rigorousintuition.ca

American Dream wrote:
Lots of stuff about New Age

.

Can you say how all the above is related to the OP

Critical Thinking, reductionism, epistemology

as I cant see how it is related?

justdrew wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:Justdrew,

then please just answer the one question:

What do you think about the censorship of certain lines of inquiry in academia, to the point that the mere mention of ID has seen people fired?

IF they reveal themselves as an agent of the hoax, then they should be fired and blackballed because they are acting in bad faith not as scientists but as agents of a far-right christian political agenda. There is NO line of inquiry that's going to shed light on how ID occurred or proves it, in the absence of a designer showing up and showing how it was done, there can be no such proof. There is no question to answer. There is no science to "do" about it. Which you would know if you'd looked at the article on teleology. This is not some new idea, this shit has been gone over since before the common era. Why in hell do buy this shit?

Ummmm...
in the last how many decades (only decades) have we come up with flight, the telephone, radio, television, space flight, vaccinations, discovered DNA, made progress on mapping the genome, computers, the internet... I could go on, obviously.

You think that we tried this and failed years ago so if we try now we'll fail again? You want to quit? You think Darwin got it all right the first time out on the Beagle?

what is "the hoax" really? what are you afraid of?

American Dream wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote: What do you think about the censorship of certain lines of inquiry in academia, to the point that the mere mention of ID has seen people fired?

It would help if you were more specific about which case(s) you are referring to...

The case of Richard Sternberg to me seems to indicate that going against Orthodoxy around evolution can cause... issues.

psynapz wrote:
Shouldn't we here focus primarily on discussing any and only ideas which are dangerous to the
global fascist control systems, or meta-discussion thereof for the purpose of reaching consensus (or
prompting the mods/Jeff to refine boundaries) on what constitutes anti-fascist ideas worth discussing
(as sort of a TED of antifascism), and consider all else to be a disruptive waste of our precious and
ever-dwindling time, be that ever intentional or otherwise?

brekin wrote:
I hear you. I think these new personality threads gain more traction and mileage because they allow an
arena for people to flagellate themselves and others over perceived victimization on a public forum where
anything can be construed to fit within any framework. That's seemingly more cathartic then discussing
fascism or imperialism, which most of us in the western industrialized nations no doubt support in some form.
Since this is a public forum and the only real discrimination that can take place is banning (which I myself
have experienced and still think this place is pretty much free of discrimination) I hope these college like
bull sessions that begin as time wasters and spin off into dogma tests and denunciations have run their course.
Really nothing is less interesting then a bunch of progressives trying to out convince each other that they are
the more tolerant, open minded, inclusive and benevolent as they then go on to accuse, denounce each other
and then call for the public hanging.

C_W wrote:

Do you think censorship is a primary ingredient in fascism's recipe?

Sure, but what power doesn't use censorship in its recipe?
Academia, Church, Government, etc of all persuasions use it.
Individuals may even be hardwired to self censor things that they
don't want to face at certain times. Every thread is example after
example of people selectively choosing what fits their argument and not
the others.

I'd personally be fine with Intelligent Design being taught at universities, along
with say Conspiracy Studies and a thousand other subjects, but in this day and
age when anyone with a dial up can learn about whatever they want under the sun
I'm not going to lay down under a tank for it.
And really, people in academia don't get jobs and get fired for
all manner of petty sub doctrine slap fights. I personally believe Evolution a la
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin may be some type of emerging intelligent design. But expecting
others to agree with me, or even entertain the idea, is not something I expect or
demand. If I'm in the minority on that and a majority disagrees then that is the way it goes.
And really if someone wanted to teach the classic fundamentalist Intelligent Design stuff I'm sure they
could get plenty gigs at Oral Roberts type universities. It's not like there is a nation wide ban on
it as far as I know.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

justdrew wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:Justdrew,

then please just answer the one question:

What do you think about the censorship of certain lines of inquiry in academia, to the point that the mere mention of ID has seen people fired?

IF they reveal themselves as an agent of the hoax, then they should be fired and blackballed because they are acting in bad faith not as scientists but as agents of a far-right christian political agenda. There is NO line of inquiry that's going to shed light on how ID occurred or proves it, in the absence of a designer showing up and showing how it was done, there can be no such proof. There is no question to answer. There is no science to "do" about it. Which you would know if you'd looked at the article on teleology. This is not some new idea, this shit has been gone over since before the common era. Why in hell do buy this shit?

