Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2011, 11:01 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Week in Blog: Duck and Cover (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-16-2011, 11:14 AM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Duck and Cover (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

"Duck and Cover" FTW!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-16-2011, 01:17 PM
Kristen Soltis Kristen Soltis is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Duck and Cover (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Woohoo! Glad that worked out. In hindsight, I'm sad we didn't get to really dive deep into the mechanics of the Huntsman appeal to the grunge/flannel crowd - could have also yielded great diavlog titles.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-16-2011, 12:41 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Barack Obama: who or what is he?

Is he (a) a wimp; (b), clueless; (c) jive artist; (d) all of the above?

Me, I'm disappointed. How disappointed? I'm so disappointed that this Yellow Dog Democrat just put a Palin bumper sticker up beside his old Obama 08 one. Granted, Palin may be a loose cannon -- but at least a loose cannon might shoot in the right direction.

(Full disclosure: for me the issues are trade and immigration.)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-16-2011, 01:49 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Duck and Cover (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

"Obama's first real scandal?" [cue laughter]

Dood had scandals before he was even elected (Rev Wright, wife with fake $300K/yr job, Rezco, Bill Ayers etc) but the press was his willing accomplice. The way the Journolisters got on message re Rev Wright was a microcosm of his treatment since he climbed on the national stage.

Since then everything from Cash For Clunkers, bribes to pass Obamacare, Operation fast And Furious, Solyndra etc etc etc.

Thankfully even the liberals are catching on to a guy who took three years to fail at almost everything and now demands we let him use taxpayer money to fund his re-election campaign. If we ask him to consider the private sector or sound economic principals we are deemed racist or we don't love him enough (shades of N Korea).

Just imagine if they went after him with even half the zeal they go after conservatives. This huge amount of deceit, failure and corruption could have been averted.

Change You Can Believe In!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-16-2011, 10:33 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Duck and Cover (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
"Obama's first real scandal?" [cue laughter]

Dood had scandals before he was even elected (Rev Wright, wife with fake $300K/yr job, Rezco, Bill Ayers etc) but the press was his willing accomplice. The way the Journolisters got on message re Rev Wright was a microcosm of his treatment since he climbed on the national stage.

Since then everything from Cash For Clunkers, bribes to pass Obamacare, Operation fast And Furious, Solyndra etc etc etc.
yes, but to my knowledge, Obama believes in evolution.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-16-2011, 10:43 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Duck and Cover (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
yes, but to my knowledge, Obama believes in evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I like Perry and for some crazy reason I don't care one bit if he believes in evolution or not.
A one issue voter?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-16-2011, 11:22 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Duck and Cover (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
yes, but to my knowledge, Obama believes in evolution.
Does Obama believe in the Resurrection? Has he ever explained how someone rises from the dead? Has anyone ever asked? Why doesn't Obama believe in Almighty Science?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-17-2011, 12:12 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Duck and Cover (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Does Obama believe in the Resurrection? Has he ever explained how someone rises from the dead? Has anyone ever asked? Why doesn't Obama believe in Almighty Science?
This religion thing is complicated. Suffice it to say, giving a nod to evolution will exempt you from further annoying questioning.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-17-2011, 01:53 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Not the same

I do care if a candidate believes in evolution. If (s)he doesn't or doesn't at least admits (s)he has no direct knowledge but that if it was somehow pertinent to some policy decision (s)he would trust the experts on the Science then this is a negative in my book. I really wish this would stop coming up though. It get's old every-time I am visiting my wife's family and I am overheard mentioning anything vaguely scientific in any field I have to immediately defend why I believe that but don't believe in the Bible. Over time it's become crystal clear that this is a direct outgrowth of a perceived assault on their faith revolving around the evolution issue. Do I believe verbal plenary inerrancy is one of the most stupid ideas of our time? Yes, but the blow back in terms of distrust directed not only at evolutionary biology but all science by a large contingent of the population makes this not a worthwhile issue to go after.

