Sure, in a welfare state people must bear heavier taxation, but on the other hand richer people too benefit from much more secure society.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Chip: I’m also an Edwards fan but he’s out of the running.
Edwards made his money with junk science lawsuits. He should be at the absolute bottom of any skeptic’s list.
Did he ever shut up with that tiresome mill worker story?
Michelle: I’m sorry, I thought that we were more advanced than that as a race by now.
What ever led you to that conclusion? All empirical evidence points in the opposite direction.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:52 am
It is outright stupid that only people who can pay (or who are ready endanger their lives for vain) are eligible to the higher levels of education. In a tax-based system like ours those all of those who are bright enough to pass entrance examinations are eligible to study for an academic degree without a tuition.
I’d be willing to accept that with three provisions:
1. The entrance standards are increased much higher than they are now; and
2. The types of degrees paid for by the state are based on requirements derived from things like the census (i.e. they pay for degrees where we are short people… like medical degrees, for example).
3. You must work for a number of years after graduation equal to what was paid for in the country that paid for it. So if Canada gives you a 4-year degree, you must produce records for 4 years of employment in Canada.
The former reduces the wastage due to people who just want to go to university as a dodge.
The latter two help ensure a return on the invested taxpayer dollar.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:54 am
To MO Man…
Give me a break. More than one news source quoted Hillary. She is the one who said it, so it’s not a matter of believing or not believing.
Look, Hillary says stupid things. Obama says stupid things. McCain says stupid things. So do Romney and Huckabee. They can’t help it - they’re politicians.
It’s just that some things are more stupid than others, and using the word “garnish” is definitely stupid.
And, oh yeah, when can I expect you to send me the money?
- Mikel
February 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“What ever led you to that conclusion? All empirical evidence points in the opposite direction.”
I know I know… I guess I’m just so fed up I imagine things. I still feel like slapping some skulls when I hear it.
It’s an insult to everybody.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“In Euclid we trust”? No! In Riemann we trust!
Seriously, Evolving Squid: I have not made up my mind about free university education (yet), but I do not find your arguments very convincing:
1. “Not everyone needs to go to university. In fact, we NEED more people taking trades.”
I agree with that, but a free university education would in my mind also imply free vocational education, and all the rest. By making all education free, you remove the financial bias.
2. “A lot of people take university degrees that set them up to have no realistic way to return the cost of tuition back to society.”
This seems reasonable, but the problem is that it is very hard to quantify this. A BA in African Women’s Studies may not have a direct economical benefit, but it is not worthless (and you do not imply this, either). Exactly what this “worth” consists of is the question, and the next question is whether it is worth paying for. I think the jury is still out on this one.
3. “Not everyone is cut out for university, and we shouldn’t be encouraging people to go to university just to punch a ticket.”
I agree, but I do not see this as an argument against free education. Most people who are not cut out for university have no desire to go to university (epecially if other educational routes are free as well). And even if they do go to university (e.g., due to parents’ pressure), it is easy (and reasonable) to kick them out after the first year if it doesn’t work out.
In general, every government of a democracy wants a reasonably well-educated population, because it is economically beneficial. At the same time, a well-educated population is a real pain in the back-side for any such government, because it means it is harder to mislead the public. This means that we always have to push our governments to improve the general standards of education.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Exactly what this “worth” consists of is the question, and the next question is whether it is worth paying for. I think the jury is still out on this one.
It’s a huge issue and one that requires great planning. If we pay for scientists and engineers now, where will we be in 40 years when the humanities have suffered and we have nobody left who understands anything but math and science.
Taxpayers, however, expect to see results and a program without obvious short-term results is going to be first in line for the axe at budget time. You need not look at free education to see this, just check out the NASA budget, or Canada’s general budgets for research.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
@Kullat -
Well, it’s not really as black and white as the statement “only people who can pay are eligible to the higher levels of education”. Although the statement is TECHNICALLY true in that you must pay for higher education, your insinuation is that you must be WEALTHY. And as has been pointed out here on a few occasions, this is patently false.
I know this to be true because I am a perfect example. My family was exteremly poor… inner city projects was my upbringing. I went to a free public High School (although it was a highly regarded Latin School), and worked my tail off to earn scholarships and grants. My degree was paid for up front through my own hard work.
However, that being said, State funded Universities do offer an excellent education at a much lower cost than a Private University. Often times you must take out loans for the education, but most of my frinds, just as poor as I was, were all able to attain a University degree, despite their humble origins.
I don’t know for a fact that this would be the case with a “free” higher education system, but it has been my experience with most “free” social systems: You get what you pay for, and often times free = limited. I’d rather pay money, or take out loans that go towards furthering an acedemic institution’s capabilities and receive a higher level of education than see my choices of higher education dwindle under a “free” system.
This is really just my opinion and of course I’m more than willing to have my mind changed, as always… but I’d be more likely to support a “subsidization” than I would be a totally “free” system.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I should also like to note that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of Science magazine and general promoters of science in the US) has a site up comparing candidates: http://election2008.aaas.org/. They covered the major candidates a few weeks ago in Science. On the Democratic side, they liked both Hillary and Obama. Hillary’s stances have been more overtly pro-science, but they also note that Obama has shown in the Senate that he pays attention to experts (including scientists) before deciding on his policies.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I remember an article on cnn.com that stated that black women were really in big trouble now! Who would they pick? Their race or their gender?! Ouh! The big decision!
This is something that bothers me about the electoral process in general.
It shouldn’t matter if the candidate is black, or green, or a cephalopod. It shouldn’t matter if the candidate is male or female.
People should be voting because of the candidate’s stand and the stand of the party that candidate represents. To vote for someone because their skin is a particular colour or because they do or do not have a willy is *-ist to the highest degree.
Although I believe it is a civic duty to vote, I have to admit, I kind of wish people who use selection criteria like “woman” or “black” would just stay home and leave the choice to people who have taken the time to think about it.
——
Ok, it should matter if the candidate is a cephalopod because that would be a good thing. Can change its colour to blue on social issues, and red on economic issues. Arms and tentacles can do multiple things at once. When a cephalopod puts up a screen of ink to distract attention from a real issue, it’s obvious and there’s not avoiding it. No more elephants and donkeys… Cthulhu and Kraken instead. And let’s be honest here… Deep down, we’d all like to see Bin Laden eaten by a squid.
“Vote Cephalopod… How much worse can it be?”
February 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
@Evolving_Squid
President Squidward? My daughter would be ecstatic!
February 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Ron Paul
Yes i’m aware that he’s pandered a bit on the Evolution issue, but no more than all the others pander about science issues/cutting Nasa to fund “stuff on earth”. But he’s by far the best canidate. I agree with the guy on 70%+, and thats more than i can say for any other currently in the race.
If it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I’m hopeful Ron Paul will consider a third party run necessary. His name recognition is low still but polling shows he already has enough to garner him the 15% needed to get into the debates, which could lead to an awakening in the American public on the failure of Keynesian economics, perpetual war spending, corporatism, and the bias two party monopoly that perpetuates all levels of our current “democratic” political system.
None of us here really want the Bush LEGACY to continue: Preemptive War, Patriot Act, Suspension of Habeas Corpus, Military Commissions Act, No Child left Behind, Homeland Security Department, More regulation of the health care industry, over 5000 troops killed in two middle eastern countries, warantless wiretaps, no enforcement against the invasion of our souther border, no control over entitlements, and contributing $6 Trillion dollars to the national debt.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am
It’s always funny/sad to watch religion vs. science debates. It almost always results in nothing but straw man arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) being thrown from both sides.
In my view, science mostly asks the “how?” questions and religion mostly asks the “why?” questions. Religion assumes that there is more to life than what’s traditionally observable. If you don’t agree with that, that’s fine. But to turn around and insist that anyone who holds any kind of religious belief must be delusional is not only egotistical but naive as well. The same goes for those who insist that others who do not have religious beliefs are somehow inferior or not as ‘enlightened.’
