[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: snip The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Could you provide some documentation for your parenthetical, please? You are funny! It's in a book I read. Translation: No, I can't document it. You really are funny, I bought a book about the scientific evidence for astrology about 25 years ago because it had the tagline: You may be surpised. Thinking that I might have a bit of scientific proof to go with my beliefs I read and found that every study into the claims of astrology was inconclusive apart from the one about arians being slightly more likely to be doctors, or something my memory isn't perfect but then I've got the moon in sagitarius so what do you expect ;-) I suspect you're thinking of what's called the Mars Effect, but if so, it's that champion athletes more frequently have a strong Mars placement in their natal charts (based on statistical studies by Michael Gauquelin). A recent similar study found a correlation between strong *Saturn* placement and physicians. Aries has nothing to do with planetary activity. It's a sign of the Zodiac; and to refer to someone as an Aries means s/he was born when the sun was in Aries, which is true of 1/12th of the population. Sun-sign astrology is what you find in newspaper columns and is not taken seriously by real astrologers. The studies are certainly controversial, but the objections and the rebuttals to the objections are very complex, not the kind of thing you can brush off with has statistical fluke written all over it. Hee hee Translation: Ooopsie. Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. Dream on Jude. Also, I've read more crap on wikipedia than I could recount on a long afternoon. This is the trouble with the internet it's all so impatient and nothing is ever more than a page long in case someones attention wanders off. This Wikipedia article happens to be about eight pages long, but even so it's just an outline of the complexity of the Mars Effect controversy, about which I've read a great deal elsewhere. The only reason I consulted the Wikipedia article was to see if it mentioned an Aries/physicians study that had been done recently; Wikipedia articles do tend to be updated frequently. It didn't mention any such study, which leads me to believe what you had in mind was the 2005 study correlating physicians with Saturn, which you somehow managed to turn into Aries, among your other errors. I'm very dubious about the validity of astrology, but I find it appalling that those who consider themselves scientifically inclined dismiss it scornfully without knowing anything at all about it. Who are you talking about though? Not me surely, I actually know how to draw up horoscopes. Sorry, but nobody who knows anything about astrology would confuse being born in Aries with planetary activity or make the mistake of thinking a person's sun sign would be statistically correlated with their profession. You crack me up. I've also met many vedic mugs who believe it and regail me with fascinating stories all about how the movement of mungle against an arbitrary background of stars that aren't really constellations affects their bosses attitude towards them and gormless squitter like that. I'm a classic case of someone who thought the sun went round the earth and learnt the error the hard way. In fact the best way as really knowing a subject and disproving it yourself is true knowledge, I think. Like I say, better bone up on the basics of astrology before you make any claims to true knowledge about it. If there's something more to know than how to draw up a chart and how the planets are supposed to affect people I've not heard of it, but I'm all ears.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip However, the next question is: will McCain be elected as president? I don't have McCain's chart so I can't ascertain how strong his chart is at this time. This guy thinks so: http://www.horoscoper.net/horoscopes/johnmccain.htm It's a fairly detailed chart interpretation (Western astrology, not jyotish, but maybe you can make something of the actual chart).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip However, the next question is: will McCain be elected as president? I don't have McCain's chart so I can't ascertain how strong his chart is at this time. This guy thinks so: http://www.horoscoper.net/horoscopes/johnmccain.htm It's a fairly detailed chart interpretation (Western astrology, not jyotish, but maybe you can make something of the actual chart). So are you going to leave the country if McCain gets elected? I probably will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip However, the next question is: will McCain be elected as president? I don't have McCain's chart so I can't ascertain how strong his chart is at this time. This guy thinks so: http://www.horoscoper.net/horoscopes/johnmccain.htm It's a fairly detailed chart interpretation (Western astrology, not jyotish, but maybe you can make something of the actual chart). Robert Hand's short sample forecast from the German astro.com -site: Send page Introduction Your inward needs Jupiter conjunction IC: End of February 2008 until beginning of November 2008: On the lookout Jupiter square Ascendant: Beginning of March 2008 until mid November 2008: A conflict of principles Uranus conjunction Saturn: Mid March 2008 until mid February 2009: Involuntary detachment Saturn conjunction Neptune: End of September 2008 until beginning of July 2009: A material peak Saturn opposition Saturn: Beginning of November 2008 until mid August 2009: Emotionally secure Jupiter conjunction Moon: 19 December 2008 until 28 December 2008: The Data Page Introduction This report is a short edition of the Forecast Horoscope. It is meant as a sample and advertisement for the full version of the Forecast Horoscope which can be ordered from Astrodienst as a bound report of about 15 - 20 pages. Ordering Information Yearly Horoscope Analysis Your personal forecast for the next 12 months, by Liz Greene. EUR 46.95, US$ 54.95 Order it now Transits of the Year Forecast for 12 months based on your transits, by Robert Hand. EUR 43.95, US$ 51.95 Order it now Forecast Horoscope The inexpensive 12-month forecast. EUR 19.95, US$ 22.95 Order it now In the short edition, only a few, but nevertheless important transits over your natal chart are considered. It is likely however that some important transits of this six month period have been omitted in this abbreviated report. If you are interested in the full pattern of relevant themes, please order the full version of this report. Your best choice of report will be Liz Greene's Yearly Horoscope Analysis or Robert Hand's Transits of the Year. These reports will select the really relevant themes of a 12-month period for you, and deal with them in depth and style. The report was generated for 6 months starting from August 2008 with the following birth data: male, born on 29 August 1936 at 9:00 am in Cocosolo, Panama. Your sun sign is Virgo. This is the sign in which the Sun is in your birth chart. Your Ascendant is in Libra, and your Moon is in Capricorn. Jupiter conjunction IC: Your inward needs End of February 2008 until beginning of November 2008: This is a time for expansion and growth in your innermost personal life, a time when you will seek security at home and with your immediate family. It may be necessary to reexamine your past life to find out what it can teach you about yourself. But this should not be a source of anxiety. In fact, you should feel quite good about what you learn at this time. The symbolism of this influence is that you incorporate more and more of the outer world into your innermost life. On the material level, you may buy a larger, more elegant or more spacious home. Certainly it would be a good expression of this symbolism to improve your existing home and make it more comfortable. At this time you should do everything to ensure that your personal life is as comfortable and secure as possible. You need to have a feeling of inner peace and security in order to continue to move out in the world. In fact you should not think so much about outward success now as about the more personal and inward needs that we have discussed here. And you should realize that your real need now is not land or a larger home, but a feeling of strength and inner growth. This is the time to tie up any loose ends in your personal life, straighten out any relationships that are not working well, any leftovers from your past life that are still affecting the present adversely. To do this you may have to speak to others very openly about yourself and your innermost thoughts. So this is a good time to settle and put down roots. The feeling of belonging to a place and a group of people is very important to you now. You don't have to do this in a way that limits your freedom of movement, and during this time it is very unlikely that you will do so. But everyone needs a solid home base so that they can feel at peace in their other activities. If you don't make an effort to construct such a base now, you will have difficulty later when your principal concerns are turning elsewhere. Jupiter square Ascendant: On the lookout Beginning of March 2008 until mid November 2008: This is usually an excellent time for most kinds of relationships, but there are some pitfalls. Basically this influence signifies a desire to grow