Anyways ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Does Obama believe in the Resurrection? Has he ever explained how someone rises from the dead? Has anyone ever asked? Why doesn't Obama believe in Almighty Science?
Believing in the Resurrection and not believing in evolution are totally different. Questions revolving around the Resurrection are not scientific in nature. Science has nothing to say on this. How could it? The whole thing is predicated on magic changing the rules for a specific instance. How various species came to have their current form is a scientific question. We can study it through various means.

So one is believing in something that science has nothing to say about. The other is directly contradicting science. Total false equivalence.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-17-2011, 09:43 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
It get's old every-time I am visiting my wife's family and I am overheard mentioning anything vaguely scientific in any field I have to immediately defend why I believe that but don't believe in the Bible. Over time it's become crystal clear that this is a direct outgrowth of a perceived assault on their faith revolving around the evolution issue.
Personally I have never understood why people have such an adverse reaction to religious folks. At times on the very board the hatred is palpable. But maybe that's because I was raised in a liberal Jesuit Catholic tradition. It wasn't sinful to question and if you are willing to suffer the pains of eternal damnation you were pretty much allowed to believe any old thing you wanted. No one would bring it up at family gatherings either.

Quote:
Believing in the Resurrection and not believing in evolution are totally different. Questions revolving around the Resurrection are not scientific in nature. Science has nothing to say on this. How could it? The whole thing is predicated on magic changing the rules for a specific instance. How various species came to have their current form is a scientific question. We can study it through various means.
This is where you and I differ. I have this aversion to people who criticize the fundamentalist who doesn't believe in the descent of man, and say that they are religious but in some superior way. How can you criticize one person's inconsistent, tortured explanation of why the humanity exists and at the same time hold up your tortured explanation that includes some combination of God and evolution as somehow superior? It's way too elitist for my taste.

And actually science does have something to say about the resurrection... never before observed, goes against the laws of biology and therefore, highly unlikely.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 09-17-2011 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-17-2011, 10:06 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Personally I have never understood why people have such an adverse reaction to religious folks. At times on the very board the hatred is palpable.
There aren't many people who hate religious people qua religious poeple, and even fewer who post here (i.e., unless Richard Dawkins is here in disguise and exercising an amazing level of restraint).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-17-2011, 10:13 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
There aren't many people who hate religious people qua religious poeple, and even fewer who post here (i.e., unless Richard Dawkins is here in disguise and exercising an amazing level of restraint).
yeah and now that apple has been banned, you might be right. My hyperbole was inaccurate...that's 1!
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-18-2011, 02:02 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
There aren't many people who hate religious people qua religious poeple, and even fewer who post here (i.e., unless Richard Dawkins is here in disguise and exercising an amazing level of restraint).
Dude, in badhat's mind, you and I probably hate religious people, because we believe in evolution and are against prayer in school. It's not actually rational, it's about BS political talking points.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-18-2011, 02:40 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Dude, in badhat's mind, you and I probably hate religious people, because we believe in evolution and are against prayer in school. It's not actually rational, it's about BS political talking points.
What sort of political talking points would those be? My point has always been, in a very non-political talking point sort of way, that everyone who believes in God is essentially in the same boat. Some of the details differ. You may believe in evolution while another person may believe that the earth began 6000 years ago but it's the same belief boat, in my estimation.

I was actually referring to people who think their portion of the belief boat is better than other portions and go to great lengths trying to distinguish themselves from their shipmates.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-20-2011, 01:35 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
What sort of political talking points would those be? My point has always been, in a very non-political talking point sort of way, that everyone who believes in God is essentially in the same boat. Some of the details differ. You may believe in evolution while another person may believe that the earth began 6000 years ago but it's the same belief boat, in my estimation.

I was actually referring to people who think their portion of the belief boat is better than other portions and go to great lengths trying to distinguish themselves from their shipmates.
It's not about being better. It's about the implications of the argument. It's also, of course, true that the direction of the attacks tend to be the other way around.

I don't really think people would care if others believed in creationism or ID or whatever if they weren't trying to teach those things in school and, related to that, claiming that acceptance of evolution, teaching evolution in school, is inherently anti-religious. This is obviously not true, and I think it's an idea that is encouraged by some on the right to try and create this false impression that there is a war on the religious by the left.