Science and religion have, or at least should have, the same goal–the pursuit of truth. Whenever I see, or see others describing, a conflict between religion and science it falls under one of three categories:
1. False religion vs. false science
2. False religion vs. true science
3. True religion vs. false science
Given the many advancements in science over the past century and the incredibly diverse and often contradictory religious spectrum, I tend to see mostly #1 or #2. As a religious person who loves science, I think that it is just as important to know what your religion is as it is to know what your religion is not. Too many of these debates stem from religious or non-religious individuals trying to stretch religion or science beyond their intended uses and making invalid inferences.
On a personal level, I derive just as much joy out of religious matters as I do learning more about science. Why? Because both true religion and true science involve the discovery of truth, something which is fundamentally joyful to experience.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Yikes… Ron Paul?
we’ve discussed him pretty thoroughly on this board and I’ve got to say… sorry… he scares the bejebus out of me as much as Huckabee…
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/12/26/just-in-case-you-thought-ron-paul-wasnt-so-bad/
February 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am
On the flip side a continuation of the Bush legacy will probably lead to increased emigration from the USA. Canada has a declining birth rate and the only solution that people see is increasing the number of people to support our social programs.
A big influx of people from the US would stave of the inevitable for a generation
At least until the US invades to take our water and other natural resources.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
It’s always funny/sad to watch religion vs. science debates. It almost always results in nothing but straw man arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) being thrown from both sides.
In my view, science mostly asks the “how?” questions and religion mostly asks the “why?” questions. Religion assumes that there is more to life than what’s traditionally observable. If you don’t agree with that, that’s fine. But to turn around and insist that anyone who holds any kind of religious belief must be delusional is not only egotistical but naive as well. The same goes for those who insist that others who do not have religious beliefs are somehow inferior or not as ‘enlightened.’
Science and religion have, or at least should have, the same goal–the pursuit of truth. Whenever I see, or see others describing, a conflict between religion and science it falls under one of three categories:
1. False religion vs. false science
2. False religion vs. true science
3. True religion vs. false science
Given the many advancements in science over the past century and the incredibly diverse and often contradictory religious spectrum, I tend to see mostly #1 or #2. As a religious person who loves science, I think that it is just as important to know what your religion is as it is to know what your religion is not. Too many of these debates stem from religious or non-religious individuals trying to stretch religion or science beyond their intended uses and making invalid inferences.
On a personal level, I derive just as much joy out of religious matters as I do learning more about science. Why? Because both true religion and true science involve the discovery of truth, something which is fundamentally joyful to experience.
Sorry if this comment is a dupe. It errored out the first time I submitted it.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:50 am
BA, you should take some sort of stand and try to give a good representation of the issues you think are important (it won’t alienate your intelligent readers, you’ve given enough opinions on this blog to make you a good sounding board).
February 4th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Quiet_Desperation - What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
One is a flaming Nazi gasbag but the other was a German airship.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
1. False religion vs. false science
2. False religion vs. true science
3. True religion vs. false science
Caleb: what differentiates false religion from true religion?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Andy Makon:
> Wow! I can’t believe (if the quote is right) that Huckabee said
> Evolution is just a theory and not scientific fact! How utterly
> ridiculous!
>
> Read a book people!!!!
I think he did. You can find a copy of it in many hotel room, thanks to the Gideons.
Perhaps what needs to be done is ask a direct question of everyone who says we should teach “other theories”:
In the phrase “theory of evolution”, what does the word “theory” mean?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Caleb Jones: I’m sorry I can’t see the logic in your arguments, or your points, but you left out an important factor, which is probably more important than you realize:
4. True religion vs. true science
That’s why most people argue about it. People who are religious enough to deny the testimony of the senses, and therefore science. They believe only what they’ve been told, not what they know from experience or understanding. They are trapped in a world of ignorance, and cannot be pulled out of there by any means, because of their unyelding belief.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Celtic_Evolutionon -
On Dr. Ron Paul:
Yeah, you’ve discussed him, and the fact that he made a few dismissive but still pandering statements on evolution sucks, but it’s NO WORST than Hillary or Obama pandering on Nasa and in Obama’s case, pandering on every issue. as Phil said, don’t be ONE ISSUE voters. But if you want to continue out of control entitlement spending, in the face of a 9 trillion dollar debt and a falling dollar, sure, vote for one of those two dems. And if you want to continue perpetual war on a conceptual noun, vote for John “100 years in Iraq” McCain.
If you want a constitutual canidate, who’s admittedly more extreme libertarian views will naturally be kept in check by the congress, vote for Dr. Paul. moderate libertarianism is what we need, and what we’ll get. (there are checks and ballances to keep an executive’s ideas in the mainstream, although you wouldn’t know it from the dictator we’ve had the past 7 years.)
Vote Ron Paul! Duh!
February 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
@Caleb_Jones
“In my view, science mostly asks the “how?” questions and religion mostly asks the “why?” questions.”
Not sure I agree with that. Science asks “How, when, why, where” and then chellenges you to prove it, or at least attempt to do so. Religion may ask the “why” questions, but it removes the “how” questions from the equation… and that’s where the problem lies for me. The how is as important as the why, in my opinion.
“Science and religion have, or at least should have, the same goal–the pursuit of truth. Whenever I see, or see others describing, a conflict between religion and science it falls under one of three categories:
1. False religion vs. false science
2. False religion vs. true science
3. True religion vs. false science”
I’ve heard this argued before… but I’m not sure I see that as true either.
First, define “true religion, false religion, true science, false science”. Can you do that objectively? That falls into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. And what, exactly, IS false science?
Second, I’m not sure I see where in religion the pursuit of truth as the ultimate goal… if that were true, religion would not ask one to “take it on faith”. Making that requests requires one to stop searching for truth once you come to the point where truth can not be found. Hence the whole “because God / the Bible says so” argument. There’s no “truth” to that statement that doesn’t require “faith” to accept it’s “truth”.
Although not religious myself, I don’t begrudge those who accept religion as a means for deriving a moral compas and way to teach love and compassion. I’m not sure religion is a REQUIREMENT to embrace those things, but I certainly understand why someone would want such a thing in their lives. My problem occurs when that religious belief gets in the way of critical thought and reasoning… and the statements made by the afore-mentioned candidates (Huckabee, Paul and Romney) lead me to believe that in fact that’s exactly what has happened with them. And to me that’s dangerous for a person in such a position of power and influence.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am
The heck is a false religion? I mean, false science I know but I thought religion was unprovable.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
@Joel
My opinion of Paul is certainly not based on that one thread… it was merely an example… And I’m certainly not going to vote for him because he might be considered the “least looney of the loonies”. I don’t think I’m forced to consider that as my only option, thank you.
As an Independent registered voter, I hold no affiliation to either party (although I have to point out the in NY State where I live, I’m a “blank” voter… otherwise I might be confused as an “Idependance Party” member… which is WAY different than being independant.). My decision to narrow it down to Clinton or Obama is based purely on the fact, as has been pointed out here, that each seems willing to listen to reason and apply scientific principal and logic in their decision making processes.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
[…] Astronomy reviews the presidential candidates' views on science. Caltech astronomer Mike Brown assures us he's no fan of pseudo […]
February 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Celtic_Evolution:
I respect that you’ve distanced yourself from both parties, as I have. I have a serious problem with the status quo, as I’ve said, and the two party system that simplifies every issue into a black vs. white contest. I too view voting as more than “the least loony” or “least evil”.
But to say Obama and Clinton somehow apply a great amount of logic to issues? Let’s see: Democratic front-runners have championed for “change” when they are, also — in truth — champions of the status quo, which is a direction of insurmountable national debt.
How can we expect to maintain economic viability for future generations within a trend of runaway, exponential growth in spending, waste and corruption? Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations,
The Bush stimulus package is a joke. Basically the US Treasury takes a loan from China to send everyone $600, because we don’t have any money, and owe 9 trillion dollars in fact. Then they expect everyone to spend the $600 on Chinese made goods that bias trade deals like NAFTA make possible. And the Federal Reserve cuts the interest rate a full 1.25%, thus dramatically increasing the money supply, which is what led to this sub-prime mortgage crisis and rapid inflation in the first place!
