Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 04:54, David Hobby wrote: William T Goodall wrote: Sarah Palin ... Vice President ... She's a crazy person. With four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated, she gets pregnant again and when the tests show it has Down Syndrome she doesn't abort. She's wealthy enough that the coping will be done by servants so her moral position won't inconvenience her political career (and boost it with other nutters) but it's a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set. William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. A fetus isn't a child. That's why there's a different word for it. (To use honest terminology.) You're the one trying to use dishonest terminology. Every Sperm is Sacred Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 03:54, William T Goodall wrote: She's a crazy person. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. It reads like she's trying to be politically correct as not to offend either camp: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be, she said. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 31/08/2008, at 12:50 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. That's the current tactic from the creationists trying to get round the various court rulings. Teach the controversy and Teach both sides. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. If you support teaching both sides then you're a creationist. It's a code word. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. People could use that skill in on-line discussions! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 16:19, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Vigilance Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. I agree, not is science class, and I did specifically say that it shouldn't be taught as an equal alternative. Creationism should be taught from an historical perspective. It played a significant part in history, religion and society - but your right, that debate isn't appropriate in science class. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. You forgot to mention the other viable alternative to evolution: the Flying Spaghetti Monster :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other side, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Much more than that. The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. For many years now, I have believed that this is one of the ways in which the Internet is shaping the long-term future. Despite the flame wars, gossip and general nonsense that happens in on-line communities, I do believe that many people are rediscovering the value of argument, the power of diverse viewpoints in problem-solving. This is the stuff that stimulates creativity, I believe -- creativity which, even if limited to a minority, can have a profound positive impact on all. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 17:10, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other side, I think I side with the creationists. Why take sides? Peanut gallery Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On 30 Aug 2008, at 17:13, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Much more than that. The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. And there are people who know that they will lose a reasonable debate and therefore deliberately sabotage reasonable debate by using lies and illogic and any other dirty tricks they can come up with instead of reasonable debate. Creationists are such a group. Liars Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. It reads like she's trying to be politically correct as not to offend either camp: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be, she said. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Except that teach the controversy, i.e. treating creationism as a competing scientific theority to evolution, is a stated (and documented) tactic of the intelligent design movement, specifically as a means of positioning creationism as a legitimate scientific theory. IMHO, even *admitting* creation into a classroom science discussion is already losing the battle. Creationism is religious doctrine dressed up as pseudoscience, and creation science is a pseudoscientific rationalization of creationism based on flawed and outdated scientific understanding and teaching resources, and intelligent design is a creative rebranding of creation science with some superficial wording changes (and this is documented in the Kitzmiller v Dover case) to make it sound less religious and more scientific. It's not science, and dressing it up in scientific-sounding language doesn't change that. (It *does* make it *look* like science to people who don't understand what science *is* or how it works .. to them, creation science and evolution *do indeed* sound like competing theories of roughly equal merit, and they *do indeed* see the illusion of a choice between the two, with supernatural consequences.) Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. I'd say it's quite possible to build an entire course curriculum around the study of and comparisons between creation myths. And it would definitely be an interesting course. (Especially for the fundamentalists who want creationism taught in public schools, although they would almost certainly not like teaching creationism in classes where the competition with other belief systems is compeltely legitimate .. :D ) Giving kickbacks to the wealthy isn't creating wealth, it's just giving kickbacks to the wealthy. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Comparative Religion