Related to this, and worrying to me, is the extent to which the attacks on evolution take the form of attacks on science itself or scientists -- it seems problematic to decide that scientists can't be trusted, that they are fundamentally trying to serve some negative cause. Obviously, I'm not saying scientists are always right.

Now, merely having a belief in a God who created the world does not implicate either of these problems.

I mentioned a while back that I was friends while growing up with a girl whose family (and religion, I assume) took the position that the evidence for evolution was planted by God to test our faith. As a result, they had no problem with her learning science and would not have been interested in the Behe type approach. I'm not actually sure if this kind of approach avoids what bothers me about creationism. It might, although it does seem to me a problematic approach to the world in general -- the idea that we can't trust the evidence, essentially, that we are being lied to. But this may really just be a theological argument, and not something relevant outside that realm. I am currently undecided.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-17-2011, 05:10 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
Believing in the Resurrection and not believing in evolution are totally different. Questions revolving around the Resurrection are not scientific in nature. Science has nothing to say on this. How could it? The whole thing is predicated on magic changing the rules for a specific instance. How various species came to have their current form is a scientific question. We can study it through various means.
I'm afraid I don't see as much difference as you. Clearly Creationism assumes magic; for example, aren't women supposedly crafted from the rib of a man? Isn't clay involved? The thing is done in six days. There are talking snakes, and fruit invested with DNA altering properties.

There is no substantial difference between this and Resurrection. It isn't as though biology isn't as much a science as geology. People don't rise from the dead according to medical science. The human body isn't capable of it. Nor is it a specific instance; Jesus had previously brought someone back from the dead.

Modern medicine is pretty clear on the impossibility of a virgin birth before IV fertilization. It is also pretty clear on transubstantiation. It is fine for religious people not to believe in creationism; it is pretty hypocritical for religious people to be waiving science in the face of creationists though.

Quote:
So one is believing in something that science has nothing to say about. The other is directly contradicting science. Total false equivalence.
Science has a lot to say about mortality. And water walking, wine transformation, virgin births, healing touches, the spontaneous generation of fish and bread, and foretelling the future.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-17-2011, 06:25 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
I'm afraid I don't see as much difference as you. Clearly Creationism assumes magic; for example, aren't women supposedly crafted from the rib of a man? Isn't clay involved? The thing is done in six days. There are talking snakes, and fruit invested with DNA altering properties.
Yes, true. The issue is an instance where magic intervenes vs. everything as we know it.

What they have in common is unfalsifiability, but an unusual instance, even a miraculous one, is easier to fit into a scientific framework than a claim that everything on this planet came into being through magic. There's a reason why no one is trying to push for Resurrection Science to be taught in schools.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-17-2011, 11:21 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Yes, true. The issue is an instance where magic intervenes vs. everything as we know it.

What they have in common is unfalsifiability, but an unusual instance, even a miraculous one, is easier to fit into a scientific framework than a claim that everything on this planet came into being through magic.
Except that as I pointed out, it isn't an instance. Jesus resurrected someone else earlier. Besides, I don't think dying and being resurrected is one of those things that is within the odds of scientific possibility as we understand human biology. Of course, cross reference that miracle with the others performed by Jesus and you have no scientific explanation. That is why it is a religion. And because this religious belief is held by more people (For now), the media and elites seem to treat it with more respect (Again, for now). I suspect that this remains dependent on number of adherents.

Quote:
There's a reason why no one is trying to push for Resurrection Science to be taught in schools.
You note that there is no "Death Class". There is no class that says death happens in all cases of man, it is irreversible, and that there is no afterlife. If there was such a class, people who believe in the Resurrection would believe it was an attack on their religious beliefs.

This isn't to say that I believe in teaching creationism; I just don't like the gratuitous insults lobbed at those people. I don't believe in the theory, but I'll happily go on record as saying it is more plausible than either Mormonism or Scientology or Hinduism, or dare I say it, Islam. It is a creation myth. Why do people get so exercised about it?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-17-2011, 11:32 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
...