Former Democrats switching parties to vote for Ron Paul are keenly aware of that reality and are also particularly attracted to Ron Paul’s stance against waging unconstitutional wars of aggression. While recognizing the real and actionable threat of radical zealots, Dr. Paul holds up a proverbial mirror to the illogical rationale and blatant hypocrisy of our current offensive foreign policy. In the recent South Carolina debate (in a statement edited out by Fox News in subsequent replays), Dr. Paul said the following:
“Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war; we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what’s going on here?”
Obama and Clinton make clear their opposition to the Bush doctrine applies to Iraq, and that’s essentially it. They have no problem threatening Pakistan or policing the world in the way we’ve done for the past 50 years. They have no problem funding dictators.
What is going on here? Why does the U.S. maintain over 700 military bases in roughly two-thirds of the world’s nations? How can we expect to maintain the moral high ground if we are not keenly aware of and concerned about how that presence affects the indigenous population of those nations?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Well, first, to clarify, I didn’t say Clinton and Obama use a GREAT amount of logic. I said they seem to be willing to do so based on what I’ve read and heard. They are, however, politicians… and so to claim to know what is truly in their hearts would be naive of me… all I have to go on is the information available to me and the public record for each, and based on that… well, I’ve already said.
And as for Ron Paul, I agree that a sharp turn is needed from current policy on many issues, and some of what he has said on certain issues is, at face value, valid… but based on what some of his platform is built upon from what I have read and heard from him… I must respectfully disagree that he is the right person to lead the way…
February 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Don’t forget that Clinton purged EVERY attorney general at the beginning of his second term, not just six.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Pullquote from the New York Times illustrating Mitt Romney’s position on teaching evolution in the classroom.
[quote]
While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.
“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies
class.” [/quote]
Full statement found at this link: http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/mitt_romney_on_teaching_evolut.html
What think ye?
February 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Re Barton Paul Levenson
“Do you call the GOP the “Republic party?”
No. I call it the Rethuglican party,.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
@Duane -
Well… Romney seems pretty wishy-washy on the whole subject… although it’s been pointed out that much of his political positions seem to be wishy-washy… here’s an article to that end as far as the evolution issue goes:
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/05/08/mitt-romneys-evolution/
Although he at least does seem smart enough not to commit the error of dismissing evolution altogether, he makes statements like “Governor Romney believes both science and faith can help inform us about the origins of life in this world.”
Hmmm….
February 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Romney also states, just prior to making his statement about not supporting the teaching of creationism / ID in public schools:
“I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design,” he said. “But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”
Ugh… talk about playing both sides against the middle…
February 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I quit, my boss is a ghost hunter, and the presidential candidates hate science! I hear British Columbia is nice.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Re Magical thinking: magical thinking is what people use to resolve dilemmas that are otherwise to common experience nonsensical. Happenstance and chance, bad “luck” and misfortune, failure to function. Set up any of these scenarios and you’ll find people invent good luck charms (correlation equalling causation), rituals (see above) and explanations of malevolent beings or intent, or retribution or punishment(”That traffic sign changed on purpose!”, “It was Karma”).
People can take advantage of this by selling good luck charms or offering to change this nonexistant condition.
Theism is a combination of many things: tradition, moral systems, allegory, history, and some magical thinking. This doesn’t mean a non-theist is immune to any of these influences; any he has are not historically accepted.
The source of these for a theist is primarily an article of faith.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Well, you have Hillary invoking religious beliefs when she campaigns in the South; I doubt whatever beliefs she has (I doubt she’s either athiest or agnostic) will influence her policy decisions on science.
And I will say this as a religious person myself (full disclosure
): Jesus said it best when he made the “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” comment, and it sounds like Romney is trying to make the same distinction.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Once again, remember that at no point did Huckabee place people into scientific or educational positions in Arkansas based upon his or their personal beliefs. I can say this with absolute authority because I used to work with the Science & Technology Authority in determining science curriculum in the public classrooms. Huckabee placed some of the most competent people imaginable in those positions. It is because of those people that Arkansas will never face the situations seen in Kansas and Pennsylvania over the evolution debacle–and Huckabee signed off on it.
I don’t believe Huckabee is what’s best for the country, but blind accusations are unwarranted. Aren’t science-type nerdy people supposed to be skeptical? Check the fossil records of his political career sometime. (I swear, sometimes I think I’m the only one from Arkansas who reads this blog!) Huckabee created more growth in education and technology in my state than any governor in history. Bill Clinton could have, but his wife stepped on some toes in our education department. [More on that if anyone cares to hear it.]
I’m not writing because I think Huckabee’s great. He has a ton of skeletons in his closet that haven’t hit the big news networks yet. Those keep me from supporting him. But certainly not his record on education and scientific advancement.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Huckabee, or Obama, Romney or Clinton… as a member of “The Rest of the World ™” I feel obliged to state that it is frightening that someone who talks to invisible voices might (will) be placed in charge of one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world. It’s even more frightening that not only will this happen, but that millions of people think it’s the proper thing to do, even going as far to openly reject people who don’t talk to unseen voices.
Although I have to admit, I have much more confidence in the feeling that neither Clinton nor Obama will wake up and run around yelling that the unseen voice told them to nuke Iran or anyone else.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“I don’t begrudge those who accept religion as a means for deriving a moral compas and way to teach love and compassion.”
I’ve come to agree with Hitchens, that organized religion itself teaches and supports bad morals; that the only good morals taught, even when gleaned from religious-based sources, are secular in nature.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Evolving Squid posts:
[[Religion is unequivocally magical thinking.]]
Bzzzt! Wrong! Go back to square 1 and get an introductory comparative religions text, my molluscan friend. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
TheBlackCat posts:
[[Then why don’t you tell me what the difference is between praying for rain and wearing your lucky shirt to a sporting event.]]
The difference between a magical spell and a prayer is that the prayer is a request that can be turned down, whereas a spell (or a lucky shirt) is supposed to work every time. “Teach me the patience of unanswered prayer,” goes one hymn in my church.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Squid posts:
[[Barton: What part of religious faith is not magical thinking?]]
Let me turn the question around. What part of religious faith is magical thinking?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Joel posts:
[[If it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I’m hopeful Ron Paul will consider a third party run necessary.]]
I hope so, too! I think Paul would pull a lot more voters out of the McCain column than the Hillary column, thus ensuring Democratic victory in ‘08! Run, Ron, Run!
February 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Okay. It’s true, prayers aren’t supposed to be answered all the time from what the big book says. But what proof do you have that your prayer being “answered” is not just random happening and is the work of God?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Squid writes:
[[Caleb: what differentiates false religion from true religion?]]
True religion corresponds to reality and false religion doesn’t. What differentiates false science from true science?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Celtic posts:
[[what, exactly, IS false science? ]]
The theories of Erich von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, Zechariah Sitchin, modern astrology, creationism, etc., etc., etc. I.e. things which try to present themselves as “science” but don’t follow the empirical method.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“True religion corresponds to reality and false religion doesn’t. What differentiates false science from true science”
If you ask me, there aren’t a lot of religions that correspond to reality… And quite frankly, it’s faith. You cannot decide which faith is more “reality like”, really.
What differentiates false science from true science is simple: false science is stuff like intelligent design - it’s debunkable extremely easily and yet the folks who think it is right won’t give up. True science is made out of hard facts that CAN be debunkable. and when it is, we go “okay.” and move on with the learning.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Michelle writes:
[[The heck is a false religion? I mean, false science I know but I thought religion was unprovable.]]
Yes, it’s a widespread misconception among atheists that all religions are of exactly equal validity, i.e., none. Of course even from an (intelligent) atheist point of view, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, since peoples’ religious views will have real-world consequences. It’s kind of like thinking that all fiction is of equal value, so Beetle Bailey is exactly as meaningful as War and Peace or the Iliad, and Battlefield Earth is just as good a film as 2001: A Space Odyssey. (They’ve both got spaceships!)
February 4th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Joel, I suspect Ron Paul is pro-NAFTA, not anti. Libertarians are pretty consistently free traders. (So am I, for that matter.)