Ummmm...
in the last how many decades (only decades) have we come up with flight, the telephone, radio, television, space flight, vaccinations, discovered DNA, made progress on mapping the genome, computers, the internet... I could go on, obviously.

You think that we tried this and failed years ago so if we try now we'll fail again? You want to quit? You think Darwin got it all right the first time out on the Beagle?

what is "the hoax" really? what are you afraid of?

what are you afraid of?

Canadian_watcher wrote:What do you think about the way academics are being treated when they mention, make reference to, or otherwise dip their toes in any way into intelligent design?

Did you investigate any of the claims made by the film in this regard as to their veracity, or did you simply watch the film and nod your head approvingly?

If we are going to examine epistemology as the understanding of the limits of the possibilities of knowledge, one of the first things we must be able to do is learn how to in some way separate information which is harmful from that which can take us to the next step in our understanding.

Intelligent Design is a right wing attempt to sneak Christian theology into the elementary school classrooom syllabus.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Canadian_Watcher wrote:Does it not make you a little suspicious, at least, that TPTB want to stop ID from being debated in institutions for higher learning? It makes me more curious about ID than ever! TPTB have never had my best interests at heart so I can safely guess that they don't on this issue, either.

You are demonstrating such a limited sense of history it makes me sad. The fight to remove bible studies from the classroom was won over a half a century by brave, dedicated individuals who stood their ground in legal battles with the state at great personal expense and suffering.

Literally hundreds of millions of people throughout the world fervently believe that ghosts inhabit all inanimate objects, such as rocks, pencils, doorknobs, rivers and storms. This faith is known as animism, and is practiced throughout the United States to a small degree. Do you think this should be taught on an equal footing with intelligent design and evolution? How about Celtic polytheism? Tree worship? Witchcraft? Satanism? Alien implantation? Panspermia? Fairies?

How we decide exactly what areas of inquiry are interesting or important to look into is mitigated by our own beliefs and traditions.

My religion states rather plainly that the universe was created in six days by an anthropomorphic deity who made the first man by modeling him from the dust of the ground and breathing life into his nostrils. But I have made a point of embracing any number of other aspects from other religions and scientific theories in order that I might walk down the street with a greater awareness of my surroundings, my world and myself. On some days electro-chemistry is my deity, on others it may be the solar orb. But each of these is, for better or worse (worse, I should think), comparatively laid against the creation story I was taught as a child.

I would like to return to the open, unfettered astonishment of my childhood existence, before I learned all the limitations of my understanding. But I'm not afraid to look directly at the limitations which would be thrust upon me, and understand the politics of the who and why of any of them.

Searcher08 wrote:

American Dream wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote: What do you think about the censorship of certain lines of inquiry in academia, to the point that the mere mention of ID has seen people fired?

It would help if you were more specific about which case(s) you are referring to...

The case of Richard Sternberg to me seems to indicate that going against Orthodoxy around evolution can cause... issues.

he's a bible thumping clown, who cares what he says about anything?

Canadian_watcher wrote:I didn't think Ben Stein was a right-wing Christian, but then, I don't know him personally.

"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -- Ben Stein.



And CW, I'm not answering your questions because they are naive and not very interesting. Use Google. I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm trying to help you ask more interesting questions that are worth talking about.

brekin wrote: Sure, but what power doesn't use censorship in its recipe?
Academia, Church, Government, etc of all persuasions use it.
Individuals may even be hardwired to self censor things that they
don't want to face at certain times. Every thread is example after
example of people selectively choosing what fits their argument and not
the others.

I agree completely. We should face up to it but it *is* certainly a challenge to do so.

brekin wrote:I'd personally be fine with Intelligent Design being taught at universities, along
with say Conspiracy Studies and a thousand other subjects, but in this day and
age when anyone with a dial up can learn about whatever they want under the sun
I'm not going to lay down under a tank for it.

Oh my god I didn't realize there were TANKS involved here!

brekin wrote:And really, people in academia don't get jobs and get fired for
all manner of petty sub doctrine slap fights.

You base this on your years as a professional arbitrator in these kinds of matters? Or maybe you are a Supreme Corut Justice or something? Ah.. you have worked in HR at many major universities? Wait, wait.. no... you've looked in to it? I have looked in to it. They really do get fired for that.

brekin wrote:I personally believe Evolution a la
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin may be some type of emerging intelligent design. But expecting
others to agree with me, or even entertain the idea, is not something I expect or
demand. If I'm in the minority on that and a majority disagrees then that is the way it goes.

