��� Re: How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Skeleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe?
-----Original Message----- From: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest <[email protected]> To: tips digest recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:00 am Subject: tips digest: October 03, 2009 Subject: tips digest: October 03, 2009 From: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest" <[email protected]> Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:00:29 -0400 TIPS Digest for Saturday, October 03, 2009. 1. Random Thought: The Power Of A Smile 2. Re: How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Skeleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe? 3. Resistance to extinction 4. Re:How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Skeleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe? 5. Re:How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Skeleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe? 6. The 6million into the 4000 7. Re: How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Skeleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe? 8. Starbucks as ritualized contact 9. Re: Starbucks as ritualized contact --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english Attached Message From: Louis Schmier <[email protected]> Subject: Random Thought : The Power Of A Smile Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 06:16:51 -0400 As I struggled to catch up with student journals, A statement made by Lou Foltz at the Lilly conference kept ringing in my head: we are feeling people who think, not thinking people who feel. Then, I read Madeline's journal entry last night and his words resounded as loudly as if I was next to the bells of Big Ben. She had written this entry while she was in Traverse City at the Lilly-North conference, "I miss your constant smile. I look forward to it. It brightens me up. It warms me up and melts the chill of my low self-esteem and=2 0weak self-confidence. Your smile tells ugly me that I'm attractive. Every time I'm in class with you when you smile at me, I feel noticed and valuable, and I believe that inside what a lot of people say is this worm you're helping me to see the beautiful cocooned butterfly that you see. It's so hard, but every time you offer me one of your 'I care' smiles I get a shot of 'I can do this stuff' that's a temporary vaccination against my fears and insecurities and disbeliefs...." As I read her words over and over and over again, I started thinking about a sequence of feelings and attitudes: impact a student's heart, and you alter her or his stor y; change her or his story, and you affected her or his perceptions; affect his or her perceptions, and you've touched that student; touch that student, and you've altered the future and changed the world. Madeline reminded me again of the smallest, most useful, most powerful tool each of us have at our disposal in the classroom to make a difference. It has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with us. It has nothing to do with giant leaps or dramatic U-turns. It's proof that every little thing you feel and do leaves a consequence in its wake, that supposed little things can make huge differences, and that those small things quickly=2 0add up to big differences. I want you to think about this: every stirring in our heart stirs and matters. So many of us think we only speak with our mouths. But, I tell you, researchers tell us, we speak so loud with our bodies, with our hands, with our faces, and with our eyes that our words are drowned out. So, both inside and outside the classroom, both inside and outside us, something so simple as a sincere smile not only turns on the lights of the likes of a Madeline, but it magically turns walls into doors. Sneers blind; faith opens eyes; scowls deafen; hope perks up the ears; frowns chill; love warms up; grimaces numb; empathy sensitizes; 20sneers paralyze; compassion moves. A simple, genuine smile improves all of us. When we sincerely smile, we are more confident, enthusiastic, upbeat, and convincing. We even look better when we smile. A simple, genuine smile from our heart is an aura of our own positive outlook on life that we extend to envelope others. When we sincerely smile, we immediately add value to our encounters with others. When we sincerely smile we see, listen to, and empathize with others who are otherwise not there when we are dour and scowled. And, that makes that simple, small, useful, powerful act of just sincerely smiling, anything but small and meaningless. It's actually=2 0so powerful that it can lift the heaviest of hearts. Make it a good day. --Louis-- Louis Schmier http:/www.therandomthoughts.com Department of History Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\ (229-333-5947) /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\____/\ \/\ / \ \__ \/ / \ 20 /\/ \ \ /\ //\/\/ /\ \_ / /___\/\ \ \ \/ \ /\"If you want to climb mountains \ /\ _/ \ don't practice on mole hills" -/ \ Attached Message From: Mike Palij <[email protected]> Subject: Re: How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Sk eleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe? Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:56:25 -0400 On Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:11:01 -0600, Michael Smith wrote: > > Feeling a bit verbose, a few notes about what Mike P wrote. This was posted after I hit my 3 post limit yesterday, so I had to wait until today to provide a response. I was curious about what kind of responses Prof. Smith's comments would elicit and I remain curious. I had planned on making one of my verbose responses to Prof. Smith's points but I now think that there would be little point is doing so. Via con Dios folks. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] >[Mike P. ha d written} >>"In the U.S. it is possible to run a college >> along religious line (i.e., secterian) and there can be an uneasy >> tension between the religious orientation maintained by the administration >> and the individuals working there, especially the secular faculty and >> faculty with different beliefs." > > I think if a person works in a Christian college then the person has > to agree with the faith precepts of the institution. > So I doubt there would be any "secular" faculty at such institutions, > and if there are, they are clearly being unethical > under such circumstances. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "secular beliefs". If it is true that > Ari is 1.2 million years older than Lucy (and I would imagine > that this is the case given the amount of remains which were found and > the diversity of scholars who worked on it) then it is not a "secular" > or a "religious" belief, it would simply be a fairly well established > fact for those that work in Christian colleges and those that do not. > > The tone of your post suggested, at least to me, that from the > reference you provided I expected to see a problem where a "secular > minded or secular faculty member" in a Christian institutions may have > problems which conflict with that institutions administration (which > should not occurr on any serious level since to work there, the person > should be in principled agreement with the institutions world-view > requirements). > > ">An example of the type of problem >> one encounters is provided in the following article which appeared >> in the AAUP publication "Academe": >> http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/JF/Feat/hill.htm"; > > However, the author of the article is actually bemoaning the > discrimination by a secular organization against a religious one > solely because the institution is a religious one (something one is > not supposed to do to individuals). > >> But many times these facts conflict with religious beliefs and dogma >> and "creation stories" (I believe that the terms "creation myths" is >> now politically incorrect because various groups object to having >> their stories about their origins treated as myths -- why should science >> have the final say on how the world was created, eh?). > > This aspect of your post and the other about colleges with a literal > interpretation of the bible and a 6,000 year old universe. > Are these colleges not in the minority (compared with Christian > institutions who hold a more complex view of life, the Bible, God, and > the Universe)?----[If not, then perhaps you should move to Canada, > eh!] > >>"why should science have the final say on how the world was created, eh?). > I doubt science will ever have the final say on that. God can never be > ruled out of the picture. Science may be able to elucidate the various > mechanisms of how this planet came to be, but such explanations still > woulndn't address "how the world came to be" in the more fundamental > sense that God nevertheless still created it, and so religion will > always have the final say. > >> Do we have any obligation in evaluating the evidence for Ardi and Lucy >> and, if we find it to have sufficient validity, work to counter those that might >> claim that it is a fraud, especially if the claim is made on religious rather >> than scientific grounds? > > I doubt whether any psychologist could assess the validity of the > evidence for Ardi, we would simply be trusting the=2 0authority of the > people working on it. > > I doubt the "6000 year old universe people" would claim it's a fraud. > Probably, that the dating etc., is mistaken. > > Shouldn't scientists "work to counter" claims of fraud from any group? > (And I would say just by doing good scientific work.) > Why focus on "religious" grounds for claims of fraudulance? > > --Mike Attached Message From: michael sylvester <[email protected]> Subject: Resistance to extinction Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 13:03:31 -0400 Behaviors that are intermittently reinforced are highly resistant to 0D extinction and so do behaviors that are internally self-reinforcing. I wonder why? Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida Attached Message From: Jim Clark <[email protected]> Subject: Re:How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Skeleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe? Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:03:44 -0500 Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] >>> "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> 03-Oct-09 8:56:25 AM >>> On Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:11:01 -0600, Michael Smith wrote: > Feeling a bit verbose, a few 20notes about what Mike P wrote. This was posted after I hit my 3 post limit yesterday, so I had to wait until today to provide a response. I was curious about what kind of responses Prof. Smith's comments would elicit and I remain curious. I had planned on making one of my verbose responses to Prof. Smith's points but I now think that there would be little point is doing so. Via con Dios folks. JC: Like Mike P. I'm skeptical of the consequences of responding, but here's a few thoughts. Mike S: > I doubt whether any psychologist could assess the validity of the > evidence for Ardi, we would simply be trusting the authority of the > people working on it. JC: M ight authorities differ in credibility to those committed to science and reason. For example, is a geologist stating that the earth is 4.5 billion years old no more credible / trustworthy / "likely to be correct" than a minister / priest / ... stating that the earth is 6 thousand years old? Is a social psychologist stating that people who are similar to one another are attracted no more credible than a self-proclaimed marriage counsellor on CNN stating that opposites attract? Isn't the critical question the kind of evidence being appealed to by the authority, rather than simply that they are an "authority"? It would seem completely unreasonable to say that we should accept 20as truth ONLY those things that we can personally validate as true. For one thing, I would never fly again or even drive again if I operated by that rule. Mike S.: > I doubt the "6000 year old universe people" would claim it's a fraud. > Probably, that the dating etc., is mistaken. JC: I don't see a huge difference between these rationalizations, nor that they are mutually exclusive. The second (dating mistaken) might appear more polite, but when thousands of geologists attest to the methods how else could the "mistake" be shared and perpetuated except through some grand conspiracy to advance the secular world view or a complicit educational system bent on the s ame end? And of course the credibility of the person claiming that the methods are mistaken will depend upon their expertise, returning us to the preceding point. Ultimately, the question is whether the young earth types would EVER accept ANY evidence for the ancient age of the earth (other than perhaps a revelation of some sort from on high). Mike S.: > Shouldn't scientists "work to counter" claims of fraud from any group? > (And I would say just by doing good scientific work.) > Why focus on "religious" grounds for claims of fraudulance? JC: Perhaps it appears to young earth / religious advocates that they are being persecuted (and it certainly helps their public / political case to make such claims), but this is a false claim. First, skeptics do indeed take issue with all sorts of diverse false claims. Simply read any issue of Skeptical Inquirer, or visit any of the skeptic websites. Sadly, there is no shortage of unsubstantiated claims floating around. The Skeptics Dictionary might be a good place to appreciate the broad range of issues examined by skeptics. http://skepdic.com/whatisthesd.html Second, except perhaps in academia, it is the skeptical / questioning worldview that is discriminated against in politics and the wider public (at least in USA). Indeed, a case can be (and has been) made that atheists are the most desp ised group. See: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm Take care Jim Attached Message From: Jim Clark <[email protected]> Subject: Re:How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Skeleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe? Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:24:54 -0500 Hi On Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:11:01 -0600, Michael Smith wrote: > Shouldn't scientists "work to counter" claims of fraud from any group? > (And I would say just by doing good scientific work.) > Why focus on "religious" grounds for claims of fraudulance? I missed one di sturbing part of Mike S's statement here ... namely the phrase "(And I would say just by doing good scientific work.)". This seems to be saying that scientists' jobs are done once they have conducted the research and they have no further responsibilities to the political or wider communities ... i.e., they should mind their own business and stay in the lab. Is Mike S really saying that scientists should NOT respond when false information is publicized? They should NOT comment on global warming, cold fusion, the age of the earth, or any other matter once it is in the public domain? Their job ends in the laboratory and they should just go home and leave the rest to 20others. Rather perverse view of scientists, many of whom are also educators. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] Attached Message From: michael sylvester <[email protected]> Subject: The 6million into the 4000 Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 13:29:43 -0400 I only read part of this thread but I can say that I had the quintessential Catholic upbringing-altar boy,seminarian,monasticism (Trappist),attended Catholic infant,grade,high school,college and getting drunk.But I always thought that the church was always open to discussions and innovations.I can remember doing a cursillo "de colores" and being involved in ecumenical activities. While at Gannon,Mercyhurst and Villa Maria circles,there was a book by a French Jesuit Theillard de Chadrin titled the Phenomenon of Man.From what I understand he discovered Peking Man.He was one of those paleontologists who apparently did not have a conflict with the church.I suspect being a Jesuit had something to do with it.The jesuits were known as the church intellectuals.Theillard also had the idea of an evolving universe heading towards an omega point. Proud to have being raised a catholic,but I got into evolutionary humanism after reading Julian Huxley. Just my take. Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida Attached Message From: Michael Smith <[email protected]> Subject: Re: How Do You Explain A 4.4 Million Skeleton in a 6,000 Year Old Universe? Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 11:52:37 -0600 Jim Clark commented: "I missed one disturbing part of Mike S's statement here ... namely the phrase "(And I would say just by doing good scientific work.)". This seems to be saying that scientists' jobs are done once they have conducted the research and they have no further responsibilities to the political or wider communities ... i.e., they should mind their own business and stay in the lab. Is Mike S really saying that scientists should NOT respond when false information is publicized? They should NOT comment on global warming, cold fusion, the age of the earth, or any other matter once it is in the public domain? Their job ends in the laboratory and they should just go home and leave the rest to others. Rather perverse view of scientists, many of whom are also educators." What I meant was that 'good scientific work' will attest to the firmness of the conclusions and will tend to resist claims of fraudulence to any open-minded person who takes the trouble to have a loo k at it. Of course individual scientists can 'respond' or get involved in politics if they want (witness that clown Dawkins). But when doing so, they are engaged in politics not science. And yes, I would say that no scientist or any other individual is obligated to get involved in politics (which I do not find disturbing in the least). --Mike Attached Message From: michael sylvester <[email protected]> Subject: Starbucks as ritualized contact Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 17:24:02 -0400 The idea of "ritualized contact" emanates from the ethological writings of Rob ert Ardrey and Desmond Morris.But I think that it may well apply to gatherings at Starbucks which have for some reason I never understood is being perceived as a community in its own right.Starbucks appears to be playing a dual role as being a business as well as a community and a ritualized one as such.But the gathering at Starbucks may have more to do with who can afford a $4 cup of coffee than any need for interdependence.And as the cross-cultural dude on Tips Starbucks appeal more to whites than to blacks because the sense of community is already inherent within blacks. But the major element that contributes to expensive ritualized places like Starbucks is t he underpinning idea that the more cash a group of people are willing to spend then the greater the bonding will be as a community.Habitual Starbucks customers probably go through more highs and lows throughout the day than 7 Eleven coffee drinkers and may not have anything to do with strength of coffee,although I admit sugar could be a culprit here. Another variable from the U.S-centric angle was pointed out by William Lederer who labels the U.S as a Nation of Sheep.We love the feeling of being in a gathered group while maintaining our sense of independence.But true group feeling calls for interdependence, I like the way they do in some parts of Europe.It is the guest-at-my-table idea.People will go to an outside cafe and leave an empty seat so anyone can join them. Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida Attached Message From: Michael Smith <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Starbucks as ritualized contact Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 17:16:01 -0600 And as the cross-cultural > dude on Tips > Starbucks appeal more to whites than to blacks because the sense of > community is already inherent within blacks. lol --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