This isn't to say that I believe in teaching creationism; I just don't like the gratuitous insults lobbed at those people. I don't believe in the theory, but I'll happily go on record as saying it is more plausible than either Mormonism or Scientology or Hinduism, or dare I say it, Islam. It is a creation myth. Why do people get so exercised about it?
Because they try to push it into science curricula. Because they want to mandate public support for their irrational religious beliefs and pollute intellectual bedrock (empiricism, rationality, epistemic humility...) with nonsense.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-17-2011, 11:56 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Because they try to push it into science curricula. Because they want to mandate public support for their irrational religious beliefs and pollute intellectual bedrock (empiricism, rationality, epistemic humility...) with nonsense.
It is one of those inevitable conflicts between modernity and religion. The solution is to be respectful to the religious, as they are the anchors of culture, and to allow them to home school their children. Or indeed, to raise a very brief three line sentence akin to "Some people believe in intelligent design, the idea that a supernatural force intervened to create complexity" in yada yada.

There is no sanctity to science. It is ok if people choose not to believe in science's explanation for the origin of our species. People choose to believe in all sorts of things we invest no great emotion in; tarot cards, astrology, "the Secret", "karma".

I do admit a bias in this matter. I feel as though one of the more important subjects in education has been politicized for about fifty years now, History. I suppose if I must hear every human event boiled down to some juvenile Marxist conflict theory, my political opposites can stand to listen to someone chide them on the savage heresy of Darwinism.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-18-2011, 12:21 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
It is one of those inevitable conflicts between modernity and religion. The solution is to be respectful to the religious, as they are the anchors of culture, and to allow them to home school their children. Or indeed, to raise a very brief three line sentence akin to "Some people believe in intelligent design, the idea that a supernatural force intervened to create complexity" in yada yada.

There is no sanctity to science. It is ok if people choose not to believe in science's explanation for the origin of our species. People choose to believe in all sorts of things we invest no great emotion in; tarot cards, astrology, "the Secret", "karma".

I do admit a bias in this matter. I feel as though one of the more important subjects in education has been politicized for about fifty years now, History. I suppose if I must hear every human event boiled down to some juvenile Marxist conflict theory, my political opposites can stand to listen to someone chide them on the savage heresy of Darwinism.
You surely don't hear me implying anything about "sanctity" in regard to science. "Epistemic humility" seems to me to be the opposite of sanctity. People have a right to believe anything they want to believe. Ideas, however, don't all have the same value. There are qualitative standards by which they can be measured. And if being "respectful" means ignoring those standards, then it's the wrong answer.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-18-2011, 03:12 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Except that as I pointed out, it isn't an instance. Jesus resurrected someone else earlier. Besides, I don't think dying and being resurrected is one of those things that is within the odds of scientific possibility as we understand human biology. Of course, cross reference that miracle with the others performed by Jesus and you have no scientific explanation.
No. But again, you are talking about a specific instance (and adding a couple of more instances doesn't make them any less instances. Versus the foundation of the entire universe.

I am just saying that it takes less of a leap from science to say that our world is ordered in a particular way, and occasionally there is supernatural intervention in it (a position, I actually believe) versuse believing that our entire world came into being in its current form through supernatural intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
You note that there is no "Death Class". There is no class that says death happens in all cases of man, it is irreversible, and that there is no afterlife. If there was such a class, people who believe in the Resurrection would believe it was an attack on their religious beliefs.
Well, possibly. Bu the other reason is that what happens after death is completely beyond the ken of science. Any theory about it that science could come up with couldn't be tested. This is different than scientific theories on evolution and heliocentrism, and gravity.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-18-2011, 12:40 AM
tom tom is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
There is no substantial difference between this and Resurrection. It isn't as though biology isn't as much a science as geology. People don't rise from the dead according to medical science. The human body isn't capable of it. Nor is it a specific instance; Jesus had previously brought someone back from the dead.
...Modern medicine is pretty clear on the impossibility of a virgin birth before IV fertilization.
...Science has a lot to say about mortality. And water walking, wine transformation, virgin births, healing touches, the spontaneous generation of fish and bread, and foretelling the future.
Here's what I see as the difference:

On the questions of specific miracles (resurrection, water-walking, water-"wine-ing"), religious people accept the relevant science, and claim that the scientific laws were, on some occasions, suspended.

