On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 10:56:40 -0800, Paul Smith >>Rick Stevens wrote: >> Maybe we could get a bunch of psychometricians together to go to >> Kansas and administer IQ tests. > > I understand the frustration behind this, but I wouldn't be at all surprised > to find that the 6 board members who voted against science teaching > have IQs as high as the 4 who voted in favor of science teaching.
I agree with Paul: it's not necessarily an issue of intelligence but belief -- what is one willing to believe or disbelieve. > Furthermore, I think we > risk contributing to the problem if we continue to refer to this kind of thing > as a matter of low intelligence, simply because I think we're wrong about that. > I am fairly sure that the problem is more the product of misplaced goals: that > the creationists put the goal of the defense of fundamentalist religious > beliefs above the goal of teaching science. Having done so, their actions are > not only not stupid, but in fact effective, intelligent, well-planned means to > reach their goals. Michael Schmer in his "Why People Believe Weird Things" takes on this issue in his chapter 18 "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" whether it is ID or UFO abductions or ESP or whatever belief systems are in conflict with scientific analysis and knowledge. I think that it is important to understand why people maintain "beliefs" which appear to be in conflict with facts or reality in general (as long as they're not floridly psychotic) if for no other reason than *there are so many of them, indeed, they probably vastly outnumber scientists and other "rational" folks*. U.S. Senator Bill Frist understands this point which is why, even though he is a cardiologist, he publicly supports ID -- when election time comes if the people with the "nutty" beliefs are in the majority, savvy politicians will cater to those (regardless of their actual beliefs) because that's how they get elected and maintain power. >I don't have any magic solution to the problem, unfortunately, but I >think that the problem would be better addressed by better character >education than by focusing on intelligence. Well, I think that there are probably two general ways to approach this situation: (1) Some sort of working arrangement has to be developed so that scientific research and teaching can continue without religious interference. This would require some sort of cooperative effort and compromise with the people who believe in creationism and who are fundamentalists. (2) The Machivellian/Barnum Solution: if you can't join them, con them. Cynically, we can view people who believe in ID, creationism, etc., as "marks" or "suckers" who can be manipulated to behave in certain ways. The question/problem becomes how to con the "marks/suckers" to do what one wants (e.g., divorce religious issues from the teaching of science). I think that this type of approach is probably repugnant to most people but I have the suspicion that this is what might be characterized as "business as usual" by politicians. No, I don't think there are any simple solutions. -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Paul Smith >Alverno College >Milwaukee --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