February 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
@Jeffersonian -
Although I probably lean more towards that line of thinking myself, I’m not sure I could personally convincingly make that argument. I guess what I’m saying is that I know that the basis in religion that many of my colleagues have is one of a moral compass, but not insomuch as it relieves them of the ability to think critically.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I think all religions deserve the same status. Point is, when a religion was created thousands of years ago there probably was a few guys out there that thought it didn’t match realition. It’s not a misconception, it’s being fair of someone’s beliefs versus another person’s beliefs.
Also, I bet a lot of folks do think that battlefield earth is just as good as Space Odyssey. I mean, some folks liked the Super Mario Bros. movie. (*hides*)
February 4th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
…What the bloody heck is a realition? Sorry, I’m tired.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Jeffersonian posts:
[[I’ve come to agree with Hitchens, that organized religion itself teaches and supports bad morals; that the only good morals taught, even when gleaned from religious-based sources, are secular in nature.]]
Let’s look at some of those great secular morals that are taught so widely. If you’re tired of a lover or a spouse, and fall in love with somebody else, you can divorce the old one and move on to the new one. Might makes right. (That’s a very popular one; every drug gang member in the world believes that one.) Obey your thirst. He who dies with the most toys wins. “Believe in yourself.” (That one is practically impossible to escape nowadays; it’s everywhere.) Look out for number one. Science will solve all our problems. My country, right or wrong. Revenge is the highest moral value.
I tend to like Christian morals better, but hey, that’s just me.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
@Barton
“The theories of Erich von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, Zechariah Sitchin, modern astrology, creationism, etc., etc., etc. I.e. things which try to present themselves as “science” but don’t follow the empirical method.”
My point exactly… I guess I’m saying that I wouldn’t consider ANY of those examples “science” in the truest definition of the word.
Merriam - Webster definition of science:
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
Do any of those examples fit into that definition? Not sure you can say they do. And I’m furthemore not sure one could MAKE a distinction between “true science” and “false science”… it’s either science as defined above or it’s not. No?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Michelle -
No idea what realition is… but it sounds cool! Let’s define it here and start using it! Go!
February 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Celtic: Awrrr, shut up.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I’m curious about definition of Christian morals (capitalized for emphasis). I’d been raised in them, and they don’t seem to be the same as they used to be. I’d heard we were supposed to help and uplift the least of our brethren; where do illegal immigrants fall in this? I’d heard we were supposed to eschew worldly things; yet the right wing that lays claim to true fundamental religion espouses dollars as votes: might making right, monetary might in this case, as well as conspicuous consumption.
Love thy neighbor. Get me a gun. Is it just me that sees a dichotomy between Christian values as worded by Christ and current fundamentalist associated values and additionally current right wing values?
The primary one I don’t understand at all is you can do anything you please as long as you believe and you’re saved, but if you don’t believe you’re damned no matter how much good you do.
I don’t believe that Christianity has the last word on morality by any stretch.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
What part of religious faith is magical thinking?
All the parts that derive from untestable, insubstantial, faith. As soon as you have to have faith, you are thinking magically.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
[…] Gov. Mike Huckabee talks a good game against evolution, appropriately stating that, “I didn’t come from no monkey,” or “it’s […]
February 4th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Barton, save yourself the reply. If you can’t understand that faith without evidence is magical, there is really no point in continuing, although I’ll entertain your hypothesis on how blind faith is not magical thinking if you really must.
Faith is a form magical thinking by definition.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I’m very disappointed in the Republican field and their positions on evolution. I think they could go a lot further.
Out of all of them, it seems to me that Rep. Tom Tancredo probably has the best platform. He’s probably got the boldest positions.
Pastor Gov. Mike Huckabee had his chance in Arkansas, over 13 terms worth, to do something about evolution. But he failed.
What makes anyone think he’d be any more successful as a President?
-RPTH
February 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Doesn’t anyone have a problem with Hilary stating that God gave us the ability to reason? I mean, I believe that’s true, but those that mock creationists should have a real problem with that statement. Wouldn’t that put Hilary down there with Huckabee in your eyes?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Politically, clearly different religions are not equally valid. Christianity and Islam are much more important than, say, Shinto or Mormonism (although that may change
).
Ontologically, they do have equal validity in the sense that they posit the existence of unprovable entities.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“Doesn’t anyone have a problem with Hilary stating that God gave us the ability to reason? I mean, I believe that’s true, but those that mock creationists should have a real problem with that statement. Wouldn’t that put Hilary down there with Huckabee in your eyes?”
No. I have no problem with that. Lots of christians are not creationists. They just have faith. Creationists are the hardcore, very scary christians.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Barton Paul Levenson said:
> The difference between a magical spell and a prayer is that the prayer is a request that can be turned down, whereas a spell (or a lucky shirt) is supposed to work every time.
So prayer is a less reliable form of magic than spells or lucky shirts?
You’ve only made a distinction in effectivity, not in kind.
> True religion corresponds to reality and false religion doesn’t.
A lot of people claim to have true religion. There doesn’t seem to be an objective filter. Reality works to some degree, but only some. Else, according to atheists, the only true religion is no religion.
To my mind, what gets abused most in these debates is a common understanding of what religion is. There’s a simplistic definition being used, that fails to grasp the breadth of concepts and issues compiled under the label “religion”.
> Let’s look at some of those great secular morals that are taught so widely. If you’re tired of a lover or a spouse, and fall in love with somebody else, you can divorce the old one and move on to the new one.
As opposed to cheating on you spouse and staying married? Or living in a loveless relationship?
> Might makes right. (That’s a very popular one; every drug gang member in the world believes that one.)
That one is also fairly biblical. Check out the Old Testament.
>Obey your thirst.
When did a TV ad slogan become a moral?
>He who dies with the most toys wins. “Believe in yourself.” (That one is practically impossible to escape nowadays; it’s everywhere.) Look out for number one. Science will solve all our problems… Revenge is the highest moral value.
>…My country, right or wrong….
Patriotism, often wrapped up in “God Bless America”.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I just wanted to point out the debate over evolution. The quote was incorrect. It is the Theory of Evolution not the theory of evolution. Notice the capitalized T. This suggest, just like the the Theory of Gravity, that is is in fact … a fact.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
RPTH wrote:
>Pastor Gov. Mike Huckabee had his chance in Arkansas, over 13 terms worth, to do something about evolution. But he failed.
Wha? This doesn’t make any sense temporally or grammatically. What did you want him to do in this invented time-frame of yours?
February 4th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/#comment-36389
one blog’s take on Obama
February 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
[…] Get the whole story here… This entry was posted on Monday, February 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm and is filed under le Chat Marchet. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]
February 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I believe it is attorneys general. Not attorney generals…
February 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I really like these articles that I find that bring up the debate of evolution and creationism. If I had the time, and the knowledge of creating a website, I think I know what I would do to get dugg and prove my point for evolution.
Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. All theories have levels of completeness, and have varying amounts of data to support it. My challenge to you, basically because of my lack of knowledge and effort, is to create a ranking of theories based on completeness. I imagine there is a scientific way to organize it, based on supporting data and missing data, and opposing data.
I think that would be a great resource for overcoming the “theory’ argument, especially when to compared to physics, biological, and economical thoeries.
Anyone want to take me up on this??
February 4th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Hi!
For more information about what candidates and local representatives record on the issues you can go to sharp.sefora.org (also, you can add information, wiki style).
-Griselda
February 4th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Really? My father was an English major, started off as pre-Med and ended being an appellate court judge - and a good one. My sister was an English major and is teaching 8th grade and uses literature to discuss current issues brought up in the books they read. My mother was an English major and she owns a newspaper business. I hate hearing attitudes like this about the humanities. It’s bullcrap. I could go on, but statements like that shouldn’t require defending.
Higher education, generally speaking, makes for a better citizen. It is also provides more exposure to different subjects, and hence avenues to various careers.
I heard Obama speak tonight in Hartford. In regards to free education, it would require giving back in some way via community service, the Peace Corp., military service, etc. It wouldn’t be a total free ride.