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote: I'd say it's quite possible to build an entire course curriculum around the study of and comparisons between creation myths. It would definitely be an interesting course, especially for fundamentalists who want creationism taught in public schools, although they would almost certainly not like teaching creationism in classes where the competition with other belief systems is completely legitimate .. :D ) I took an anthropology class in college; I believe it was called Comparative Religion. I consider it social science, rather than real science. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: And there are people who know that they will lose a reasonable debate and therefore deliberately sabotage reasonable debate by using lies and illogic and any other dirty tricks they can come up with instead of reasonable debate. I hope you can deal with the fact that I pretty much agree, though I generally am wary of generalizations. When people try to use science to defend their religious beliefs, the science almost inevitably is poor. For me, faith has to do with the inexplicable and uncontrollable. I guess I'm particularly dismayed when people regard a scientific explanation -- evolution is the prime example -- as a threat to their faith. That makes zero sense to me. Now that I think of it, there's sort of an opposite kind of childish thinking that dismays me. I was at a friend's funeral last week and his town's mayor said something like, God must have needed another angel and he wanted one of the best. Ack! When I hear people say stuff like that, William, I can totally understand why you and others find religion offensive. The idea that a Supreme Being caused a motorcycle to kill my friend because He needed an angel... that's insane. My wife called it spiritual immaturity. She's quicker than I am to find compassion. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparative Religion
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I took an anthropology class in college; I believe it was called Comparative Religion. I consider it social science, rather than real science. Jon Aw, c'mon. Social sciences are real science, just messier. Nick Social Networking Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Debate
The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. And there are people who know that they will lose a reasonable debate and therefore deliberately sabotage reasonable debate by using lies and illogic and any other dirty tricks they can come up with instead of reasonable debate. Creationists are such a group. Liars Maru William T Goodall because their so called proof is faith based. they cannot refute science, so they must lie, distort and appeal to emotional arguments to keep the faithful ignorant. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparative Religion
On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote: I'd say it's quite possible to build an entire course curriculum around the study of and comparisons between creation myths. It would definitely be an interesting course, especially for fundamentalists who want creationism taught in public schools, although they would almost certainly not like teaching creationism in classes where the competition with other belief systems is completely legitimate .. :D ) I took an anthropology class in college; I believe it was called Comparative Religion. I consider it social science, rather than real science. Jon Exactly. The study of creationism *as a belief system*, within the context of a course on studying belief systems themselves and their history of development, is entirely legitimate science. But it's a scientific study of human behavior (and, to some extent, cognition) as well as a critical approach to religious literature, not an attempt to *apply* a particular belief system to biology and call it science. :) I'm over the moon. This is my over-the-moon face. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparative Religion
On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I took an anthropology class in college; I believe it was called Comparative Religion. I consider it social science, rather than real science. Jon Aw, c'mon. Social sciences are real science, just messier. Nick http://xkcd.com/435/ :) There is a fundamental difference between the mythical imagery we apply to reality and the reality itself. -- Me ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Debate
The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. For many years now, I have believed that this is one of the ways in which the Internet is shaping the long-term future. Despite the flame wars, gossip and general nonsense that happens in on-line communities, I do believe that many people are rediscovering the value of argument, the power of diverse viewpoints in problem-solving. This is the stuff that stimulates creativity, I believe -- creativity which, even if limited to a minority, can have a profound positive impact on all. Nick i used to believe in the free exchange of ideas, nick, but it only occurs when you have rational debate. the internet has become the dis-information highway, and there are more lies than fact. you are correct it can be a tool for empowerment, enlightenment and education, with participants who are open to civilized discourse. the person who introduced me to this site is responsible for turning me from pro-palestinian to ardent zionist. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debate
On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. For many years now, I have believed that this is one of the ways in which the Internet is shaping the long-term future. Despite the flame wars, gossip and general nonsense that happens in on-line communities, I do believe that many people are rediscovering the value of argument, the power of diverse viewpoints in problem-solving. This is the stuff that stimulates creativity, I believe -- creativity which, even if limited to a minority, can have a profound positive impact on all. Nick i used to believe in the free exchange of ideas, nick, but it only occurs when you have rational debate. the internet has become the dis-information highway, and there are more lies than fact. you are correct it can be a tool for empowerment, enlightenment and education, with participants who are open to civilized discourse. the person who introduced me to this site is responsible for turning me from pro-palestinian to ardent zionist. jon I believe both of these scenarios are correct, to some extent, in that each is happening separately from the other. There is definitely a renaissance of sorts on the intelligent side of the Internet that is rapidly gaining momentum, as well as growing deeper and firmer roots in rational discourse and objectivity. There is a more or less infinite idea-space for rational and informative