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip However, the next question is: will McCain be elected as president? I don't have McCain's chart so I can't ascertain how strong his chart is at this time. This guy thinks so: http://www.horoscoper.net/horoscopes/johnmccain.htm It's a fairly detailed chart interpretation (Western astrology, not jyotish, but maybe you can make something of the actual chart). Judy, In jyotish, McCain was born as a Virgo ascendant, given the birth data mentioned in the website. From the few historical details that I know about McCain, the chart appears correct. Specifically, he has several planets in the 12th house, including the Sun, which account for the fact that he gained notoriety for being a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. Mars is weak (technically called neechabhanga) in the 11th house. This position contributed to his loss of courage, by his own admission, due to the interrogation tactics of the enemy while in prison. Essentially, he broke down to save his own life. Jupiter is weak in the third house, technically called marana karaka sthana. Jupiter is the lord of the 7th house or spouse. Thus, his first marriage ended in a divorce. From the surface, Mercury the lord of the 10th house or career appears strong as it is exalted in the first house in the rashi chart or the primary horoscope. However, the same Mercury is weak or debilitated in the navamsha chart, a subsidiary horoscope derived from the primary one. In other words, his Mercury appears formidable from the outside. But it has an inherent weakness when scrutinized more carefully. During the election in November, he will be running the major period of Saturn/Jupiter/Mars. Saturn is strong being in its own zodiac in the 6th house, the field of battle and struggle. However, the subperiods of Jupiter and Mars are weak due to the attributes mentioned above. Thus, McCain will LOSE the election essentially due to losing courage in the heat of election battle. If you or other members have any other questions relating to this analysis, please post them. JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip During the election in November, he will be running the major period of Saturn/Jupiter/Mars. Saturn is strong being in its own zodiac in the 6th house, the field of battle and struggle. However, the subperiods of Jupiter and Mars are weak due to the attributes mentioned above. Thus, McCain will LOSE the election essentially due to losing courage in the heat of election battle. Interesting, John, thanks. When does this major period of Saturn/Jupiter/Mars effectively begin, in terms of having a strong influence? Because unless there's some last-minute major crisis requiring him to exercise courage, by the beginning of November who's going to win will pretty much have been decided (even if we don't yet know who it will be).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip During the election in November, he will be running the major period of Saturn/Jupiter/Mars. Saturn is strong being in its own zodiac in the 6th house, the field of battle and struggle. However, the subperiods of Jupiter and Mars are weak due to the attributes mentioned above. Thus, McCain will LOSE the election essentially due to losing courage in the heat of election battle. Interesting, John, thanks. When does this major period of Saturn/Jupiter/Mars effectively begin, in terms of having a strong influence? Because unless there's some last-minute major crisis requiring him to exercise courage, by the beginning of November who's going to win will pretty much have been decided (even if we don't yet know who it will be). The period in question will start in October 20, 2008. It appears that some of his political friends will abandon their support for his campaign. Specifically, some his military comrades may reveal the reasons why McCain is not suited for the office he is seeking. In using another projection module, the Chara dasha shows that he is running the major period of Cancer/Leo/Capricorn starting on October 28, 2008. Specifically, Cancer is weak due to the presence of a debilitated Mars. Leo is inherently not suited for career matter as it relates to the 12th house the field of moksha or renunciation. Also, Leo has several planets in them, including the Sun. Further, Capricorn contains the Moon which reiforces the signification of Cancer. Once again, the Chara dasha indicates that McCain will lose support from his own friends, or Republican base. He may be perceived as weak and desperate in his efforts to win votes. Therefore, he will LOSE the election. JR
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Peter wrote: Avoiding the point Shemp. What intelligent, educated person today actually believes that intelligent design or creationism is actually a science? As soon as you introduce a metaphysical construct you ain't in science anymore, son. Thousands of TMers. MUM students. Purusha. Mother Divine. Students at MMY facilities in India. The self-interacting intelligence of AGNI is what it's all about!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. It raises an interesting point: If students come into class with dogmatic views -- which are challenged by science -- to what extent should debate and discussion be allowed in the classroom to help such students resolve the inner conflict? This group, has served for some time, as an avenue for many to resolve dogmatic beliefs absorbed in their youths -- with more grounded and larger views. For example if a previously home schooled, fundamentalist-raised kid enters high school and is exposed to evolution, the tension and frustration in resolving these inner and outer new views may make them almost explode inside. Some sort of structured discussion to help kids resolve the opposing views fighting inside their heads I would think is healthy. Those opposed to Creationism in science classes often say that such should (be relegated to being) be taught in sociology or philosophy courses. A reasonable view. However, linking classes, creating more interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge is healthy -- even profound -- in my view. I have seen, experienced some, approaches that study topics -- say the renaissance - by INTERLINKING and discussing the science of the time -- along with the philosophy, art, music, literature, politics, history, sociology, economics, etc of the era. Integrating it. Exploring the overlap, links, conflicts, synergies, etc of the renaissance. In contrast, I have seen, and more experienced, taking separate classes in eahc and having to work out all of the context and interrelationships myself. I find the fomer appraoch far more profound, insightful, efficient and fulfilling.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 9:02 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. It raises an interesting point: If students come into class with dogmatic views -- which are challenged by science -- to what extent should debate and discussion be allowed in the classroom to help such students resolve the inner conflict? This group, has served for some time, as an avenue for many to resolve dogmatic beliefs absorbed in their youths -- with more grounded and larger views. For example if a previously home schooled, fundamentalist-raised kid enters high school and is exposed to evolution, the tension and frustration in resolving these inner and outer new views may make them almost explode inside. Some sort of structured discussion to help kids resolve the opposing views fighting inside their heads I would think is healthy. Those opposed to Creationism in science classes often say that such should (be relegated to being) be taught in sociology or philosophy courses. A reasonable view. However, linking classes, creating more interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge is healthy -- even profound -- in my view. I have seen, experienced some, approaches that study topics -- say the renaissance - by INTERLINKING and discussing the science of the time -- along with the philosophy, art, music, literature, politics, history, sociology, economics, etc of the era. Integrating it. Exploring the overlap, links, conflicts, synergies, etc of the renaissance. In contrast, I have seen, and more experienced, taking separate classes in eahc and having to work out all of the context and interrelationships myself. I find the fomer appraoch far more profound, insightful, efficient and fulfilling. Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But I also add that many concerns held dear by humans are metaphysical and should not be dismissed or denigrated. My main concern is that they understand the distinction between science and metaphysics. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 8:19 AM On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Peter wrote: Avoiding the point Shemp. What intelligent, educated person today actually believes that intelligent design or creationism is actually a science? As soon as you introduce a metaphysical construct you ain't in science anymore, son. Thousands of TMers. MUM students. Purusha. Mother Divine. Students at MMY facilities in India. The self-interacting intelligence of AGNI is what it's all about! As long as they can make the distinction between science and philosophy, we be cool, but I doubt most of them can! To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But do you make the point that the theor(ies) of reality on which science is based is (are) fundamentally metaphysical?