On creationism, though, an entire field of science is rejected. They don't merely believe that while evolutionists have the right story (i.e. have a theory that properly identifies the laws governing speciation), God intervened on specific occasions in violation of those laws. Creationists make specific disputatious claims about natural laws in a way that "resurrectionists" do not.

Even Intelligent Design, a significantly less radical view, says that evolutionary biology is wrong; indeed the whole argument is premised on the position that the current scientific consensus can't possibly be right.


I'm not really interested in wading too far into the original debate over what either of these positions say about a politicians who hold them, but the distinction is relevant there:

People who flat out deny the scientific consensus on an issue like evolution are (almost always) people who believe that mainstream science is involved in a mass conspiracy to mendaciously push a false position on the rest of us. This is almost literally insane. (Even people who don't believe there's a conspiracy show a disregard, if not contempt, for evidence and the consensus of experts. Either way, this is cause for concern from someone making policy choices.)

People who believe in the miracles of Jesus have no conflict with any work that is being done in science today: yes, a virgin birth is impossible, yes, rising from the dead is impossible, etc., and "impossible" just means "in violation of natural laws". But God, by definition, can act in violation of these laws, and when he does, nothing in science is undermined.

Last edited by tom; 09-18-2011 at 12:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-18-2011, 01:12 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom View Post
People who flat out deny the scientific consensus on an issue like evolution are (almost always) people who believe that mainstream science is involved in a mass conspiracy to mendaciously push a false position on the rest of us. This is almost literally insane. (Even people who don't believe there's a conspiracy show a disregard, if not contempt, for evidence and the consensus of experts. Either way, this is cause for concern from someone making policy choices.)

People who believe in the miracles of Jesus have no conflict with any work that is being done in science today: yes, a virgin birth is impossible, yes, rising from the dead is impossible, etc., and "impossible" just means "in violation of natural laws". .
Look, I think we should try to have the very best people in office. (wouldn't that be nice?) However, there are so many ridiculous beliefs amongst our entire population, how can you point to people who don't believe in the evolution of the species as being quantitatively worse than someone who believes in Keynesian economics? At least the guy who believes in Adam and Eve and thinks the mainstream is involved in a conspiracy won't be absconding with part of your paycheck.

And as for 'scientists' I think there is a fair number of doctors who are also fundamentalist Christians and it probably doesn't affect the way they practice medicine.

Quote:
But God, by definition, can act in violation of these laws, and when he does, nothing in science is undermined
But then God, by definition, can have made the earth look like it's 4.5 billion years old in order to test the faith of his people. How does believing that people can rise from the dead not undermine science? It's nice to put brackets around some religious beliefs and say they are acceptable because they don't undermine science but, in fact, they do.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 09-18-2011 at 01:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-18-2011, 01:25 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Look, I think we should try to have the very best people in office. (wouldn't that be nice?) However, there are so many ridiculous beliefs amongst our entire population, how can you point to people who don't believe in the evolution of the species as being quantitatively worse than someone who believes in Keynesian economics? At least the guy who believes in Adam and Eve and thinks the mainstream is involved in a conspiracy won't be absconding with part of your paycheck.

And as for 'scientists' I think there is a fair number of doctors who are also fundamentalist Christians and it probably doesn't affect the way they practice medicine.