Obama is all for separation of church & state, as is Hillary. There’s no doubt that both understand reason and logic - they went to law school for crike’s sake. You don’t have to worry about them being guided by unseen voices.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Here is Obama on the campaign trail talking about science:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8941027791755057036
February 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Amazingly the 4 serious contenders are all in the pro evolution camp. Huckabee has never been a serious contender (despite an Iowa win). All the responses (of the top 4) are tactically worded to appease people who are creationists without undermining their seriousness as a candidate.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:43 am
# SLCon 04 Feb 2008 at 12:20 pm
Re Barton Paul Levenson
“Do you call the GOP the “Republic party?”
No. I call it the Rethuglican party.”
I call it the Retardican party .. or worse!
Seems a lot here depends on perspectives and context as always.
Saw others commends about some of the _other non-ID-Creationism theories (Panspermia, Lamarckism, Punctuated Equilibrium) and agree -knew most of that already. All are alternatives in that they vary from the conventional model - some are still popular (PuncEq.), others now defunct although still useful as concepts elsewhere (Eg.computer virii for Lamarkism.)
but my point was just to note the words “other theories” doesn’t *necessarily* mean Creationism-ID.
It can (& yeah often is) code for it but is doesn’t have to be.
I’m not a big McCain fan - he’s dead wrong on the invasion & occupation of Iraq but still, in fairness, just wished to point that out.
Of the Republicans I think McCain will win nomination and is one of their less offensive choices.
But when it comes to the final Presidential election I really cannot understand why anyone intelligent would vote for the Republicans over whoever wins the Democratic party nomination…
February 5th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Pat writes:
[[I’m curious about definition of Christian morals (capitalized for emphasis). I’d been raised in them, and they don’t seem to be the same as they used to be. I’d heard we were supposed to help and uplift the least of our brethren; where do illegal immigrants fall in this? I’d heard we were supposed to eschew worldly things; yet the right wing that lays claim to true fundamental religion espouses dollars as votes: might making right, monetary might in this case, as well as conspicuous consumption.
Love thy neighbor. Get me a gun. Is it just me that sees a dichotomy between Christian values as worded by Christ and current fundamentalist associated values and additionally current right wing values?
The primary one I don’t understand at all is you can do anything you please as long as you believe and you’re saved, but if you don’t believe you’re damned no matter how much good you do.
I don’t believe that Christianity has the last word on morality by any stretch.]]
I think you’ve got Christianity confused with the Christian Right, which is a political movement.
The idea about being able to do anything as long as you’re saved was answered by Paul in the 1st century, I believe. “Shall we then sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” Jesus told his followers to “Love the Lord God with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” That doesn’t really cover doing anything you want to do.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Squid writes:
[[All the parts that derive from untestable, insubstantial, faith. As soon as you have to have faith, you are thinking magically.]]
Then I guess scientists are thinking magically, and so are you, since ALL worldviews (not just religious ones) depend on faith at some point. An argument has to have premises. Even the empirical method depends on having faith in the unprovable, untestable assumptions that the universe we observe with our senses is in some sense real and that it’s worth worrying about — both points Hinduism, for example, would deny.
To define faith as magical thinking, as you go on to do in your next post, is simply an abuse of language. Humpty-Dumpty to the contrary, you can’t make words mean whatever you want them to mean. Not if you expect to be able to communicate with other people. Unless you’re using technical terms from a profession, it’s usually best to go with the dictionary definition.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Irishman writes:
[[[[[If you’re tired of a lover or a spouse, and fall in love with somebody else, you can divorce the old one and move on to the new one.]]]
As opposed to cheating on you spouse and staying married? Or living in a loveless relationship? ]]
How about not cheating on your spouse in the first place? And of course if someone does cheat and the other can forgive him/her, that’s commendable, and I certainly don’t object to it.
As to loveless relationships, you grow to love someone by acting as if you loved them. It’s much easier just to divorce someone you’re tired of, but it’s not that great in the ethics department. Christianity discourages getting rid of family members who displease you. (I discount, as obvious exceptions, cases of adultery, abandonment, or abuse.)
February 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am
@Barton Paul Levenson
Perhaps you should establish what definition of “magical thinking” you want to use. Then we can continue this discussion.
Here are a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
“magical thinking is causal reasoning that often includes such ideas as the law of contagion, correlation equaling causation, the power of symbols and the ability of the mind to affect the physical world.”
Don’t like wikipedia, ok:
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-magical-thinking.html
“It is the ability to draw conclusions that are based on a person’s desire for what reality should be, not necessarily upon what reality actually is.” (Yes this one even includes a “God Does Not Use Magical Thinking” section but just because God doesn’t use Magical Thinking…..religion does, the later of which is the topic here.)
http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html
“According to anthropologist Dr. Phillips Stevens Jr., magical thinking involves several elements, including a belief in the interconnectedness of all things through forces and powers that transcend both physical and spiritual connections. Magical thinking invests special powers and forces in many things that are seen as symbols. According to Stevens, “the vast majority of the world’s peoples … believe that there are real connections between the symbol and its referent, and that some real and potentially measurable power flows between them.” He believes there is a neurobiological basis for this, though the specific content of any symbol is culturally determined. (Not that some symbols aren’t universal, e.g., the egg, fire, water. Not that the egg, fire, or water symbolize the same things in all cultures.)
One of the driving principles of magical thinking is the notion that things that resemble each other are causally connected in some way that defies scientific testing (the law of similarity).”
February 5th, 2008 at 8:07 am
@Melusine
“Really? My father was an English major, started off as pre-Med and ended being an appellate court judge - and a good one. My sister was an English major and is teaching 8th grade and uses literature to discuss current issues brought up in the books they read. My mother was an English major and she owns a newspaper business. I hate hearing attitudes like this about the humanities. It’s bullcrap. I could go on, but statements like that shouldn’t require defending.”
It’s nice that they went on to bigger maybe even better things. The question is did their 4 years of English studies in Shakespearian English etc actually help them in those positions or would they have been just as well off with Grade 12 English. Maybe if you want to stretch include a College/Univ Business English or Technical Writing course.
It doesn’t take 4 years of English studies to be able to help 8th graders read and comprehend. Same goes for your mother, if my 13 year old nephew had good business sense he could “own” a newspaper business as well. Ok fine maybe she’s also Editor and all other jobs under the sun too, but that still doesn’t require a 4 year degree in English. The best argument you could make is your father, though I fail to see English’s bearing on pre-med, perhaps on his Lawyering/Judging since he’d have to wade through so much BS haughty lawyer speak (even that’s a stretch).
February 5th, 2008 at 8:19 am
That’s why candidates should debate issues relating to science. Show your support for a Science Debate today. Make a difference. Join the National Academies and 64 universities in pressing the candidates to voice their views on such important topics as science education, research funding, the role of science in advising the white house etc…
This is your chance to get your questions answered:
http://www.ScienceDebate2008.com
February 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am
@kingthorin
“It doesn’t take 4 years of English studies to be able to help 8th graders read and comprehend.”
Really? Well perhaps not… have you taken degree required courses for an English degree? I did. Or are you speaking from ignorance?… you don’t need ANY degree to do that. Understand, a degree in English (one of my double majors, by the way) doesn’t just enable one to “talk good” (improper grammer intended for effect before you nit-pickers attack me)… it gives one an exposure to language origins, literature, and the ability to comprehend that literature on a level beyond the simple written word. It requires a high level of intelligence and reasoning to completely understand both the English language and the broad spectrum of literature written in it.
So ask yourself a question… if it’s YOUR 8th grader, and you have a choice of him or her being mentored in the English language by someone with the intelligence and motivation to have gone through the steps to acquire an English degree, or a high school graduate who maybe did well on their verbal SATs… are you telling me you wouldn’t have a preference?
Please don’t judge the requirements of attaining a degree in English unless you have gone through the proces of attaining one and have the requisite knowledge to do so.
There. My rant is complete.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:02 am
@Celtic_Evolution
Where did I judge the requirements of attaining a degree in English?
No one is talking about how difficult (or not) it is to attain an English degree.
We have talked about how useful 1000s of people with English and Basket Weaving degrees are in the context of Government paying for their education.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I know of no-one with a basket weaving degree.
