Schools, Liberalism, and Society

[Old Rocks]

I'm not a great conspiracy fan but I have to think at times that there is a conspiracy by some politicians to keep Americans uneducated. Why are do so many in the South believe Obama is a Muslim while less in the north believe he is a Muslim? But it's not just the Muslim bit, but evolution, the world is round and so on.
What do I believe that is not true?

You understand that evolution is a theory...

You know what a theory is, don't you?

Yes, I understand exactly what a Theory is in the scientific sense. Apparently you do not. But that is to be expected.

You 'Conservatives' are anti-science and anti-education. And it shows in every ignorant post.

 

[Old Rocks]

You understand that evolution is a theory...

You know what a theory is, don't you?

Yes. a scientific theory which is different than the theory definition the average person uses.
It's possible that the atom is still just a theory, the atomic theory that they use to build the bombs, power electric plants, power ships, use in chemistry and so forth. Might want to check on that theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory as was the atomic theory which means it's pretty much accepted as fact. Not all the evolutionary pieces are in yet, and the pieces that are in, are subject to being placed and replaced but as a science it's accepted as a factual puzzle still being worked out.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com


Is it copasetic with you that not everyone is as convinced as you are "it's pretty much accepted as fact"...or are you a Liberal?

Wheeee...... So, the an opinion peice in the WSJ is to be used in judging evolution and Darwin? Damn, you are not only ignorant, but screwball, as well.

Evolution is probably the most robust of all Scientific Theories. We understand how it works, how the alleles change, and even use that understanding to create new organisms, and even modify mammals to produce products we desire.

 

[Old Rocks]

The religions are not the source of the dispute...the anti-religious group of scientists who take gratuitous swipes at religion and religious folks are the cause of the friction.

The anti-religion aspect of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution are responsible...and are central to the idea of Liberalism.

Science detached from religion, or at least from morality, lacks humanity.
In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?

Or burning at the stake, or the crusades or the hundred year war or.... Maybe Napoleon said it best if it weren't for religion the poor people would have killed all the rich people long ago.

I'm surprised at such a cliched response....

...and that you didn't think it through:


1. For scientists persuaded that there is no God, there is no finer pleasure than recounting the history of religious brutality and persecution. In “The End of Faith,” Sam Harris gives the lurid details of the torture methods of the Spanish Inquisition. There is no arguing the point: religious fanaticism caused a great deal of suffering. And the Moslem world is quite ready to carry the burden of exuberant depravity.

Yet…there is this awkward fact: the 20th century, while not an age of faith, certainly was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…hardly religious leaders.

2. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
From chapter two of "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski


Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?
How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

Odd, but many on this board that react with glee at the thought of offing a few of their fellow citizens for having a differant political philosophy than they do, also claim to be deeply religious.

 

[Jroc]

Yes. a scientific theory which is different than the theory definition the average person uses.
It's possible that the atom is still just a theory, the atomic theory that they use to build the bombs, power electric plants, power ships, use in chemistry and so forth. Might want to check on that theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory as was the atomic theory which means it's pretty much accepted as fact. Not all the evolutionary pieces are in yet, and the pieces that are in, are subject to being placed and replaced but as a science it's accepted as a factual puzzle still being worked out.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com


Is it copasetic with you that not everyone is as convinced as you are "it's pretty much accepted as fact"...or are you a Liberal?

Only people like Limbaugh are totally conservative or liberal, but I'm mostly liberal.
What has securlarism have to do with evolution, or chemistry or the world is round? That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me any more than the flat- earthers believe differently than I do. Perhaps some people should stay out of museums, planetariums, and science labs, but should we keep young people out too?

"Believe in" you speak as if evolution were a faith. You can believe in G-d, you can believe the theory of evolution is correct, See the difference?

 

[Old Rocks]

A scientific Theory is accepted on the merits of it's evidence. A religion is believed in on the basis of subjective faith.

Which a person values the most is dependent on that particular person's weltanschauung.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A scientific Theory is accepted on the merits of it's evidence. A religion is believed in on the basis of subjective faith.

Which a person values the most is dependent on that particular person's weltanschauung.

Since the largest part of the theory of evolution is based on faith, since it is sans evidence....are you proposing that it is a religious doctrine?



OMG…you are correct! That’s an event that usually accompanies a parting sea or a stone tablet!!!

Now, let me point you in the right direction:


“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution).

Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!

What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd? They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.


A blessing upon you, Saint OldRocks....(Saint Screwball??)
...continue to anoint the faithful.

 

[Dante]

The religions are not the source of the dispute...the anti-religious group of scientists who take gratuitous swipes at religion and religious folks are the cause of the friction.

now if that isn't the craziest thing the Pol-Chic has spouted in the last week or so,,,




.

 

[blimpo]

I'd just be happy if kids genuinely wanted to learn.

I know kids that if the choice was losing their parents or their cell phones, it'd be bye bye Mom.

With little or no discipline allowed in the classroom and kids coming to school with little or no self-discipline, it's a tragic situation. With all society's problems leveled on teachers and out of control students and classrooms, we are going to see many of the good teachers finding employment in other areas....

 

[Jroc]

 

[Ravi]

1. For most of us, experience is the path to learning, and the absence of actual experience of the world opens the student to the formation of some conclusions which have either no, or only harmful, application outside the halls of ivy. There, he is rewarded in pleasing the teacher by repeating an endorsed behavior, he is going to take his ‘learning’ with him, out into the world.

a. George Washington, Father of our country….have a pellet of food.

b. Thomas Jefferson, third President, owned slaves and kept a mistress…have an appointment as a graduate instructor!

c. Pull the lever: It’s a racist country. America is an exploiter. Capitalism is bad. Israel is a Nazi nation. Get a pellet.

d. But to keep pulling the trigger to get the food pellet after the instructor has gone is called the Cargo Cult.