But then God, by definition, can have made the earth look like it's 4.5 billion years old in order to test the faith of his people.
Keynesian economics doesn't have the same epistemic status as evolution. You can argue about the evidence in economics forever. That's simply not true when you're talking about the existential case for evolution. (There's plenty to argue about in the margins.) People who can't or won't understand that have disqualified themselves from rational debate. That's a serious failing and ought to be noticed.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-18-2011, 01:37 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Keynesian economics doesn't have the same epistemic status as evolution. You can argue about the evidence in economics forever. That's simply not true when you're talking about the existential case for evolution. (There's plenty to argue about in the margins.) People who can't or won't understand that have disqualified themselves from rational debate. That's a serious failing and ought to be noticed.
I have yet to see how believing that man was formed from the dirt and Eve from his rib has much effect on the character of a person. Do you think that athiests or enlightened Christians are better people than those who think that the earth started spinning six thousand years ago? What does your atheism add to the quality of life in contrast to the guy who goes to a holy roller church?
(I hope holy roller is not an offensive term.)

And as for rational debate...don't debate. I doubt they want to debate with you so you won't be bothered. And there's nothing to debate about anyway. You won't be changing their minds.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-18-2011, 01:43 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
...

And as for rational debate...don't debate. I doubt they want to debate with you so you won't be bothered. And there's nothing to debate about anyway. You won't be changing their minds.
That's beside the point. If you're that far off the reservation, then you shouldn't be granted the benefit of the doubt. That really ought to be viewed as a significant handicap.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 09-18-2011 at 01:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-18-2011, 01:51 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
That's beside the point. If you're that far off the reservation, then you shouldn't be granted the benefit of the doubt. That really ought to be viewed as a significant handicap.
I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I'm just being tolerant of people who don't believe as I do.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-18-2011, 01:51 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I'm just being tolerant of people who don't believe as I do.
What does that have to do with anything?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-18-2011, 02:29 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
What does that have to do with anything?
You said they are people who pretty much don't deserve consideration. I don't take that position. I think I'm right about what I believe and they think they are right about what they believe. What they believe doesn't affect my life at all so I am tolerant of their views.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-18-2011, 12:18 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
You said they are people who pretty much don't deserve consideration. I don't take that position. I think I'm right about what I believe and they think they are right about what they believe. What they believe doesn't affect my life at all so I am tolerant of their views.
This has little or nothing to do with "tolerance" or your particular view of anybody's ideas. What we're talking about is how ideas are to be treated in the public sphere. Once someone has tried to encode their particular belief system in legislation, then it becomes a legitimate, indeed a mandatory, subject of public debate and is therefore subject to open critical scrutiny and hard-edged analysis.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 09-18-2011 at 12:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-18-2011, 01:18 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
This has little or nothing to do with "tolerance" or your particular view of anybody's ideas. What we're talking about is how ideas are to be treated in the public sphere. Once someone has tried to encode their particular belief system in legislation, then it becomes a legitimate, indeed a mandatory, subject of public debate and is therefore subject to open critical scrutiny and hard-edged analysis.
I presume you are talking about teaching creation hypothesis in the public schools. I agree this shouldn't be allowed beyond saying that there are various theories in existence which fail scientific scrutiny. But I see nothing wrong in people doing the work of trying to explore alternate ideas for the way things are. If they want to put the time and effort in and then try to convince others that their ideas are worthy, let 'em. If they can get some university to hold a class laying out their ideas, let 'em. If they want to come on Bloggingheads and talk about their ideas, let 'em. The scrutiny and hard edged analysis will follow.

I remember the brouhaha about ID people coming on BHTV and how people were so very offended. It was silly.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-18-2011, 07:01 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I presume you are talking about teaching creation hypothesis in the public schools. I agree this shouldn't be allowed beyond saying that there are various theories in existence which fail scientific scrutiny. But I see nothing wrong in people doing the work of trying to explore alternate ideas for the way things are. If they want to put the time and effort in and then try to convince others that their ideas are worthy, let 'em. If they can get some university to hold a class laying out their ideas, let 'em. If they want to come on Bloggingheads and talk about their ideas, let 'em. The scrutiny and hard edged analysis will follow.