discussion of just about anything imaginable, and new forums are created on an almost constant basis. I've told everyone I know, some of them more than once (and, for a few, enough times that they've gotten sick of hearing it), that we haven't even scratched the surface of the tip of the iceberg that is the Internet's potential social impact on our culture, and the most interesting developments in how it reshapes how we communicate, interact, and even *think* haven't been discovered yet and won't be for some time. The concept of open, uncensored (for the most part), many-to-many instant communication is, IMHO, more fundamentally world-altering than the invention of movable type and the ability to publish books faster than the medieval Church could burn them, and the story of how it's going to change every aspect of our lives hasn't been written yet. And yet, there's a very fundamentally dedicated resistance to that ascendancy of the democracy of ideas. There's a very strong anti- scientific and anti-knowledge tradition in this country's culture that still has to be overcome, even now. It's not nearly as strong as it was in the days before geek/nerd chic and the discovery that thinking people did indeed have the power to reshape society, but it's still there, and in the majority of minds, science and knowledge are suspect and potentially dangerous. The most positive thing that can be said about it is that the exponentially increasing freedom people outside that anti-knowledge culture have to analyze it critically and poke holes in its arguments has forced it to abandon most of its historical pretenses of rationality and retreat to a much more overt refusal to accept that they've lost the debate. (The modern dominionist religious movement is one of the best examples of that that I can find -- a religious movement that has declared, this far shalt thou go, and no further, drawn its metaphorical line in the sand, and declared a guerilla war of insurgency against the freedom not to be subject to its self-asserted authority.) The darker side of that culture war mentality is that it becomes progressively more inclined to stop talking and start shooting, and we have several examples of modern domestic terrorism in recent years as proof that the fringes of that movement, at least, are beginning to do exactly that. There is also an increasing (and fatally belated, IMHO) awareness among major world governments that that freedom of instant many-to- many communication makes government itself increasingly irrelevant, and many governments (including the US government) are taking increasingly restrictive measures to intercept, monitor, data-mine, and otherwise at least passively interfere with that freedom to communicate, and a few either already have *actively* interfered (China's Great Firewall), or are actively planning to interfere, with that communication in a much more aggressive fashion. Who's going to win that race is a question I'm not confident answering, but my feeling is that enough communication has *already* happened that the cat is effectively out of the bag, and any government daring to interfere now will only discredit itself to the point where it outright invites open revolt. The only
Sore losers
at the presnet moment, I agree with you. But the history of the left has more than its share of dogmatism, irrationality, and craziness. Try suggesting on most college campus that things like, say, the relative aptitudes of men and women in different fields in an empiracal question and should be studied scientifically. You will be shouted down by leftist, progressive feminists. The response will be just as emotional and non-rational. There's a strong ant-sciene bias in modern American liberalism, resistance to ideas about the inheritance of temerpment or personality, the primacy of biology over culture, etc. etc. The right has just been more blantant, more vocal and more ludicrous in their attacks on science, but they don't have a monopoly on it. Olin Certainly there are didactic, righteous, dogmatists leftists, Olin, but when they get emotional they don't usually deliberately lie. Michael Moore uses context to advance his arguments, but his premise is usually spot on. Here in Los Angeles, KPFK is extremely biased. The leftist media often ignores, or even justifies tactics used by Palestinian freedom fighters, and when they fire missiles from the Golan Heights (after Israel ended that occupation) they blame Israel because they retaliate.. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Honest terminology
She's a crazy person. With four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated, she gets pregnant again and when the tests show it has Down Syndrome she doesn't abort. She's wealthy enough that the coping will be done by servants so her moral position won't inconvenience her political career (and boost it with other nutters) but it's a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set. William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. (To use honest terminology.) Thank you for bringing this dilemma into focus. ---David Dying machines made of meat, Maru Just think of how many children's' lives in Africa could be saved with the resources used to support the world's first surviving set of septuplets, born in Des Moines, Iowa to Kenny and Bobbi McCaughey. The septuplets were conceived by this devoutly religious couple (who already had one child) as the result of fertility drugs. They declined selective reduction to reduce the number of infants, saying that they would put it in God's hands, but really so they could exploit setting a new record. At least some of the money from selling their story will be used for the children's' medical problems, including cerebral palsy and spinal surgery. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon And that's what it comes down to. Whoever is elected this year will very likely be appointing Supreme Court justices, and the positions most likely to open up are on the liberal side of a very shaky 5-4 liberal majority, and the four conservative justices include at least one (Alito) who has gone on record as being dedicated to overturning most of the hard-won rulings of the 1970's (including Roe v Wade) that secured much of our current freedom today. This, while DHHS has been pushing for a change to the CFR that legally defines abortion so broadly that it includes almost all hormonal oral contraceptives, and gives doctors and pharmacists legal carte blanche to deny treatment and refuse to fill prescriptions based on conscience and religious convictions .. which in the worst case could open the door for states, freed by an overturned Roe v Wade ruling, to outlaw abortion *as defined by the DHHS-amended CFR definition of abortion* at will. Not small stakes in this election. Not at all. She was a supersized meal of pop culture. We gobbled her down—in Playboy or on the E! network—felt a little sick afterward and then blamed her, like heart patients suing a fast-food chain. -- James Poniewozik in an essay about Anna Nicole Smith in Time magazine ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