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 9:02 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. It raises an interesting point: If students come into class with dogmatic views -- which are challenged by science -- to what extent should debate and discussion be allowed in the classroom to help such students resolve the inner conflict? This group, has served for some time, as an avenue for many to resolve dogmatic beliefs absorbed in their youths -- with more grounded and larger views. For example if a previously home schooled, fundamentalist-raised kid enters high school and is exposed to evolution, the tension and frustration in resolving these inner and outer new views may make them almost explode inside. Some sort of structured discussion to help kids resolve the opposing views fighting inside their heads I would think is healthy. Those opposed to Creationism in science classes often say that such should (be relegated to being) be taught in sociology or philosophy courses. A reasonable view. However, linking classes, creating more interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge is healthy -- even profound -- in my view. I have seen, experienced some, approaches that study topics -- say the renaissance - by INTERLINKING and discussing the science of the time -- along with the philosophy, art, music, literature, politics, history, sociology, economics, etc of the era. Integrating it. Exploring the overlap, links, conflicts, synergies, etc of the renaissance. In contrast, I have seen, and more experienced, taking separate classes in eahc and having to work out all of the context and interrelationships myself. I find the fomer appraoch far more profound, insightful, efficient and fulfilling. Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But I also add that many concerns held dear by humans are metaphysical and should not be dismissed or denigrated. My main concern is that they understand the distinction between science and metaphysics. For show-and-tell, you should bring in Barry Wright and have him explain to the class how he had seen his cult-guru, Rama Lenz Kool- Aid, levitate on dozens of occasions. However, I don't know which class would be more appropriate for that: Metaphyics 101 or Brainwashed 101. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exploring the overlap, links, conflicts, synergies, etc of the renaissance. In contrast, I have seen, and more experienced, taking separate classes in eahc and having to work out all of the context and interrelationships myself. I find the fomer appraoch far more profound, insightful, efficient and fulfilling. Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But I also add that many concerns held dear by humans are metaphysical and should not be dismissed or denigrated. My main concern is that they understand the distinction between science and metaphysics. And that understanding is critical. (An unintended pun of sorts -- it is, cultivates, critical thinking skills) Interesting to me is how many of us, well, me, got duped into thinking that a particular ontology was scientific because it was simply called science --and a lot of scientists (who abandoned critical thinking) promoted -- and talked ad naseum -- and threw around lots of science as analogies -- which we blurred into inner fact -- about how metaphysical themes WERE scientific. That in the context that so many, the vast majority I think, of our beliefs are metaphysically inclined. But we often approach them i a loosely scientific way. we maintain it as long as it works -- as long as it adds what appears to us as)explanatory power -- and helps predict the outcome of events. When a particular metaphysical view gets too beat up by reality, we refine it, abandon it, perhaps later demonize it, or ourselves. (Boy was I dumb) I would suggest, as a point to explore and debate, is that most of us are quite unscientific in our beliefs, know little about scientific and statistical reasoning, and delude ourselves into thinking we are modern rational, scientifically-inclined beings - when if fact we are as swayed by our metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, as medieval serfs and back-water unglobalized villagers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exploring the overlap, links, conflicts, synergies, etc of the renaissance. In contrast, I have seen, and more experienced, taking separate classes in eahc and having to work out all of the context and interrelationships myself. I find the fomer appraoch far more profound, insightful, efficient and fulfilling. Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But I also add that many concerns held dear by humans are metaphysical and should not be dismissed or denigrated. My main concern is that they understand the distinction between science and metaphysics. And that understanding is critical. (An unintended pun of sorts -- it is, cultivates, critical thinking skills) Interesting to me is how many of us, well, me, got duped into thinking that a particular ontology was scientific because it was simply called science --and a lot of scientists (who abandoned critical thinking) promoted -- and talked ad naseum -- and threw around lots of science as analogies -- which we blurred into inner fact -- about how metaphysical themes WERE scientific. ...then you should really feel sorry for me. I've been rolling my eyes upward at the silly scientific analogies for the past 35 years AND I AM STILL A TMer! It would have been much, much easier to take if I had just quit TM. It's much harder to take when, like me, you do the actual TM Program and have to put up with the nonsense. Was TM scientific? Yes. Were the charts and research great things? Yes, initially, before they started to paint the binders gold and before they started to edit others' work in-house. Is pure consiousness the field of all possibilities and the unified field? Probably, but not on the level of analogy or the way the TMO proposed it, which was basically to replace the word God with the words absolute and being and consciousness. But why would you fall for this crap back in the '70s? I didn't. Of course, I was shunned for it but I didn't fall for it...and I'm still meditating today. And I'm still being shunned today. Why? Because I'm not being sucked into and falling for the new generation of TMO bullshit (Maharishi Vedic peanut butter, east-facing doors, yagyas, tinfoil hats, NLP, etc...you've heard my rant on this a dozen times). It's very lonely being one of the only practitioners of the TM Program in the TM Movement. That in the context that so many, the vast majority I think, of our beliefs are metaphysically inclined. But we often approach them i a loosely scientific way. we maintain it as long as it works -- as long as it adds what appears to us as)explanatory power -- and helps predict the outcome of events. When a particular metaphysical view gets too beat up by reality, we refine it, abandon it, perhaps later demonize it, or ourselves. (Boy was I dumb) I would suggest, as a point to explore and debate, is that most of us are quite unscientific in our beliefs, know little about scientific and statistical reasoning, and delude ourselves into thinking we are modern rational, scientifically-inclined beings - when if fact we are as swayed by our metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, as medieval serfs and back-water unglobalized villagers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For show-and-tell, you should bring in Barry Wright and have him explain to the class how he had seen his cult-guru, Rama Lenz Kool- Aid, levitate on dozens of occasions. However, I don't know which class would be more appropriate for that: Metaphyics 101 or Brainwashed 101. According to Palin, biology and physics classes should teach it because she believes all points are view should be taught. BTW, the librarian in palin's town doesn't care much for her because as mayor palin wanted to prohibit certain books in the library, though the librarian apparently told her to bug off. So actually Palin doesn't think all pts of view should be considered, which is exactly how most religious fundamentalist think when you come down to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...then you should really feel sorry for me. I've been rolling my eyes upward at the silly scientific analogies for the past 35 years AND I AM STILL A TMer! It would have been much, much easier to take if I had just quit TM. It's much harder to take when, like me, you do the actual TM Program and have to put up with the nonsense. Was TM scientific? Yes. Were the charts and research great things? Yes, initially, before they started to paint the binders gold and before they started to edit others' work in-house. Is pure consiousness the field of all possibilities and the unified field? Probably, but not on the level of analogy or the way the TMO proposed it, which was basically to replace the word God with the words absolute and being and consciousness. But why would you fall for this crap back in the '70s? I didn't. Of course, I was shunned for it but I didn't fall for it...and I'm still meditating today. And I'm still being shunned today. Why? Because I'm not being sucked into and falling for the new generation of TMO bullshit (Maharishi Vedic peanut butter, east-facing doors, yagyas, tinfoil hats, NLP, etc...you've heard my rant on this a dozen times). It's very lonely being one of the only practitioners of the TM Program in the TM Movement. Shemp, if you go to a TM-place somewhere to do programme, do you think they will shun you because of your thoughts on tinfoil-hats etcetc ? No. Unless ofcourse you speek out your contempt at every possible occasion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip BTW, the librarian in palin's town doesn't care much for her because as mayor palin wanted to prohibit certain books in the library, though the librarian apparently told her to bug off. So actually Palin doesn't think all pts of view should be considered, which is exactly how most religious fundamentalist think when you come down to it. FWIW, Palin says it was a rhetorical question in the course of a theoretical discussion, not something she intended to implement. I don't know whether that's true, but it's easy to see how such a rhetorical question could be misconstrued, inadvertently or otherwise.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