2. One can say that once the student leaves the ‘lab,’ no pellet. True, except that in society the Left supplies the pellet for the ex-student: the pellet is no longer a grade, now it is the protection of the herd. [Coulter refers to it as ‘the mob.’] The ultimate reward may be status, or position.
Or a Nobel Peace Prize.

a. To put a fine point on it, the ex-student has to supply a correct phrase to get his reward.

b. He, of course, comes to prize the ideas and phrases whose repetition rewarded him. He generalizes the idea that the idea is good rather than the reward.


3. Such is the lot of the student raised in captivity. Why should he examine the context or the consequences of his learned phrases?

a. Take 'Racism'. The Liberal is of the group that recognizes that racism is bad. But everybody knows this. So what is the benefit or merit of being able to repeat it?
Simple: it is a recognition symbol that allows the utterer access to those whose thinking process is similarly limited.
A far better analysis is to be found in "The Secret Knowledge," by Mamet.

4. This is the explanation for the more left-leaning members of this board remaining, for the most part, impervious to to logic, data, experience or debate. Rectitude offers no pellet, no grade, no reward.

But, if rectitude serves as its own reward....one wouldn't be Liberal.

Israel is not a Nazi nation.

You really are an idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. For most of us, experience is the path to learning, and the absence of actual experience of the world opens the student to the formation of some conclusions which have either no, or only harmful, application outside the halls of ivy. There, he is rewarded in pleasing the teacher by repeating an endorsed behavior, he is going to take his ‘learning’ with him, out into the world.

a. George Washington, Father of our country….have a pellet of food.

b. Thomas Jefferson, third President, owned slaves and kept a mistress…have an appointment as a graduate instructor!

c. Pull the lever: It’s a racist country. America is an exploiter. Capitalism is bad. Israel is a Nazi nation. Get a pellet.

d. But to keep pulling the trigger to get the food pellet after the instructor has gone is called the Cargo Cult.


2. One can say that once the student leaves the ‘lab,’ no pellet. True, except that in society the Left supplies the pellet for the ex-student: the pellet is no longer a grade, now it is the protection of the herd. [Coulter refers to it as ‘the mob.’] The ultimate reward may be status, or position.
Or a Nobel Peace Prize.

a. To put a fine point on it, the ex-student has to supply a correct phrase to get his reward.

b. He, of course, comes to prize the ideas and phrases whose repetition rewarded him. He generalizes the idea that the idea is good rather than the reward.


3. Such is the lot of the student raised in captivity. Why should he examine the context or the consequences of his learned phrases?

a. Take 'Racism'. The Liberal is of the group that recognizes that racism is bad. But everybody knows this. So what is the benefit or merit of being able to repeat it?
Simple: it is a recognition symbol that allows the utterer access to those whose thinking process is similarly limited.
A far better analysis is to be found in "The Secret Knowledge," by Mamet.

4. This is the explanation for the more left-leaning members of this board remaining, for the most part, impervious to to logic, data, experience or debate. Rectitude offers no pellet, no grade, no reward.

But, if rectitude serves as its own reward....one wouldn't be Liberal.

Israel is not a Nazi nation.

You really are an idiot.

Welcome to camp USMB, today’s lesson: conflict resolution.
The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.

The precis of the OP is that Liberal education doesn't teach...it propagandizes captive students to respond as Pavlov did with his dogs.
Thus, the line "Get a pellet."
Pellet of food = reward.

And, since Liberals indoctrinate false and harmful concepts, the line you reference serves as an example....

"Pull the lever: It’s a racist country. America is an exploiter. Capitalism is bad. Israel is a Nazi nation. Get a pellet."

There are four examples of such in the line:
a. It’s a racist country

b. America is an exploiter.

c. Capitalism is bad.

d. Israel is a Nazi nation.

These were chosen because any thinking person would know they were bogus...an intelligent reader would know that they were untrue, and recognize my point in providing same...thanks for proving my point.

Now that you have failed comprehension, let's see how you do in vocabulary:
Do you know what "idiot" means?

id·i·ot/ˈidēət/
Noun:
A stupid person.
A mentally handicapped person.

Very good!
You know what it means, and have proven your eligibility for same!

This is only fun when someone bites it big time....and that is where you came in.
Have an educational day.

 

[regent]

Yep, schools give rewards if you give the answer the school wants, but what about a different learning experience. Can you remember walking along and looking at some rocks and wondering why some rocks are round and smooth and other rocks are jagged and rough?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep, schools give rewards if you give the answer the school wants, but what about a different learning experience. Can you remember walking along and looking at some rocks and wondering why some rocks are round and smooth and other rocks are jagged and rough?

Now, now, reggie....let's keep this thread of the moment....

Having taken over the universities, the Left has watered down the curricula, dumbed down the students, and made it demanding to believe other than the Leftist memes.

Look at the contumely that results from differing from the secular in terms of religion, Constitutionalism, evolution, in fact, conservatism in general.


Now....if you are suggesting tossing "some rocks... round and smooth and other rocks ...jagged and rough" at 'em....
....you might be able to convince me.

 

[regent]

Education or thinking is not restricted to schools. The rock example is where some scientists might have started, in fact some did. Some people see rocks and some see rocks and wonder.

As to the universities being taken over by liberals, why would that be? Was it part of a liberal conspiracy to take over the universites or did people that just like learning gravitate to the academic life or just what? Nor have we defined liberalism we might be talking of two different things. Are there different types of liberalism, are there core beliefs to liberalism?
++++
I'll ignore the complex question fallacy you used.