Considering the fact that McCain just announced his VP running mate today, it's interesting that there are domain names associating Sarah Palin with Vice President registered back in June 2008. The domain name VicePresidentSarahPalin.com was registered on June 14, 2008. Nothing illegal or underhanded about that, just interesting that people knew or suspected more than two months ago. Gary Nunn or the right to lifers started lobbying for her back then... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Teaching multiple models of science
Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. I'm not sure if teaching both sides cannot be done in a course that teaches science. It requires, though, a course on science itself, not on any particular science. But, that's not a bad thing. In the US, we have bio, chem, physics, and general science or earth science as the options for 4 years of science. A one year course on how science works, drawing from simple examples in biology, physics, cosmology, etc...including discussions of how theories are actually developed, changed, etc. would be worthwhile. I could see such a course covering why Newton was right about physics and wrong about astrology and alchemy, as well as discussing creation science. I probably could sit down, and with a month or so of work, have a pretty good basis for a year's course in this. I would guess that I'd need help making sure my course was age appropriate, but I think it could be done straightforwardly. Now, politically, this would be impossible because creation science would fail miserably. Even when put in a religious context (e.g. Sunday School classes), it fails. As I have told fundamentalists are you so sure you know the mind of God so well that you can develop theories of science with better predicting power from that knowledge than using God's gifts of observation and reason to develop those theories? But, on principal, a course that seriously evaluated creation science, the vaccine-autism correlation, astrology, and Gaianism as theories of science alongside biology, chemistry, and physics would be worthwhile in teaching what science really is. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
vaccines and autism
The reason to give shots early is that's when the immune system is doing its major formational work, learning as much as it can as fast as it can. Vaccination is more likely to be effective for different diseases at different times. Charlie. as long as they are not all given at the same time, when there is a possibility of an interaction that could cause autism... is there any kind of formula which vaccines are more likely to be effective for different diseases at different times? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debate
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: i used to believe in the free exchange of ideas, nick, but it only occurs when you have rational debate. the internet has become the dis-information highway, and there are more lies than fact. you are correct it can be a tool for empowerment, enlightenment and education, with participants who are open to civilized discourse. the person who introduced me to this site is responsible for turning me from pro-palestinian to ardent zionist. People made the same arguments against printing 500 years ago. It seems rather obvious (to me, anyway) that printing technology brought a net gain the world, freeing people from getting all their information about the world beyond their immediate experience from a single source, the church, which was deeply corrupt. Yes, there's a lot of crap being distributed via the Internet and very likely, the majority of people aren't seeing their lives *directly* improved by it. It was much the same when printing changed so many things. Printers printed whatever sold well, regardless of its accuracy and truth. Yet the impact it had on the literate minority was profound and they in turn transformed the world for the better for everyone -- if only because it profoundly demonstrated that people can be trusted with information! Surely it is ultimately good to have advertising-based media lose its stranglehold on information. We've lived with essentially one point of view for decades. Despite the negatives and abuses, I can't believe that it is not a good thing that access to more viewpoints is not a good thing. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Internet
People made the same arguments against printing 500 years ago. It seems rather obvious (to me, anyway) that printing technology brought a net gain the world, freeing people from getting all their information about the world beyond their immediate experience from a single source, the church, which was deeply corrupt. Yes, there's a lot of crap being distributed via the Internet and very likely, the majority of people aren't seeing their lives *directly* improved by it. It was much the same when printing changed so many things. Printers printed whatever sold well, regardless of its accuracy and truth. Yet the impact it had on the literate minority was profound and they in turn transformed the world for the better for everyone -- if only because it profoundly demonstrated that people can be trusted with information! Surely it is ultimately good to have advertising-based media lose its stranglehold on information. We've lived with essentially one point of view for decades. Despite the negatives and abuses, I can't believe that it is not a good thing that access to more viewpoints is not a good thing. Nick the information revolution certainly did not begin with computers, the printing press, the written word, clay tablets, theater, or even the oral tradition. humans have always tried to define, manipulate and distort the truth. most of what we call history (another social science) reflects sturgeon's law. the problem i have with the internet is it is overwhelmingly too much information!~) another problem i have is now, whenever i apply for a job, i have to arduously type out on-line applications (pdfs, etc.) when before i could just mail a resume to get an interview. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Teaching multiple models of science