Shemp, you would be much better off if you had taken the sidhis and then moved onto something more evolutionary, like some here have. Remember, you're doing the technique that even the guru himself said could take millions of years to bring enlightenment if one did not do lots of rounding courses. ...but mountain doesn't move! --- On Sat, 8/30/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 11:41 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...then you should really feel sorry for me. I've been rolling my eyes upward at the silly scientific analogies for the past 35 years AND I AM STILL A TMer! It would have been much, much easier to take if I had just quit TM. It's much harder to take when, like me, you do the actual TM Program and have to put up with the nonsense. Was TM scientific? Yes. Were the charts and research great things? Yes, initially, before they started to paint the binders gold and before they started to edit others' work in-house. Is pure consiousness the field of all possibilities and the unified field? Probably, but not on the level of analogy or the way the TMO proposed it, which was basically to replace the word God with the words absolute and being and consciousness. But why would you fall for this crap back in the '70s? I didn't. Of course, I was shunned for it but I didn't fall for it...and I'm still meditating today. And I'm still being shunned today. Why? Because I'm not being sucked into and falling for the new generation of TMO bullshit (Maharishi Vedic peanut butter, east-facing doors, yagyas, tinfoil hats, NLP, etc...you've heard my rant on this a dozen times). It's very lonely being one of the only practitioners of the TM Program in the TM Movement. Shemp, if you go to a TM-place somewhere to do programme, do you think they will shun you because of your thoughts on tinfoil-hats etcetc ? No. Unless ofcourse you speek out your contempt at every possible occasion. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:44 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: ...then you should really feel sorry for me. I've been rolling my eyes upward at the silly scientific analogies for the past 35 years AND I AM STILL A TMer! It would have been much, much easier to take if I had just quit TM. It's much harder to take when, like me, you do the actual TM Program and have to put up with the nonsense. Was TM scientific? Yes. Were the charts and research great things? Yes, initially, before they started to paint the binders gold and before they started to edit others' work in-house. Is pure consiousness the field of all possibilities and the unified field? Probably, but not on the level of analogy or the way the TMO proposed it, which was basically to replace the word God with the words absolute and being and consciousness. But why would you fall for this crap back in the '70s? I didn't. Of course, I was shunned for it but I didn't fall for it...and I'm still meditating today. And I'm still being shunned today. Why? Because I'm not being sucked into and falling for the new generation of TMO bullshit (Maharishi Vedic peanut butter, east-facing doors, yagyas, tinfoil hats, NLP, etc...you've heard my rant on this a dozen times). It's very lonely being one of the only practitioners of the TM Program in the TM Movement. I can see why. You're one of the few who maintained some balanced sense of objectivity and didn't cave to cult-like thinking.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Peter wrote: As long as they can make the distinction between science and philosophy, we be cool, but I doubt most of them can! Precisely the problem. The sad thing is they pimped out legitimate fields of science to do it, like quantum physics for example, and that's what's so intoxicatingly seductive to 'geeks like us'--and at the same time dangerous--about the TM mythos. If you do wed it to real physical sciences like physics, you can get people to believe that it's actually true. Dem der Vedic rishis were actually proto-quantum physicists of the unified field of all knowledge, that's what I learned in college!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:44 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: It's very lonely being one of the only practitioners of the TM Program in the TM Movement. If in 40 years you are still experiencing an isolated, lonely ground of existence, Perhaps you have not been practicing correctly. Need checking. Call Nabs.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
I would suggest, as a point to explore and debate, is that most of us are quite unscientific in our beliefs, know little about scientific and statistical reasoning, and delude ourselves into thinking we are modern rational, scientifically-inclined beings - when if fact we are as swayed by our metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, as medieval serfs and back-water unglobalized villagers. With most scientists, the current status quo of what is scientifically accepted is too often their version of following a specific set of beliefs in place of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning. For instance, if you were to approach the average conventional scientist and say something such as astrology is all true, the reply will almost always be an immediate dismissal and scoffing at you, telling you there is no empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to prove it, whereas, if they had a scientific mind, the gears would be spinning inside and they would be asking could this be true, what have you discovered, how can I investigate. ...but mountain doesn't move! --- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 10:34 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exploring the overlap, links, conflicts, synergies, etc of the renaissance. In contrast, I have seen, and more experienced, taking separate classes in eahc and having to work out all of the context and interrelationships myself. I find the fomer appraoch far more profound, insightful, efficient and fulfilling. Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But I also add that many concerns held dear by humans are metaphysical and should not be dismissed or denigrated. My main concern is that they understand the distinction between science and metaphysics. And that understanding is critical. (An unintended pun of sorts -- it is, cultivates, critical thinking skills) Interesting to me is how many of us, well, me, got duped into thinking that a particular ontology was scientific because it was simply called science --and a lot of scientists (who abandoned critical thinking) promoted -- and talked ad naseum -- and threw around lots of science as analogies -- which we blurred into inner fact -- about how metaphysical themes WERE scientific. That in the context that so many, the vast majority I think, of our beliefs are metaphysically inclined. But we often approach them i a loosely scientific way. we maintain it as long as it works -- as long as it adds what appears to us as)explanatory power -- and helps predict the outcome of events. When a particular metaphysical view gets too beat up by reality, we refine it, abandon it, perhaps later demonize it, or ourselves. (Boy was I dumb) I would suggest, as a point to explore and debate, is that most of us are quite unscientific in our beliefs, know little about scientific and statistical reasoning, and delude ourselves into thinking we are modern rational, scientifically-inclined beings - when if fact we are as swayed by our metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, as medieval serfs and back-water unglobalized villagers. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:44 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: It's very lonely being one of the only practitioners of the TM Program in the TM Movement. If in 40 years you are still experiencing an isolated, lonely ground of existence, Perhaps you have not been practicing correctly. Need checking. Call Nabs. No, thanks. I'd rather continue improper practise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: snip Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But do you make the point that the theor(ies) of reality on which science is based is (are) fundamentally metaphysical? Judy, That's a heavy question and maybe loaded as well. The pat answer should be that science is based on observable facts, meaning that reasoning and logic are involved in analyzing the results of experiments. There should be no metaphysics involved in science. Metaphysics belongs in the realm of philosophy which concerns with ideas and meanings that have not been validated by science. However, given the progress of science these days, particularly in subatomic physics, the limits of measurable phenomena have been reached. There comes a point where scientists have concluded that matter cannot be measured anymore. Thus, they've reached reached the end of observable matter and the beginning of consciousness. Presently, some physicists are asking: what happened before the Big Bang? I don't believe they can answer this question in scientific terms. JR
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