And re-reading your post, it sounded pretty judgmental and dismissive to me. You’d be just as well off as an English teacher with 12th grade English vs. a degree in English? Your 12 year old with good business acumen could own a news-paper? Those are pretty judgmental statements is you ask me. Not to mention completely absurd.
Do you propose that if government were to pay for university education, that it should selectively decide which subjects and majors are worthy of subsidization? Can you fairly make that determination?
As it is and ever has been in any thriving society, there is importance in the humanities as a course of study. And believe me, you can be just as useless with a degree in advanced mathematics or the sciences. Just ask my cousin, who has a degree in Biology and is working as a bank teller (no offense intended to bank tellers, of course).
As important as the higher education degree, is how you apply it.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Kingthorin, I started a long post but I accidentally deleted it. I hate to make a rude comment, but you’re sounding so dumb.
Most universities in the US require core classes - I spent two years not taking English, but natural science courses, history, etc. If one is going to teach, Education classes are necessary, and at least in CT, a Masters is eventually required.
Yes, English helped my father and everyone else be a better writer. He has to write opinions. Papers in English, history, and the like, require analysis and argument like everything else. There’s a difference between a serious student and not so serious student.
We have talked about how useful 1000s of people with English and Basket Weaving degrees are in the context of Government paying for their education.
As I mentioned, paying for education would require a payback to the community. Whatever a person’s major, a rounded college education is a good thing. Heck, my landlord took philosophy at Yale and is teaching sustainable agriculture and micro-lending in S. America now. People change, but the knowledge they gain is irreplaceable. Your attitude stinks.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Wow what a bunch of Ivory Tower dribble! If you think the only issue is science than apparently you have forgotten approximately 3000 dead Americans on 911. Since you are all devout believers in in evolution, a point I agree apon, then perhaps you should consider its implications in the broader sense socially and economically. How any clear thinking person could come to believe in socialism(read far left liberal) and not see the essential conflict with the human desire for competition(read be able to do better than the other guy by working hard and using ones innate skills) is beyond reason. Go ahead and vote your socialist candidates in place and watch this country dissolve further into mediocrity.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:29 am
And while I’m ranting, the attitude toward science popularizers from “serious” scientists stinks too. I am so sick of intellectual snobbery in general.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Flynjack: Go ahead and vote your socialist candidates in place and watch this country dissolve further into mediocrity.
Who is a socialist? Who is advocating socialism? And what does that have to do with 9/11? Don’t worry, capitalism in the US isn’t going anywhere, but progressive programs a la FDR, et al. didn’t hurt our country. I’m not sure where you’re coming from.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:40 am
flynjack:
Equality does not preclude a meritocracy. A true meritocracy, not an inherited meritocracy. Our current system “works” so that somebody just has to have an ancestor who hit it really big so that they can screw off, snort cocaine, be bought into the right schools, and be ushered into a pampered life of plenty. It’s aristocracy in everything but name.
Aristocracy gets arthritic and staid, because the situation that gave rise to it is unique but not persistent, so it flexes its power to maintain the satus quo.
Ergo an inherited meritocracy quickly becomes social stratification.
Science is more of a true meritocracy: knowledge is still like found nuggets, and anybody can hit it big if they really try hard. You’d be hard pressed to find a scientific dynasty that went unchallenged.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:44 am
@flynjack -
Do you feel better now? Where the heck in this thread did anyone say that the candidates stand on science is the ONLY issue of importance. In fact, if you read through the posts I think you’ll pretty clearly see that is not the case… but to those of us here who see science, and where the candidates stand in respect to the sciences, as an important and under-discussed topic, it IS of some importance and worthy of this discussion. After all, this IS a scinece-based blog, no? Where better to have the discussion? You toss words around like “socialism” pretty freely and adamently, but I’m not sure I would describe any of the candidates as “socialist” in the strictist sense of the word… I guess I’m not sure where you are going with that rant as it relates to this thread…
February 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am
@ Celtic_Evolution
“You’d be just as well off as an English teacher with 12th grade English vs. a degree in English?”
1) I said you could add a college English course for the sake of debate if you wished.
2) As far as 8th grade English goes yes, I would say that’s a fair statement. (Of course you’re going to find people that suck at 12th grade English but the same is true of the 4 yr Degree group as well).
3) This has nothing to do with how difficult (or not) it is to get an English degree.
“Your 12 year old with good business acumen could own a news-paper?”
1) 13 actually.
2) Why not? He could have circulation of 1 and still say he “owns a business”. If he makes <$20K a year he doesn’t even have to register his business.
3) The point is a English degree may or may not help “own” a newspaper business. It has nothing to do with how difficult (or not) it is to get an English degree.
“Those are pretty judgmental statements is you ask me.”
I didn’t, but you’re entitled to an opinion.
“Not to mention completely absurd.”
Interesting.
“Do you propose that if government were to pay for university education, that it should selectively decide which subjects and majors are worthy of subsidization?”
As discussed above this determination should be based on census data or similar.
“Can you fairly make that determination?”
No “I” can not, nor would I expect to be allowed to.
@ Melusine
“Kingthorin, I started a long post but I accidentally deleted it.”
That’s too bad.
“I hate to make a rude comment, but you’re sounding so dumb.”
I’m ok with that. Personally I didn’t find your earlier argument particularly brilliant either. Should that stop the debate?
“Most universities in the US require core classes”
This is true most places.
” - I spent two years not taking English, but natural science courses, history, etc.”
Congratulations?
“If one is going to teach, Education classes are necessary, and at least in CT, a Masters is eventually required.”
Ok.
“Yes, English helped my father and everyone else be a better writer. He has to write opinions. Papers in English, history, and the like, require analysis and argument like everything else. There’s a difference between a serious student and not so serious student.”
Yes obviously to write in English you need some grasp of the language. No one is debating that. The question was/is is a 4 year degree in English relevant to the point you tried to make. I had stated that for your post your father was the best example you made where a 4 year degree in English might be relevant.
“As I mentioned, paying for education would require a payback to the community.”
Agreed.
“Whatever a person’s major, a rounded college education is a good thing.”
Agreed.
“Heck, my landlord took philosophy at Yale and is teaching sustainable agriculture and micro-lending in S. America now.”
I’m sure if your tax money had paid for that education you’d be very happy with how it’s being put to use.
“People change, but the knowledge they gain is irreplaceable.”
Agreed.
“Your attitude stinks.”
Ok.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I address those above who consider science to be the primary issue of this election. My point is that in my oppinion the economic polices such as socialized medicine and increases in taxation of American businesses etc proposed by the far left candidates Clinton and Obama flys in the face of reason. Additionally, with all the complaints on this blog about fundamentalist Christians and there misguided beliefs in creationism, how important is that in relation to Islamic extremist and their desire to disrupt western culture(read kill innocent people). It just seems that folks ought to focus on the most significant issues of this point in history.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am
[…] Astronomy has a worthwhile rumination on the importance of science in the election. We know where kooks like Huckabee stand, but […]
February 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
@kingthorin
“2) As far as 8th grade English goes yes, I would say that’s a fair statement. (Of course you’re going to find people that suck at 12th grade English but the same is true of the 4 yr Degree group as well).
3) This has nothing to do with how difficult (or not) it is to get an English degree.”
ok… we can go this route…
In response to 2): OK… good luck with that… you might want to let your 8th grader make that choice… I’m not sure they’d agree with you. And, I’d be willing to bet the percentage of 4 yr. degreed English majors that suck at 12th grade English is quite a bit lower than that of non-degreed high-school graduates.
In response to 3): I never said it did… i was arguing the absurdity of your point. And I still maintain it’s absurd. I’m not sure “difficulty of attaining a degree” was ever the topic of discussion… it was the usefullness of that degree, as I recall.
“1) 13 actually.
2) Why not? He could have circulation of 1 and still say he “owns a business”. If he makes <$20K a year he doesn’t even have to register his business.
3) The point is a English degree may or may not help “own” a newspaper business. It has nothing to do with how difficult (or not) it is to get an English degree.”
Response to 1) Fine. 13.
Response to 2) OK, since you are being needlessly argumentative, I’ll go the extra distance to qualify it as a successful, respected and widely read newspaper. Didn’t thin kit was necessary to make that distinction, but apparently…
Response to 3) See my response to 3 above, again.