a course that seriously evaluated creation science, the vaccine-autism correlation, astrology, and Gaianism as theories of science alongside biology, chemistry, and physics would be worthwhile in teaching what science Dan M. Those fundamentalists are so sure you know the mind of God they would never allow such a course, if they could stop it... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: or the right to lifers started lobbying for her back then... jon Not entirely inconceivable, that. She doesn't have the somewhat negative name recognition that Lieberman or Huckabee have, which (at least temporarily) dodges some of the effects of choosing a fundamentalist running mate, so it's entirely possible that she was the only candidate he could choose who wouldn't immediately scare off more moderate voters, but at the same time wouldn't alienate a very large fund-raising base of hardcore fundamentalists whose support he really needs if he wants to have any real chance of winning the general election. This language proposes a new doctrine for the use of force, that we use force whenever we see an injustice that we want to correct. Like Mother Teresa with first strike capability. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
Certainly there are didactic, righteous, dogmatists leftists, Olin, but when they get emotional they don't usually deliberately lie. Michael Moore uses context to advance his arguments, but his premise is usually spot on. Here in Los Angeles, KPFK is extremely biased. The leftist media often ignores, or even justifies tactics used by Palestinian freedom fighters, and when they fire missiles from the Golan Heights (after Israel ended that occupation) they blame Israel because they retaliate.. Jon I'm definatley not trying to defend the right wing crazies -- I only hope that the decline in Bush's popularity has diminished their credibility with a lot of Americans -- it would be nice if he would take them down with him. McCain has an uneasy relationship with those people -- they've been his enemies in the past, and now he needs them to have a chance at winning. It will be interesting to see how well they can get along, even for the duration of the campaign. I guess it just goes back to how you think about things. A lot of people talk as if being reasonable and rational is the human default -- and things like dogmatism, fantaticism and irrationality are only aberrations -- but I don't think that's true. I think being irrational, emotional, factional and ideological is closer to the human norm, and that real rationality is rare and always has been -- because it is hard work and goes against our grain. Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Sore losers at the presnet moment, I agree with you. But the history of the left has more than its share of dogmatism, irrationality, and craziness. Try suggesting on most college campus that things like, say, the relative aptitudes of men and women in different fields in an empiracal question and should be studied scientifically. You will be shouted down by leftist, progressive feminists. The response will be just as emotional and non-rational. There's a strong ant-sciene bias in modern American liberalism, resistance to ideas about the inheritance of temerpment or personality, the primacy of biology over culture, etc. etc. The right has just been more blantant, more vocal and more ludicrous in their attacks on science, but they don't have a monopoly on it. Olin Certainly there are didactic, righteous, dogmatists leftists, Olin, but when they get emotional they don't usually deliberately lie. Michael Moore uses context to advance his arguments, but his premise is usually spot on. Here in Los Angeles, KPFK is extremely biased. The leftist media often ignores, or even justifies tactics used by Palestinian freedom fighters, and when they fire missiles from the Golan Heights (after Israel ended that occupation) they blame Israel because they retaliate.. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Teaching multiple models of science
Those fundamentalists are so sure you know the mind of God they would never allow such a course, if they could stop it... jon In the public school, of course not. It doesn't belong there; the nature of the mind of God in inherently a theological question. But, Sunday school is a different story. I've talked with many fundamentalists about their literal interpretation of scripture, and I may not have convinced many, but I have been able to get virtually all of them to actually listen to me. I can tell because their points are actually in response to my points, they agree with some of what I say and differ with other parts in a manner that indicates that they actually are thinking about our differences. I can also tell because they are warm to me afterwards, and willingly ask my opinion on other aspects of Scripture. Part of it is, of course, that I am a Christian, though clearly a non-fundamentalist one. The other part is that I actually listen to them and try to understand their viewpoint. That's critical to evangelismwhich is what I see myself doing with fundamentalists. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