On Aug 30, 2008, at 11:24 AM, new.morning wrote: On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:44 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: It's very lonely being one of the only practitioners of the TM Program in the TM Movement. If in 40 years you are still experiencing an isolated, lonely ground of existence, Perhaps you have not been practicing correctly. Need checking. Call Nabs. No, no , it's all part of the plan, new--something good is happening! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember, you're doing the technique that even the guru himself said could take millions of years to bring enlightenment if one did not do lots of rounding courses. Oh, He did ? Reference please ! Or would I be a (gullible) fool to expect such ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest, as a point to explore and debate, is that most of us are quite unscientific in our beliefs, know little about scientific and statistical reasoning, and delude ourselves into thinking we are modern rational, scientifically-inclined beings - when if fact we are as swayed by our metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, as medieval serfs and back-water unglobalized villagers. With most scientists, the current status quo of what is scientifically accepted is too often their version of following a specific set of beliefs in place of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning. For instance, if you were to approach the average conventional scientist and say something such as astrology is all true, the reply will almost always be an immediate dismissal and scoffing at you, telling you there is no empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to prove it, whereas, if they had a scientific mind, the gears would be spinning inside and they would be asking could this be true, what have you discovered, how can I investigate. Researchers can't runb down every possibility, Not enough time. If something has no empirical evidence, why chase after that when there are tons of areas that have promising preliminary results. If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them. The point of my post was not to say that I have a passion for astrology and would like to prove that it is valid - I am not a scientist by profession and have other things to do with my time - rather the post was to lament the lack of a scientific mindset among today's scientists. ...but mountain doesn't move! --- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 2:43 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest, as a point to explore and debate, is that most of us are quite unscientific in our beliefs, know little about scientific and statistical reasoning, and delude ourselves into thinking we are modern rational, scientifically-inclined beings - when if fact we are as swayed by our metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, as medieval serfs and back-water unglobalized villagers. With most scientists, the current status quo of what is scientifically accepted is too often their version of following a specific set of beliefs in place of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning. For instance, if you were to approach the average conventional scientist and say something such as astrology is all true, the reply will almost always be an immediate dismissal and scoffing at you, telling you there is no empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to prove it, whereas, if they had a scientific mind, the gears would be spinning inside and they would be asking could this be true, what have you discovered, how can I investigate. Researchers can't runb down every possibility, Not enough time. If something has no empirical evidence, why chase after that when there are tons of areas that have promising preliminary results. If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them. The point of my post was not to say that I have a passion for astrology and would like to prove that it is valid - I am not a scientist by profession and have other things to do with my time - rather the post was to lament the lack of a scientific mindset among today's scientists. My point was more general. Same principle applies. If the state of science, scientists and/or research is lamentable, then change it. Otherwise its not so important. ...but mountain doesn't move! --- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 2:43 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool fflmod@ wrote: I would suggest, as a point to explore and debate, is that most of us are quite unscientific in our beliefs, know little about scientific and statistical reasoning, and delude ourselves into thinking we are modern rational, scientifically-inclined beings - when if fact we are as swayed by our metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, as medieval serfs and back-water unglobalized villagers. With most scientists, the current status quo of what is scientifically accepted is too often their version of following a specific set of beliefs in place of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning. For instance, if you were to approach the average conventional scientist and say something such as astrology is all true, the reply will almost always be an immediate dismissal and scoffing at you, telling you there is no empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to prove it, whereas, if they had a scientific mind, the gears would be spinning inside and they would be asking could this be true, what have you discovered, how can I investigate. Researchers can't runb down every possibility, Not enough time. If something has no empirical evidence, why chase after that when there are tons of areas that have promising preliminary results. If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool fflmod@ wrote: I would suggest, as a point to explore and debate, is that most of us are quite unscientific in our beliefs, know little about scientific and statistical reasoning, and delude ourselves into thinking we are modern rational, scientifically-inclined beings - when if fact we are as swayed by our metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, as medieval serfs and back-water unglobalized villagers. With most scientists, the current status quo of what is scientifically accepted is too often their version of following a specific set of beliefs in place of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning. For instance, if you were to approach the average conventional scientist and say something such as astrology is all true, the reply will almost always be an immediate dismissal and scoffing at you, telling you there is no empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to prove it, whereas, if they had a scientific mind, the gears would be spinning inside and they would be asking could this be true, what have you discovered, how can I investigate. I think that if every scientist was to go back to the beginning it would defeat the object of the exercise of science, that is: having a body of referenced and checkable work to build on or dispute and refine. The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Researchers can't runb down every possibility, Not enough time. If something has no empirical evidence, why chase after that when there are tons of areas that have promising preliminary results. If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PALIN: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides. [...] The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons religious-based and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class. The question has divided local school boards in several places around the country and has come up in Alaska before, including once before the state Board of Education in 1993. The teaching of creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional injection of religion into public education. Last December, in a widely publicized local case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out a city school board's requirement that intelligent design be mentioned briefly in science classes. Intelligent design proposes that biological life is so complex that some kind of intelligence must have shaped it. In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism, Palin said. Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to. We're talking about the gas line and PERS/TERS, she said Thursday, referring to the proposed natural gas pipeline and public employee and teacher retirement systems. The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory. [...] Full article - The Anchorage Daily News: http://tinyurl.com/6gf5gk Great, just who you need in charge: Someone who doesn't know how to evaluate evidence. That'll come in handy with issues like stem cell research and global warming. How can you teach *both* creationism and evolution? One has tons of ONLY supporting evidence, in fact it's the most sussed and demonstrably proven theory man has about anything, and the other. Still, I suppose there are votes in it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: I think that if every scientist was to go back to the beginning it would defeat the object of the exercise of science, that is: having a body of referenced and checkable work to build on or dispute and refine. The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. We are in agreement here. However, many practices form ancient cultures are superstitions with no empirical support. At this time. Most have not been systematically disproven. I am open to new evidence. Not holding my breath, but with knowledge doubling every ___ months, in a few years we may be surprised at what we know then that we didn't know now. Researchers can't runb down every possibility, Not enough time. If something has no empirical evidence, why chase after that when there are tons of areas that have promising preliminary results. If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Great, just who you need in charge: Someone who doesn't know how to evaluate evidence. That'll come in handy with issues like stem cell research and global warming. How can you teach *both* creationism and evolution? One has tons of ONLY supporting evidence, in fact it's the most sussed and demonstrably proven theory man has about anything, and the other. Still, I suppose there are votes in it. Especially among the gun-toting, anti-choice, bible-spouting, moose-eating block withing the army of Hillary supporters. McCain's a strategic genius.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