I guess we can all be glad that you are not the leader of any social justice groups. Or a lawyer working pro-bono. Or a parent. Wait.. are you a parent? Would you fight for your kid? I view this as fighting for my kid. Same, same.

brekin wrote:And really if someone wanted to teach the classic fundamentalist Intelligent Design stuff I'm sure they
could get plenty gigs at Oral Roberts type universities. It's not like there is a nation wide ban on
it as far as I know.

Yes, yes - where they can be easily dismissed.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:I didn't think Ben Stein was a right-wing Christian, but then, I don't know him personally.

"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -- Ben Stein.



And CW, I'm not answering your questions because they are naive and not very interesting. Use Google. I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm trying to help you ask more interesting questions that are worth talking about.

I can't really argue with Ben Stein on his quote. You could flip it around though and it'd still be as true.

I didn't ask you any questions, WR. And let's not forget I've got to aim them at my audience, who are shifting the sand beneath my feet. I have to keep it on target.

That being said, let's have your best question.

justdrew wrote:

Searcher08 wrote:

American Dream wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote: What do you think about the censorship of certain lines of inquiry in academia, to the point that the mere mention of ID has seen people fired?

It would help if you were more specific about which case(s) you are referring to...

The case of Richard Sternberg to me seems to indicate that going against Orthodoxy around evolution can cause... issues.

he's a bible thumping clown, who cares what he says about anything?

Hmmm - he is Roman Catholic AFAIK, and as a former one, we didnt thump Bibles, as we were too busy feeling guilty

Sternberg isnt even an advocate for Intelligent Design - his position is that there are major issues with aspects of evolutionary biology.

brainpanhandler wrote:

Stephen Morgan wrote:

You're such a star trek nerd, but yah... male pattern baldness. What's up with that oh intelligent designer?

Duh. Infant/child survival rates are improved where as many parent figures as possible live long enough to see the infant through to young adulthood, so sperm donors in the same age bracket as the sperm recipients are favorable over brilliant gay Shakespearean actors who are getting on in years and may not survive long enough to ensure the later survival of the proposed offspring, and the subconscious signal of suitability in that case is the male's beautiful mate-attracting headfeathers falling out from the front-to-the-back, so as to be unmistakable if you're facing them, presumably while considering being penetrated by them. Unless you're into doggy, reverse-cowgirl, or any number of fascinating belly-down-based positions which weren't invented yet back when our base instincts were forming.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:I didn't think Ben Stein was a right-wing Christian, but then, I don't know him personally.

"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -- Ben Stein.



And CW, I'm not answering your questions because they are naive and not very interesting. Use Google. I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm trying to help you ask more interesting questions that are worth talking about.

I can't really argue with Ben Stein on his quote. You could flip it around though and it'd still be as true.

I didn't ask you any questions, WR. And let's not forget I've got to aim them at my audience, who are shifting the sand beneath my feet. I have to keep it on target.

That being said, let's have your best question.

you do not have an audience. that seems a fairly fundamental misunderstanding. I'm checking out on this now.

"I can't really argue with Ben Stein on his quote. " - C_W

and with that you can go jump in a lake. such an embrace of ignorance is really fucking sickening. and no I'm not going to tell you why.

Searcher08 wrote:

justdrew wrote:

Searcher08 wrote:

American Dream wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote: What do you think about the censorship of certain lines of inquiry in academia, to the point that the mere mention of ID has seen people fired?

It would help if you were more specific about which case(s) you are referring to...

The case of Richard Sternberg to me seems to indicate that going against Orthodoxy around evolution can cause... issues.

he's a bible thumping clown, who cares what he says about anything?

Hmmm - he is Roman Catholic AFAIK, and as a former one, we didnt thump Bibles, as we were too busy feeling guilty

Sternberg isnt even an advocate for Intelligent Design - his position is that there are major issues with aspects of evolutionary biology.

read the damn wiki page about him. he's on the board of a "young earth" foundation looking to "prove" the bible creation story.

C'mon, tantrum. Tantrum, tantrum, tantrum.

That was stupid of me, now the ignorant thug'll behave herself and post heart-smilies and shit.