“As discussed above this determination should be based on census data or similar.”
That’s great… so census data would be able to tell you what disciplines should be subsidized and which should not be? Which census data would do that, exactly? And if English doesn’t make the cut according to that data, should it be removed from the curriculum? I mean why would anyone take it as a course of study if they could get another discipline subsidized? And the we have NO English majors. And this is a good idea?
February 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
@kingthorin
“2) As far as 8th grade English goes yes, I would say that’s a fair statement. (Of course you’re going to find people that suck at 12th grade English but the same is true of the 4 yr Degree group as well).
3) This has nothing to do with how difficult (or not) it is to get an English degree.”
ok… we can go this route…
In response to 2): OK… good luck with that… you might want to let your 8th grader make that choice… I’m not sure they’d agree with you. And, I’d be willing to bet the percentage of 4 yr. degreed English majors that suck at 12th grade English is quite a bit lower than that of non-degreed high-school graduates.
In response to 3): I never said it did… i was arguing the absurdity of your point. And I still maintain it’s absurd. I’m not sure “difficulty of attaining a degree” was ever the topic of discussion… it was the usefullness of that degree, as I recall.
“1) 13 actually.
2) Why not? He could have circulation of 1 and still say he “owns a business”. If he makes <$20K a year he doesn’t even have to register his business.
3) The point is a English degree may or may not help “own” a newspaper business. It has nothing to do with how difficult (or not) it is to get an English degree.”
Response to 1) Fine. 13.
Response to 2) OK, since you are being needlessly argumentative, I’ll go the extra distance to qualify it as a successful, respected and widely read newspaper. Didn’t thin kit was necessary to make that distinction, but apparently…
Response to 3) See my response to 3 above, again.
“As discussed above this determination should be based on census data or similar.”
That’s great… so census data would be able to tell you what disciplines should be subsidized and which should not be? Which census data would do that, exactly? And if English doesn’t make the cut according to that data, should it be removed from the curriculum? I mean why would anyone take it as a course of study if they could get another discipline subsidized? And then we have NO English majors. And this is a good idea?
February 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
sorry for the double post there… ugh… darn browser.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
@ Celtic_Evolution
“And, I’d be willing to bet the percentage of 4 yr. degreed English majors that suck at 12th grade English is quite a bit lower than that of non-degreed high-school graduates.”
It seems you’ve misunderstood what I meant. I meant that within both groups (12th grade Eng and 4 year Eng Degree) there’d still be people who sucked at English or teaching English.
“I’m not sure “difficulty of attaining a degree” was ever the topic of discussion… it was the usefullness of that degree, as I recall.”
Difficulty attaining an English degree was something you brought up. I agree it isn’t at issue, but, you seemed to think it was.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/03/what-do-the-presidential-candidates-think-about-science/#comment-153730
“That’s great… so census data would be able to tell you what disciplines should be subsidized and which should not be?”
Yup that’s the basic idea.
“Which census data would do that, exactly? ”
Hence my inclusion of “or similar” in my statement. Perhaps this would be something the Gov’t would have to start tracking before deciding to make degrees free.
“And if English doesn’t make the cut according to that data, should it be removed from the curriculum?”
No if you’re really gungho on a 4 year Degree in English then you can pay.
“I mean why would anyone take it as a course of study if they could get another discipline subsidized?”
I have no idea why someone would do that. Because they loved the subject perhaps. Do 100% of university/College entrants try to get scholarships/bursaries? I don’t think so. If you want to be a writer are you going to spend years becoming a plumber when it’s of no interest, even if it’s subsidized?
“And then we have NO English majors. And this is a good idea?”
Again, yes there is some point is having some English majors in a society. There is some value in having a bit of everything represented within the population, however, there is more benefit in something over others. ie: English major vs Plumbers/Electricians. This distinction would have to be decided by census data or similar (as noted above and earlier). Yes it’s great to have new books to read and new thoughts on Shakespear etc, however, if the Gov’t has a limited amount of money to put into free educations I’d rather have a plumber or electrician when needed than someone how can write some spiffy prose.
Of course, as discussed with Melusine much of this argument goes away if the person is required to somehow payback their free education.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Yes, wonderful, and I can’t wait for the day when I live in a society where the government determines for me which disciplines are “more beneficial” and which are “less beneficial” based on census numbers. What a wonderful world it will be.
I’ll try to keep my weekends free to watch chemists perform experiments on stage in what used to be opera house.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Hahahahaha, I like how you phrase it so that it sounds like the Gov’t is the evil Big Brother (ala 1984) kinda thing.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
If you want the status quo, keep that census data. Disciplines and job markets change, and it might just be that a general English degree represents somebody good at communication, interpretation, linguistics and logic. Some professions don’t have specific degrees: web developers, for instance. You need a smattering of programming, english, art, design, management, editorial skills, and others depending on the project.
If we restricted to just degrees XYZ based on current census data we’d quickly find ourselves with a nation of wheelwrights in the age of jet engines.
If you are the sponsor of a program, and you need degrees XYZ, it is called a scholarship. We’re talking general educational support, and for that you can’t slam the door. Not being offered is the current demographic mapping. No need means programs die. Journalism died as a program at the University of Oregon in 1993 if I recall, not sure if it ever revived.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“If we restricted to just degrees XYZ based on current census data we’d quickly find ourselves with a nation of wheelwrights in the age of jet engines.”
Sounds like a perfect reason to stop offering wheelwright programs.
“Not being offered is the current demographic mapping. No need means programs die. Journalism died as a program at the University of Oregon in 1993 if I recall, not sure if it ever revived.”
Yet the world still has plenty (perhaps too many) journalists.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
flynjack writes:
[[How any clear thinking person could come to believe in socialism(read far left liberal) and not see the essential conflict with the human desire for competition(read be able to do better than the other guy by working hard and using ones innate skills) is beyond reason. Go ahead and vote your socialist candidates in place and watch this country dissolve further into mediocrity.]]
You don’t actually understand what “socialism” means, do you?
February 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
flynjack writes:
[[My point is that in my oppinion the economic polices such as socialized medicine and increases in taxation of American businesses etc proposed by the far left candidates Clinton and Obama flys in the face of reason.]]
What’s unreasonable about it? The present system is badly broken; people are dying because they can’t get available medical care. Other people are losing their life savings. And still none of the candidates is proposing a national health care scheme like they still have in the UK — and which seems to be working, creaky as it is. They’re proposing national health insurance, and none of those schemes is even single-payer — they’re all market based with some subsidies for poor people. If you think that constitutes “socialism,” I’d advise you to study some economics and stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Kingthorin:
I will slow it down so that you might understand.
You have a demographic program in place.
The program restricts who can do what, based on demographics.
Following so far?
It is not as adroit as a market in which people can choose their degrees.
A program in which degrees are dictated by who will pay for them will lag the market in key growth areas.
This will push people who cannot afford degrees on their own and hence cannot afford choice into market-lagging degrees.
In a free-choice scenario, market will dictate need instead, and undesired programs drop away - hence the example of journalism falling away at the University of Oregon.
That was a positive example in my scenario of market forces outside of a demographic mandate shaping degree programs.
Let me repeat that, because it appears you did not actually read the post.
By allowing choice rather than demography to decide, market forces come into play in creating or destroying programs.
In demography, as long as it exists in the charts schools would be fools not to have a program for it.
These demographic charts will always lag the market, or students would have their sponsorship dropped in the middle of their program which would anger both students and schools. If instead they know they have choice, they can switch majors rather than having an arbitrary demographic decide they no longer are engaged in a meaningful pursuit.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Thank you Pat… I was trying to articulate a response to and was beginning to develop a tick. You did a much better job than I would have.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Obama has come out for evolution, but I don’t think it would be wise to take anything about science/belief too seriously with Obama. He’s very private about it, and I don’t anticipate it being a major deal in a potential 4 years of President, either way.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
@ Pat
I agree that is the case based on current models. However, I’m optimistic enough to believe that the current models can change. Currently it takes us years to analyze census information. Meanwhile we can analyze millions of phone calls for “key” words (think Echelon, etc) in real time. There’s no reason that the Gov’t (or whoever) can’t gather and analyze the information in a way that it doesn’t significantly lag its use. The Gov’t would just have to decide that it was important enough.