I am open to new evidence. Not holding my breath, but with knowledge doubling every ___ months, in a few years we may be surprised at what we know then that we didn't know now. The scientific mind I was looking for. :) ...but mountain doesn't move! --- On Sat, 8/30/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 4:06 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: I think that if every scientist was to go back to the beginning it would defeat the object of the exercise of science, that is: having a body of referenced and checkable work to build on or dispute and refine. The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. We are in agreement here. However, many practices form ancient cultures are superstitions with no empirical support. At this time. Most have not been systematically disproven. I am open to new evidence. Not holding my breath, but with knowledge doubling every ___ months, in a few years we may be surprised at what we know then that we didn't know now. Researchers can't runb down every possibility, Not enough time. If something has no empirical evidence, why chase after that when there are tons of areas that have promising preliminary results. If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Could you provide some documentation for your parenthetical, please? I suspect you're thinking of what's called the Mars Effect, but if so, it's that champion athletes more frequently have a strong Mars placement in their natal charts (based on statistical studies by Michael Gauquelin). A recent similar study found a correlation between strong *Saturn* placement and physicians. Aries has nothing to do with planetary activity. It's a sign of the Zodiac; and to refer to someone as an Aries means s/he was born when the sun was in Aries, which is true of 1/12th of the population. Sun-sign astrology is what you find in newspaper columns and is not taken seriously by real astrologers. The studies are certainly controversial, but the objections and the rebuttals to the objections are very complex, not the kind of thing you can brush off with has statistical fluke written all over it. Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. I'm very dubious about the validity of astrology, but I find it appalling that those who consider themselves scientifically inclined dismiss it scornfully without knowing anything at all about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: snip The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Could you provide some documentation for your parenthetical, please? You are funny! It's in a book I read. I suspect you're thinking of what's called the Mars Effect, but if so, it's that champion athletes more frequently have a strong Mars placement in their natal charts (based on statistical studies by Michael Gauquelin). A recent similar study found a correlation between strong *Saturn* placement and physicians. Aries has nothing to do with planetary activity. It's a sign of the Zodiac; and to refer to someone as an Aries means s/he was born when the sun was in Aries, which is true of 1/12th of the population. Sun-sign astrology is what you find in newspaper columns and is not taken seriously by real astrologers. The studies are certainly controversial, but the objections and the rebuttals to the objections are very complex, not the kind of thing you can brush off with has statistical fluke written all over it. Hee hee Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. Dream on Jude. Also, I've read more crap on wikipedia than I could recount on a long afternoon. This is the trouble with the internet it's all so impatient and nothing is ever more than a page long in case someones attention wanders off. I'm very dubious about the validity of astrology, but I find it appalling that those who consider themselves scientifically inclined dismiss it scornfully without knowing anything at all about it. Who are you talking about though? Not me surely, I actually know how to draw up horoscopes. I've also met many vedic mugs who believe it and regail me with fascinating stories all about how the movement of mungle against an arbitrary background of stars that aren't really constellations affects their bosses attitude towards them and gormless squitter like that. I'm a classic case of someone who thought the sun went round the earth and learnt the error the hard way. In fact the best way as really knowing a subject and disproving it yourself is true knowledge, I think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: I think that if every scientist was to go back to the beginning it would defeat the object of the exercise of science, that is: having a body of referenced and checkable work to build on or dispute and refine. The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. We are in agreement here. However, many practices form ancient cultures are superstitions with no empirical support. At this time. Most have not been systematically disproven. I am open to new evidence. Not holding my breath, but with knowledge doubling every ___ months, in a few years we may be surprised at what we know then that we didn't know now. I'm always open too, but it's going to take a lot with astrology I think. Researchers can't runb down every possibility, Not enough time. If something has no empirical evidence, why chase after that when there are tons of areas that have promising preliminary results. If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its not very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers who are pursuing things that are important to them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: snip The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Could you provide some documentation for your parenthetical, please? You are funny! It's in a book I read. Translation: No, I can't document it. I suspect you're thinking of what's called the Mars Effect, but if so, it's that champion athletes more frequently have a strong Mars placement in their natal charts (based on statistical studies by Michael Gauquelin). A recent similar study found a correlation between strong *Saturn* placement and physicians. Aries has nothing to do with planetary activity. It's a sign of the Zodiac; and to refer to someone as an Aries means s/he was born when the sun was in Aries, which is true of 1/12th of the population. Sun-sign astrology is what you find in newspaper columns and is not taken seriously by real astrologers. The studies are certainly controversial, but the objections and the rebuttals to the objections are very complex, not the kind of thing you can brush off with has statistical fluke written all over it. Hee hee Translation: Ooopsie. Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. Dream on Jude. Also, I've read more crap on wikipedia than I could recount on a long afternoon. This is the trouble with the internet it's all so impatient and nothing is ever more than a page long in case someones attention wanders off. This Wikipedia article happens to be about eight pages long, but even so it's just an outline of the complexity of the Mars Effect controversy, about which I've read a great deal elsewhere. The only reason I consulted the Wikipedia article was to see if it mentioned an Aries/physicians study that had been done recently; Wikipedia articles do tend to be updated frequently. It didn't mention any such study, which leads me to believe what you had in mind was the 2005 study correlating physicians with Saturn, which you somehow managed to turn into Aries, among your other errors. I'm very dubious about the validity of astrology, but I find it appalling that those who consider themselves scientifically inclined dismiss it scornfully without knowing anything at all about it. Who are you talking about though? Not me surely, I actually know how to draw up horoscopes. Sorry, but nobody who knows anything about astrology would confuse being born in Aries with planetary activity or make the mistake of thinking a person's sun sign would be statistically correlated with their profession. I've also met many vedic mugs who believe it and regail me with fascinating stories all about how the movement of mungle against an arbitrary background of stars that aren't really constellations affects their bosses attitude towards them and gormless squitter like that. I'm a classic case of someone who thought the sun went round the earth and learnt the error the hard way. In fact the best way as really knowing a subject and disproving it yourself is true knowledge, I think. Like I say, better bone up on the basics of astrology before you make any claims to true knowledge about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. Dream on Jude. Also, I've read more crap on wikipedia than I could recount on a long afternoon. This is the trouble with the internet it's all so impatient and nothing is ever more than a page long in case someones attention wanders off. Just for fun, I predict that Barry will respond to Hugo's comments by echoing his misunderstanding and mocking me for purportedly getting all my information about astrology and the Mars Effect from Wikipedia.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