The environmental groups are going to go after Palin hard. She has supported drilling in sensitive wildlife areas and she allowed (even sanctioned) the use of airplanes to slaughter wolves in Alaska last year. See this, which came out yesterday from Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.defendersactionfund.org/http://www.defendersactionfund.org/ Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 11:47 AM Subject: Sarah Palin William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Sarah Palin
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olin Elliott Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:12 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Sarah Palin The environmental groups are going to go after Palin hard. She has supported drilling in sensitive wildlife areas and she allowed (even sanctioned) the use of airplanes to slaughter wolves in Alaska last year. See this, which came out yesterday from Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.defendersactionfund.org/http://www.defendersactionfund.org/ With all due respect, so what? Most people prefer drilling everywhere over $4.00 gasoline. And, the Republicans are winning that argument...the polls show a massive preference now to drill to bring down the prices. Her main risk for McCain is that she's very inexperienced on the national stage. She may say something that makes her look like one of the not ready for prime time players. No matter what one thinks about Obama, he's been around the rough and tumble of Chicago for years and has won against the Clinton machine. His speech last Thursday got plaudits from Romney's former advisor and he looks like the most ready Democrat to fight since Bill. He will make more mistakes, as will McCainbut Palin may make a laughingstock of herself. I am very interested in talking with my mother-in-law about this. She was one of the older women who thought there was sexist coverage favoring Obama. My guess is she'll laugh off Palin's pick as weak. Palin is a Hail Mary pass for the Republicans. Most don't work. But, every once in a while, to use another analogy, one wins the big pot by drawing to an inside straight. So, we'll have to stay tuned. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Jon wrote: What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Ah, been watching Real Time eh? Doug Gnu Rulz Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Jon Louis Mann wrote: When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. Even if you don't give a fuck about people with Down Syndrome, remember that, not long ago, someone else started doing the same thing, and he-who-should-not-be-mentioned-in-mailing-lists began the pogrom by mass-murdering those with mental handicaps. Exclusion is usually irreversible, when you started excluding people from Humanity the final outcome is that only _one_ group remains. I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? This is nonsense. There's no way (at least for euploid adults) to make the chance of having a Down Syndrome baby more than a ridiculously small value. Even for very old women the rate is still less than 5%. By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. So, you think that someone does the _right_ thing, it's only because it benefits the political career? In other words, if I am in a position, say, to accept a bribe, and I don't accept, I only do it because it will benefit me? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honest terminology
Jon Louis Mann wrote: Just think of how many children's' lives in Africa could be saved with the resources used to support the world's first surviving set of septuplets, born in Des Moines, Iowa to Kenny and Bobbi McCaughey. (...) So you believe that the logic of capitalism should be used to decide on who lives or who dies? For example, think how many children's lives in Africa could be saved if we took all those infected with HIV, gassed them, burned their bodies (in an anthropothermic power plant - let's now waste biofuel!) and saved the money they bleed from HIV researches and treatment? Add those old people with cancer - why do those selfish bastards want to live a few more years? atheism is evil, why it should be eradicated Maru Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Dan M wrote: With all due respect, so what? Most people prefer drilling everywhere over $4.00 gasoline. And, the Republicans are winning that argument...the polls show a massive preference now to drill to bring down the prices. Right now, this is one of the two arguments I (internally) would justify voting for Obama (if I could cast my vote, 10.000 km away...). Less drilling means less oil supply, means higher oil prices, means more money in _my_ pocket :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
cryonics
At 12:00 PM 8/30/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: snip (re Pascal's Wager) I'm placing my bet on cryonics... That's interesting. I didn't know there were any others of us freezer folks on this list. Keith ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 23:48, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Jon Louis Mann wrote: When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. That doesn't follow at all. That's the kind of illogical argument religionists make, like if we allow gay marriage they'll be marrying donkeys next!. By this line of reasoning Ashkenazi Jews are trying to commit genocide on themselves by practising genetic screening for inherited diseases! Even if you don't give a fuck about people with Down Syndrome, remember that, not long ago, someone else started doing the same thing, and he-who-should-not-be-mentioned-in-mailing-lists began the pogrom by mass-murdering those with mental handicaps. I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose the argument. Exclusion is usually irreversible, when you started excluding people from Humanity the final outcome is that only _one_ group remains. Abortion and contraception are not excluding people from humanity. I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? This is nonsense. There's no way (at least for euploid adults) to make the chance of having a Down Syndrome baby more than a ridiculously small value. Even for very old women the rate is still less than 5%. By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. So, you think that someone does the _right_ thing, it's only because it benefits the political career? In other words, if I am in a position, say, to accept a bribe, and I don't accept, I only do it because it will benefit me? If it makes you feel good about your probity that's a benefit :-) Simple Pleasures Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honest terminology
On 30 Aug 2008, at 23:53, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Jon Louis Mann wrote: Just think of how many children's' lives in Africa could be saved with the resources used to support the world's first surviving set of septuplets, born in Des Moines, Iowa to Kenny and Bobbi McCaughey. (...) So you believe that the logic of capitalism should be used to decide on who lives or who dies? For example, think how many children's lives in Africa could be saved if we took all those infected with HIV, gassed them, burned their bodies (in an anthropothermic power plant - let's now waste biofuel!) and saved the money they bleed from HIV researches and treatment? Add those old people with cancer - why do those selfish bastards want to live a few more years? atheism is evil, why it should be eradicated Maru Capitalism. That's what you started with and then you changed the subject for no reason. And as you know very well atheism isn't an ethical system and has nothing to say about right/wrong good/bad. It just says superstitious religion is false. It's a separate ethical matter that false is evil. Naughty Troll -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Social science was Comparative Religion
At 12:00 PM 8/30/2008, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I took an anthropology class in college; I believe it was called Comparative Religion. I consider it social science, rather than real science. Jon Aw, c'mon. Social sciences are real science, just messier. I expect they will become real science, but at the moment they are this disconnected blob floating out there. Real sciences like physics, chemistry and biology merge a the edges into a seamless whole of science. Can't say that about social science yet. EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION Can evolution really explain how humans think and behave? A prolific new breed of thinkers has taken centre stage in this debate, championing the attempt to understand our mental faculties in the light of evolutionary processes. Christopher Badcock told Fathom that the insights that the social sciences once had into human behaviour are now defunct. He argues that the burgeoning discipline of evolutionary psychology, with its potentially unique combination of genetics, neuroscience, psychology and other disciplines, is the only realistic path to take toward understanding human nature. Introducing Evolutionary Psychology From: London School of Economics and Political Science | By: Christopher Badcock http://www.fathom.com/feature/35533/index.html Keith ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: vaccines and autism
On 31/08/2008, at 5:30 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
The reason to give shots early is that's when the
immune system is
doing its major formational work, learning as
much as it can as fast
as it can. Vaccination is more likely to be effective for
different
diseases at different times.
Charlie.
as long as they are not all given at the same time, when there is a
possibility of an interaction that could cause autism...
Is there such a possibility? There doesn't seem to be *any* evidence
for this.
is there any kind of formula which vaccines are more likely to be
effective for different diseases at different times?
Formula? Probably not. But medics do, you know, think about that sort
of stuff. My knowledge of vaccines from my degree is purely on the
theory side and at first/second year undergrad level. So I understand
how they work in principle; I understand the specifics for influenza,
polio and smallpox ('cause they're the classic case studies) but the
practical side I don't know as much about. What I do know is this:
that there are people as smart or smarter than I am who *DO* know the
practical side and have done the hard yards over the couple of hundred
years since Pasteur, and I trust the process to get it right more than
it gets it wrong.
Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
On 31/08/2008, at 8:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. There is no atheist-based ideology, and what you've written here is frankly offensive crap. Atheism means one thing and one thing only - that I don't believe in god. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus either, and there's no aSantaist ideology. Morals and ethics may have much grounding in religion, but they're not exclusively the preserve of religion (why else are the least religious western democracies the safest, healthiest and best educated?). What you've done here is confused atheist with arsehole. As to the second part: there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Framing the very hard choice to terminate a Down's pregnancy detected during the first trimester of pregnancy as equivalent to hunting and gassing people with Down's is sickening. It's not the same thing, neither is it a slippery slope. If you're trolling back at Will, please stop it. One like him on this list is enough. If you're genuinely making this comparison and skirting Godwin in the process, then please take another look at what you've written and how dangerous it is to equate atheism with Lysenkoism and Nazism. The non-religious are one of the last outgroups, and are increasingly overtly discriminated against, and framing things the way you have is actually a step in the direction you're warning against. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Teaching multiple models of science