Really there are four things that can happen:
1) We think subsidizing post secondary education is a good idea and decide to do it somehow, even if that somehow isn’t currently known to us.
2) We decide subsidizing post secondary education is a bad idea and stick with how it currently is. (We wouldn’t be discussing it if this is really what people wanted).
3) As Melusine suggested earlier, have post secondary educations subsidized and have the user (students) give back to the Gov’t/country upon completion. Whether monetarily, through mandatory Gov’t service, charity work, military service, etc.
4) Subsidize everything regardless of need/demand/good of nation etc. and end up with millions of bird program grads that do the country no good. No one will choose to do something they actually have to work at when they can do something easy. (Some people might like this idea but it really isn’t practical for more than even part of a generation).
February 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The discussion about the merits of an English major for large numbers of people is silly. Taking English in college teaches one literacy at a high level. This is a transferable skill, in that it allows the recipient of the degree to do a wide range of high-level jobs. Most English majors do not end up as Dead Poet Society professors, but get office jobs that are indispensible for the running of a complicated society. In that they are extremely valuable, also in large numbers.
As a matter of fact, getting a science degree amounts to a transferable skill for most people as well: very few people who study science at college level end up as scientists. I suspect most of them end up in IT.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Well said, Pieter. Interestingly, as I said earlier, English was one of my two majors. My other major was a science, and I DID end up in IT!
Although… wait… did you mean that as an insult? In that case, you stink!
February 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Well put, Peter. English majors I know have disparate skillsets: one is an accomplished artist, another is a programmer. Both do very well, despite not using their degrees for their - “intended” purpose. I think that’s the key thing: a degree is not a dead end one-use endeavor like a trade. It represents accomplishment, that’s about it. It can indicate what area you might know better, but it doesn’t silo you into a specific skillset.
This flexibility is what makes an education more useful than apprenticeship to a trade. Which is really more expensive: a general education, or a shorter specific education, job loss, poverty, retraining?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
[…] dire? Vote for Hillary: e’ l’unica dei candidati alla casa bianca che crede apertamente nell’evoluzione e non nel creazionismo e che ritiene importante lo studio delle discipline scientifiche. Magari con […]
March 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I think you should actually study the pro’s and cons of evolution before you write an article judging a person’s (in this case, a presidential candidate’s) viewpoint on science. Almost any chemist or mathematician who has done any research on Darwininan evolution will tell you that it is one of the most pernicious lies of our time. Only Biologists and people who refuse to believe in any form of the supernatural (aka GOD) place their faith in evolution. Richard Dawkins is a prime example. He is perhaps the most narcissistic men living today, and he purports that anyone believing in a deity is ignorant and wrong (tell me Mr. Dawkins, how can you honestly disprove GOD?) While I realize that evolution is known to be scientific fact, just like the theory of relativity, the fact remains that macroevolution has yet to be PROVEN or observed, and therefore cannot be claimed to be purely factual. So therefore, evolution, like Christianity, is based on faith through scientific study, not unlike Intelligent Design. Honestly, if one truly studies the chemistry and probability of abiogenesis alone, one cannot honestly believe evolution to be true without the presence of some form of Logos to guide it. Science is merely science. It cannot explain God, which is why we have philosophy people. Though, modern America fails to teach philosophy, logic, and reason in schools. We’ve abandoned our ability to rationalize, instead placing all of our knowledge in the hands of select individuals (academics, politicians, text books).What we should do, is seek out the truth from multiple sources, from all facets. Darwinian evolution is highly suspect and very flawed. Read some books by A.E. Wilder-Smith, Michael Behe, and other chemists and academics who get overshadowed by the cognitive dissonance of popular science. The fact is, evolution simply cannot be disproven or proven, so if someone doesn’t believe in it, then they certainly should not be criticized for that belief.
P.S. Clinton will say whatever to get a vote. Since the majority of educated Americans believe in evolution, of course she does…
March 4th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
[…] has class. He has some evolutionary problems, but he’s a nice guy. Our astronomer friend may disagree (Huckabee = very very very bad guy), […]
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:56 am
Wow, some fierce debate going on, love that.
@Rick James - i’ve read carefully what you’ve said, and here my response - apologies for disagreeing, but i dislike unreasoned and unclear thinking.
–
>I think you should actually study the pro’s and cons of evolution before you write an article judging a person’s (in this case, a presidential candidate’s) viewpoint on science.
good advice, can’t argue with that one.
>Almost any chemist or mathematician who has done any research on Darwininan evolution will tell you that it is one of the most pernicious lies of our time.
not true
>Only Biologists and people who refuse to believe in any form of the supernatural (aka GOD) place their faith in evolution.
i doubt theres been any studies done
>Richard Dawkins is a prime example.
uh oh
>He is perhaps the most narcissistic men living today, and he purports that anyone believing in a deity is ignorant and wrong (tell me Mr. Dawkins, how can you honestly disprove GOD?)
You have a right to have an opinion on his character, but its just opinion.
(Dawkins does look for proof - which religion lacks. I’ve read a few of his books, his main beef appears to be with unreasoned beliefs, and blind faith. His attempt to disprove is based on circumstantial evidence, which is good enough for the courts of justice)
>While I realize that evolution is known to be scientific fact, just like the theory of relativity, the fact remains that macroevolution has yet to be PROVEN or observed, and therefore cannot be claimed to be purely factual.
Partial credit.
Evolution is a fact, and has been observed to occur.
Evolution has been proved. Thats why its scientific fact.
(thats pretty much the definition of ‘fact’)
the “Theory of Evolution” is about how that mechanism takes place, and Darwin was a starting point - his work has been built on, honestly - the agrument has evolved since his time.
>So therefore, evolution, like Christianity, is based on faith through scientific study, not unlike Intelligent Design.
No. Faith is not based on scientific study - ask any fundamentalist. Intelligent Design is not based on scientific study - its false science, and has been proven as such.
>Honestly, if one truly studies the chemistry and probability of abiogenesis alone, one cannot honestly believe evolution to be true without the presence of some form of Logos to guide it.
Not true, again - the theory of evoloution is about the mechanism that drives evolution itself - it does not posit about the ultimate origins of life itself.
>Science is merely science.
Religion is merely dogma.
>It cannot explain God, which is why we have philosophy people.
Science does not try to explain god - thats what religion is for, but the scientific method does dismiss god or gods purely because there is no proof, and no way of proving that these deities actually exist.
>Though, modern America fails to teach philosophy, logic, and reason in schools.
which you have proved.. unfortunately
>We’ve abandoned our ability to rationalize, instead placing all of our knowledge in the hands of select individuals (academics, politicians, text books).
you may have - i have not. Why doesn’t your list include the clergy?
>What we should do, is seek out the truth from multiple sources, from all facets.
Yes you should
>Darwinian evolution is highly suspect and very flawed.
No its not, its a reasonable solution to an observed fact.
>Read some books by A.E. Wilder-Smith, Michael Behe, and other chemists and academics who get overshadowed by the cognitive dissonance of popular science.
Thank you, i shall.
>The fact is, evolution simply cannot be disproven or proven, so if someone doesn’t believe in it, then they certainly should not be criticized for that belief.
The fact is… evolution is a fact. You do have the right to hold your beliefs, you also have the right to be criticised - especially if you are speaking in a scientific forum.
>P.S. Clinton will say whatever to get a vote. Since the majority of educated Americans believe in evolution, of course she does…
Democracy, i love it.
Perhaps Hillary beleives in evolution becuse she has studied and accepts the facts, as do the educated majority. Another argument in favour of increased education.
I like Mr. Obama, its because when he discusses politics/issues in interviews, he comes across as serious, intelligent, interested and open to argument. A true statesman.
GWB always looked like he was joking.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
For more on what Obama would do with NASA see:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html
If Obama gets elected (and that is looking less and less likely as he displays a serious case foot and mouth desease caused by lack of judgement and experience) you Bush haters will get what you deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will also get what you deserve.