On Aug 30, 2008, at 4:20 PM, authfriend wrote: Like I say, better bone up on the basics of astrology before you make any claims to true knowledge about it. Judy, telling someone to bone up on a pseudp-science that has about as much credibility as a reading from the Magic 8-Ball would, makes as much sense as presenting research showing that aliens regularly come down and romp around in cornfields. Oh, wait a second... Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Could you provide some documentation for your parenthetical, please? I suspect you're thinking of what's called the Mars Effect, but if so, it's that champion athletes more frequently have a strong Mars placement in their natal charts (based on statistical studies by Michael Gauquelin). A recent similar study found a correlation between strong *Saturn* placement and physicians. Aries has nothing to do with planetary activity. It's a sign of the Zodiac; and to refer to someone as an Aries means s/he was born when the sun was in Aries, which is true of 1/12th of the population. Sun-sign astrology is what you find in newspaper columns and is not taken seriously by real astrologers. The studies are certainly controversial, but the objections and the rebuttals to the objections are very complex, not the kind of thing you can brush off with has statistical fluke written all over it. Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. I'm very dubious about the validity of astrology, but I find it appalling that those who consider themselves scientifically inclined dismiss it scornfully without knowing anything at all about it. I've worked with astrology quite a bit over the years and often like to test it to see if it holds up it's validity. One particular thing I've found is that people seldom stray outside of the careers indicated in their horoscope. They seem to magically be drawn to those careers. Plus I often find that if I look at the tradition method of naming children via nakshatra an amazing number of people have first names that match that system. And of course their parents knew nothing about astrology nor consulted an astrologer for a name.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 30, 2008, at 4:20 PM, authfriend wrote: Like I say, better bone up on the basics of astrology before you make any claims to true knowledge about it. Judy, telling someone to bone up on a pseudp-science that has about as much credibility as a reading from the Magic 8-Ball would, makes as much sense as presenting research showing that aliens regularly come down and romp around in cornfields. Mmm-hmm. Trouble is, Sal, nobody ever presented such research. Thanks for making my point for me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 1:22 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: snip Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But do you make the point that the theor(ies) of reality on which science is based is (are) fundamentally metaphysical? Judy, That's a heavy question and maybe loaded as well. The pat answer should be that science is based on observable facts, meaning that reasoning and logic are involved in analyzing the results of experiments. There should be no metaphysics involved in science. Metaphysics belongs in the realm of philosophy which concerns with ideas and meanings that have not been validated by science. However, given the progress of science these days, particularly in subatomic physics, the limits of measurable phenomena have been reached. There comes a point where scientists have concluded that matter cannot be measured anymore. Thus, they've reached reached the end of observable matter and the beginning of consciousness. Presently, some physicists are asking: what happened before the Big Bang? I don't believe they can answer this question in scientific terms. JR Nice response, John. I teach at a community college (aka, glorified high school) so the majority of the students don't even have a basic grasp of the difference between science and philosophy. That's pretty sad, but its the non-metaphysical truth! To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: snip Every semester in my classes I always use Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution as an example to illustrate what a theory is and how theories work. I try to show how science is grounded in empiricism and not metaphysics. But do you make the point that the theor(ies) of reality on which science is based is (are) fundamentally metaphysical? Judy, That's a heavy question and maybe loaded as well. The pat answer should be that science is based on observable facts, meaning that reasoning and logic are involved in analyzing the results of experiments. There should be no metaphysics involved in science. But this in itself is a metaphysical assumption, that anything real should be demonstrable by repeatable experiment. Metaphysics belongs in the realm of philosophy which concerns with ideas and meanings that have not been validated by science. It also has to do with underlying, unquestioned concepts about how the world works, such as that effects always follow causes. In most cases that *is* how it works; the concept itself isn't wrong for the ordinary domain we live in. But there may be other aspects of that domain that require different concepts, a different metaphysics of how the world works. However, given the progress of science these days, particularly in subatomic physics, the limits of measurable phenomena have been reached. There comes a point where scientists have concluded that matter cannot be measured anymore. Thus, they've reached reached the end of observable matter and the beginning of consciousness. Presently, some physicists are asking: what happened before the Big Bang? I don't believe they can answer this question in scientific terms. The *question* doesn't even make sense in scientific terms.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: snip The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Could you provide some documentation for your parenthetical, please? I suspect you're thinking of what's called the Mars Effect, but if so, it's that champion athletes more frequently have a strong Mars placement in their natal charts (based on statistical studies by Michael Gauquelin). A recent similar study found a correlation between strong *Saturn* placement and physicians. Aries has nothing to do with planetary activity. It's a sign of the Zodiac; and to refer to someone as an Aries means s/he was born when the sun was in Aries, which is true of 1/12th of the population. Sun-sign astrology is what you find in newspaper columns and is not taken seriously by real astrologers. The studies are certainly controversial, but the objections and the rebuttals to the objections are very complex, not the kind of thing you can brush off with has statistical fluke written all over it. Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. I'm very dubious about the validity of astrology, but I find it appalling that those who consider themselves scientifically inclined dismiss it scornfully without knowing anything at all about it. I've worked with astrology quite a bit over the years and often like to test it to see if it holds up it's validity. One particular thing I've found is that people seldom stray outside of the careers indicated in their horoscope. They seem to magically be drawn to those careers. Plus I often find that if I look at the tradition method of naming children via nakshatra an amazing number of people have first names that match that system. And of course their parents knew nothing about astrology nor consulted an astrologer for a name. By the way, Palin was born as a Virgo ascendant. She has a Kala Sarpa Yoga which is more virulent than what Bush has, Kala Amrita Yoga. Also, she has the conjunction of Mars and Saturn in the 6th house which is generally not considered good. Thus, she has gained a recent reputation of illegally firing a state official in Alaska. But Jupiter is in swakshetra, or in its own house in the 7th house. She is now running the mahadasha (major period) of Jupiter. Thus, she gained national recognition as a VP nominee out of relative obscurity as governor of Alaska. After things settle down, she should prove to be a good choice for McCain. However, the next question is: will McCain be elected as president? I don't have McCain's chart so I can't ascertain how strong his chart is at this time. JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: snip The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Could you provide some documentation for your parenthetical, please? I suspect you're thinking of what's called the Mars Effect, but if so, it's that champion athletes more frequently have a strong Mars placement in their natal charts (based on statistical studies by Michael Gauquelin). A recent similar study found a correlation between strong *Saturn* placement and physicians. Aries has nothing to do with planetary activity. It's a sign of the Zodiac; and to refer to someone as an Aries means s/he was born when the sun was in Aries, which is true of 1/12th of the population. Sun-sign astrology is what you find in newspaper columns and is not taken seriously by real astrologers. The studies are certainly controversial, but the objections and the rebuttals to the objections are very complex, not the kind of thing you can brush off with has statistical fluke written all over it. Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. I'm very dubious about the validity of astrology, but I find it appalling that those who consider themselves scientifically inclined dismiss it scornfully without knowing anything at all about it. I've worked with astrology quite a bit over the years and often like to test it to see if it holds up it's validity. One particular thing I've found is that people seldom stray outside of the careers indicated in their horoscope. They seem to magically be drawn to those careers. Plus I often find that if I look at the tradition method of naming children via nakshatra an amazing number of people have first names that match that system. And of course their parents knew nothing about astrology nor consulted an astrologer for a name.