Dan M wrote: Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. I'm not sure if teaching both sides cannot be done in a course that teaches science. It requires, though, a course on science itself, not on any particular science. But, that's not a bad thing. In the US, we have bio, chem, physics, and general science or earth science as the options for 4 years of science. A one year course on how science works, drawing from simple examples in biology, physics, cosmology, etc...including discussions of how theories are actually developed, changed, etc. would be worthwhile. The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it does not meet the minimum standard for scientific theory. A scientific theory needs to make testable, falsifiable claims, and has to pass when the test is done. That is absolutely fundamental, and I have never seen anything like that come from a creationist. They cannot distinguish between a theory and an hypothesis (what they call a theory is in fact an hypothesis), so I doubt they will ever get there. BTW, anyone remember the classic Franken and Davis skit from SNL about this? Al Franken plays a Pat Robertson type and Davis plays a Native American shaman-type. They start off in agreement about the importance of religion, and how awful those secular types are, and then get into a huge disagreement about which one is the deluded one and which has the true religion. BTW, Dan, you were at the convention as I recall. Any good stories? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking. . . is freedom. - Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social science was Comparative Religion
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:29 PM, hkhenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:00 PM 8/30/2008, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I took an anthropology class in college; I believe it was called Comparative Religion. I consider it social science, rather than real science. Jon Aw, c'mon. Social sciences are real science, just messier. I expect they will become real science, but at the moment they are this disconnected blob floating out there. I had to say that, since I spent most of my time analyzing social networks... and borrow a lot of mathematics from physics and other less-messy disciplines. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Dan M With all due respect, so what? Most people prefer drilling everywhere over $4.00 gasoline. And, the Republicans are winning that argument...the polls show a massive preference now to drill to bring down the prices. Honestly, what _short-term_ effect will drilling in Anwar and on our coasts have on prices? And isn't any long term effect in all probability going to be dwarfed by the increase in demand? IMO, the push to drill in sensitive areas has nothing to do with prices and everything to do with big oil making bigger money. Doug Intellectual Dishonesty Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
On 30/08/2008 Charlie Bell wrote: ...there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Since you mention Peter Singer, he makes an interesting point. The people who are most concerned about the life of a foetus, which has little if any sentience, are generally unconcerned about the life of other creatures with much greater degrees of sentience. Chimpanzees and gorillas are at least the intellectual equals of small children or seriously disabled humans, and yet somehow that counts for nothing in most people's moral equation. (A lot of people are sentimental about animals, but when push comes to shove, very few people really stand behind the idea that animals have rights). Koko the gorilla reputedly scores between 70 and 90 on human IQ tests (which puts her dangerously close to our President) and even if that is an exaggerated claim, she is obviously a sensitive creature, capable of loving and mourning for lost loved ones (including her pet cat and her long time mate). I had the opportunity to meet Washoe the Chimpanzee on a tour of the Chimpanzee Human Comm unication Institue before her death this past year, and looking into her face left me no doubt that she was a person, and one of great dignity and wisdom as well. Even Border Collies have been shown to have linguistic understanding equal to that of young children, and probably much more independent judgement. Without falling back on religion and mystical concepts souls I don't see how there is any rational definition of person that includes human beings and doesn't include a lot of non-human animals as well. And of course, all these defenses of human dignity by religious believers are pretty recent historically -- it wasn't all that long ago that the churches were finding ways to justify the extermination of native peoples and slavery by arguing about whether different groups of people had souls. Abraham Lincoln countered those kinds of arguments by noting, early in his career, that he wasn't sure if black were people were the intellectual equals of whites or not, but that it didn't have any effect on his view of slavery, because it was wrong and cruel either way. Jeremy Bentham put it like this: The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but rather, Can they suffer? When pro-life advocates start defending all life I'll take them seriously. Olin - Original Message - From: Charlie Bellmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Sarah Palin On 31/08/2008, at 8:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. There is no atheist-based ideology, and what you've written here is frankly offensive crap. Atheism means one thing and one thing only - that I don't believe in god. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus either, and there's no aSantaist ideology. Morals and ethics may have much grounding in religion, but they're not exclusively the preserve of religion (why else are the least religious western democracies the safest, healthiest and best educated?). What you've done here is confused atheist with arsehole. As to the second part: there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Framing the very hard choice to terminate a Down's pregnancy detected during the first trimester of pregnancy as equivalent to hunting and gassing people with Down's is sickening. It's not the same thing, neither is it a slippery slope. If you're trolling back at Will, please stop it. One like him on this list is enough. If you're genuinely making this comparison and skirting Godwin in the process, then please take another look at what you've written and how dangerous it is to equate atheism with Lysenkoism and Nazism. The non-religious are one of the last outgroups, and are increasingly overtly discriminated against, and framing things the way you have is actually a step in the direction you're warning against. Charlie. ___