I remember the brouhaha about ID people coming on BHTV and how people were so very offended. It was silly.
That's sort of cock-eyed, I think. Behe's ideas have suffered deeply under scrutiny - they fail on their own terms and have done so repeatedly, since he keeps repeating the same argument in a shifting context. He's a laughingstock whose ideas should have been subjected to withering skepticism by any serious interlocutor. McWhorter made a damned fool of himself throwing softballs and pissed off a lot of people who care about these things, affording Behe's discredited manure undue dignity.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-18-2011, 07:57 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
That's sort of cock-eyed, I think. Behe's ideas have suffered deeply under scrutiny - they fail on their own terms and have done so repeatedly, since he keeps repeating the same argument in a shifting context. He's a laughingstock whose ideas should have been subjected to withering skepticism by any serious interlocutor. McWhorter made a damned fool of himself throwing softballs and pissed off a lot of people who care about these things, affording Behe's discredited manure undue dignity.
See how repeated exposure works! I didn't ever watch Behe so I don't know what happened. But can't you just enjoy the spectacle, the human drama of it all? I used to watch Jimmy Swaggart for his entertainment value. And it's good to be aware of what's out there.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-18-2011, 08:35 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
See how repeated exposure works! I didn't ever watch Behe so I don't know what happened. But can't you just enjoy the spectacle, the human drama of it all? I used to watch Jimmy Swaggart for his entertainment value. And it's good to be aware of what's out there.
I don't think so. Behe and his like serve to decrease the signal to noise ratio and make the markerplace of ideas run a bit less efficiently. Once an idea has been convincingly discredited it's time to shut up about it. If you can't do that, then you've ceased to be doing science. That's ultimately what McWhorter's mistake was. (But not Behe's. It's hard to believe he doesn't understand that he's peddling nonsense.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 09-18-2011 at 08:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-18-2011, 09:02 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I don't think so. Behe and his like serve to decrease the signal to noise ratio and make the markerplace of ideas run a bit less efficiently. Once an idea has been convincingly discredited it's time to shut up about it. If you can't do that, then you've ceased to be doing science. That's ultimately what McWhorter's mistake was. (But not Behe's. It's hard to believe he doesn't understand that he's peddling nonsense.)
Maybe McWhorter didn't know enough to push back about what Behe was saying. Maybe McWhorter was inspired to learn more based on that experience.
I don't think the marketplace of ideas runs less efficiently because of false beliefs but maybe you can explain to me why you think it does.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-18-2011, 09:11 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Maybe McWhorter didn't know enough to push back about what Behe was saying. Maybe McWhorter was inspired to learn more based on that experience.
I don't think the marketplace of ideas runs less efficiently because of false beliefs but maybe you can explain to me why you think it does.
I think I did explain why. Once an idea has been shown to be false (and ID has been refuted thoroughly) it's time to put it aside and make room for other ideas. That's why we don't talk about the "aether" anymore or allow people to file patents on perpetual motion machines. There's essentially finite room in the public space. Fighting off attempts to insert ID into school curricula, or provimg that it's based on fallacies - again and again - means wasting enrgy and time that can be fruitfully used on other more salient issues.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-18-2011, 10:10 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I think I did explain why. Once an idea has been shown to be false (and ID has been refuted thoroughly) it's time to put it aside and make room for other ideas. That's why we don't talk about the "aether" anymore or allow people to file patents on perpetual motion machines. There's essentially finite room in the public space. Fighting off attempts to insert ID into school curricula, or provimg that it's based on fallacies - again and again - means wasting enrgy and time that can be fruitfully used on other more salient issues.
Is anyone standing in the way of you putting these refuted ideas aside? I don't see finite room in the public space but I do see that bad ideas generally fall away and fall into disrepute just on their own after time. I think people spending time fighting off things like inserting ID into school curricula is time well spent. People get off their couches and participate in the public space defending positions they believe in. They organize. They meet like minded people. They test their mettle and improve their knowledge about the things they are passionate about.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-20-2011, 05:18 PM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: Not the same

Quote:
Do you think that athiests or enlightened Christians are better people than those who think that the earth started spinning six thousand years ago?
Uh, yes, in the sense that people who believe that God created the world 6,000 years ago are demonstrating either a massive inability to face facts that don't agree with their preconceived notions, or a seriously disturbing degree of ignorance, and neither of these things are nice traits in a human being.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.