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: snip The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Could you provide some documentation for your parenthetical, please? I suspect you're thinking of what's called the Mars Effect, but if so, it's that champion athletes more frequently have a strong Mars placement in their natal charts (based on statistical studies by Michael Gauquelin). A recent similar study found a correlation between strong *Saturn* placement and physicians. Aries has nothing to do with planetary activity. It's a sign of the Zodiac; and to refer to someone as an Aries means s/he was born when the sun was in Aries, which is true of 1/12th of the population. Sun-sign astrology is what you find in newspaper columns and is not taken seriously by real astrologers. The studies are certainly controversial, but the objections and the rebuttals to the objections are very complex, not the kind of thing you can brush off with has statistical fluke written all over it. Thus, any scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as such. Unless you're referring to a brand-new study that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect, I'd suggest that you may be in the same position vis-a-vis astrology as the scientist whose ignorance of what is known about the solar system you deplore above. I'm very dubious about the validity of astrology, but I find it appalling that those who consider themselves scientifically inclined dismiss it scornfully without knowing anything at all about it. I've worked with astrology quite a bit over the years and often like to test it to see if it holds up it's validity. One particular thing I've found is that people seldom stray outside of the careers indicated in their horoscope. They seem to magically be drawn to those careers. Plus I often find that if I look at the tradition method of naming children via nakshatra an amazing number of people have first names that match that system. And of course their parents knew nothing about astrology nor consulted an astrologer for a name.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
Clearly, this woman is stupid. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PALIN: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides. [...] The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons religious-based and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class. The question has divided local school boards in several places around the country and has come up in Alaska before, including once before the state Board of Education in 1993. The teaching of creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional injection of religion into public education. Last December, in a widely publicized local case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out a city school board's requirement that intelligent design be mentioned briefly in science classes. Intelligent design proposes that biological life is so complex that some kind of intelligence must have shaped it. In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism, Palin said. Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to. We're talking about the gas line and PERS/TERS, she said Thursday, referring to the proposed natural gas pipeline and public employee and teacher retirement systems. The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory. [...] Full article - The Anchorage Daily News: http://tinyurl.com/6gf5gk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
McCain chose Palin because Repubs' support from the normally sheep-like evangelical wing is leaking like a New Orleans levee following Katrina. The Palin pick reveals the desperation of McCain, who stupidly thought that if he named any woman, the supporters of Hillary would follow. McCain tried to have it both ways with the Palin pick - renewed support from evangelicals plus the disaffected HIllary supporters. I suspect HIllary supporters are offended by Palin pick, and will quickly repatriate behind Obama. HIllary as McCain's VP was McCain's only chance at victory. For now, Hillary gets credit for enticing McCain to pick a woman; McCain's curiosity with HIllary led to McCain making the stupid move of picking Palin as his VP. The evangelicals' choice was Huckaby for Pres. After Huckaby's surprise Iowa victory, the Repub establishment showed their true colors by castigating Huckaby, and the evangelicals are furious, and won't be led by the snout this year by Republicans. Additionally, John and Cindy McCain are way short on family values, further diminishing evangelicals' support for the GOP this year. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clearly, this woman is stupid. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: PALIN: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides. [...] The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons religious-based and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class. The question has divided local school boards in several places around the country and has come up in Alaska before, including once before the state Board of Education in 1993. The teaching of creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional injection of religion into public education. Last December, in a widely publicized local case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out a city school board's requirement that intelligent design be mentioned briefly in science classes. Intelligent design proposes that biological life is so complex that some kind of intelligence must have shaped it. In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism, Palin said. Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to. We're talking about the gas line and PERS/TERS, she said Thursday, referring to the proposed natural gas pipeline and public employee and teacher retirement systems. The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory. [...] Full article - The Anchorage Daily News: http://tinyurl.com/6gf5gk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I forgot to add. Debate fucking what, opinion versus science? Oh, that's really great. Give equal intellectual status to metaphysics as you give to science. Healthy debate? Lets go back to medieval theology and argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What the fuck is this idiot woman thinking? Oh yeah, votes! Sorry, my bad. ...nothing polemical about that psychotic rant... --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 10:09 PM I'm so tired of this fucking moronic line of reasoning: teach both. No, don't fucking teach theology in a science class. How fucking stupid a politician do you have to be to say this? --- On Fri, 8/29/08, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 6:03 PM PALIN: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides. [...] The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons religious-based and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class. The question has divided local school boards in several places around the country and has come up in Alaska before, including once before the state Board of Education in 1993. The teaching of creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional injection of religion into public education. Last December, in a widely publicized local case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out a city school board's requirement that intelligent design be mentioned briefly in science classes. Intelligent design proposes that biological life is so complex that some kind of intelligence must have shaped it. In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism, Palin said. Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to. We're talking about the gas line and PERS/TERS, she said Thursday, referring to the proposed natural gas pipeline and public employee and teacher retirement systems. The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory. [...] Full article - The Anchorage Daily News: http://tinyurl.com/6gf5gk To subscribe, send
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools
Avoiding the point Shemp. What intelligent, educated person today actually believes that intelligent design or creationism is actually a science? As soon as you introduce a metaphysical construct you ain't in science anymore, son. --- On Fri, 8/29/08, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 10:26 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I forgot to add. Debate fucking what, opinion versus science? Oh, that's really great. Give equal intellectual status to metaphysics as you give to science. Healthy debate? Lets go back to medieval theology and argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What the fuck is this idiot woman thinking? Oh yeah, votes! Sorry, my bad. ...nothing polemical about that psychotic rant... --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 10:09 PM I'm so tired of this fucking moronic line of reasoning: teach both. No, don't fucking teach theology in a science class. How fucking stupid a politician do you have to be to say this? --- On Fri, 8/29/08, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 6:03 PM PALIN: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides. [...] The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons religious-based and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class. The question has divided local school boards in several places around the country and has come up in Alaska before, including once before the state Board of Education in 1993. The teaching of creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional injection of religion into public education. Last December, in a widely publicized local case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out a city school board's requirement that intelligent design be mentioned briefly in science classes. Intelligent design proposes that biological life is so complex that some kind of intelligence must have shaped it. In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism, Palin said. Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism
