healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:56 pm

And yet, some of humanity's greatest scientists studied and practiced alchemy, such as Sir Isaac Newton. Did I mention that a lot of them were deeply religious as well? A significant number of the inductees of the National Academy of Science also report being religious.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:21 pm

Basically the argument I'm seeing Kiryan make is that since alchemy was used to create chemistry, alchemy should be taught in some fashion in chemistry classes; therefore, ID should be taught in biology courses in some fashion.

Lets break this down, shall we:

Premise 1 -- Alchemy was used to create chemistry. Logically valid as premises go, truthful as well.

Premise 2 -- Alchemy should be taught in some fashion in chemistry classes. (The implied fashion is historical, as in "the ignorant form of chemistry". Notice the connection is past to present). As a stand-alone premise, this is valid, and the truth is a value judgement, so we wont add that to the table. If we do, we will assume truth for the sake of argument.

Premise 3 -- Alchemy is to chemistry as ID is to biology (theory of evolution). This is an implied premise to be taken before the conclusion and derived from his current use of the alchemy example as analogy. This premise is invalid for reason of anachronism. Alchemy was prior to chemistry. We see the ignorant, mystical version before the refined scientific version (past to present). In the second half of the analogy, ID is the ignorant, mystical version and was presented after the refined scientific version (theory) (present to past); therefore, the analogy breaks down due to an inherent temporal contradiction.

Conclusion -- Id should be taught in biology courses in some fashion. Invalid due to its reliance upon the invalid third premise to provide logical progression to the conclusion.

Informal Fallacy used by implication -- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (before the thing, therefore because of the thing):

You lean on alchemy being chemistry's beginnings; however, as Sarvis pointed out, chemistry uses some of alchemy's techniques, but the idea of alchemy is only peripherally related to chemistry. It would be like saying physics is the cause of medical science. Sure, medical science uses physics theories (like vascular action), but one would never say that medicine is derived from physics -- or that physics is the precursor for medicine. A more apparent analogy would be the use of rubber on car tires. We do not say that chemistry is the precursor to car manufacturing. If we were to pick a precursor for car manufacturing, a much closer example would be physics.

There is a reason alchemy is not taught in chemistry class -- because it's not chemistry and never was. Alchemy is as much chemistry as astrology is astronomy. They seek to analyze the same phenomena, but they do it in very different ways.

Lastly, Ragorn's use of the Alchemy example was in the spirit of using phrenology when discussing psychology. Again, you have to stay away from post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Not only is it logically invalid, but it just a weak argument otherwise and follows the same tradition of mystical beliefs such as phrenology, alchemy, and astrology -- they assume causal links without testing the hypothesis.

Informal Fallacy explicitly -- used False Analogy:

You analogize alchemy and ID. Due to the anachronistic ties to their counterparts in the analogy, it is a false analogy.


Conclusion:

Your main argument has failed due to the merits of what makes a scientific theory scientific, and, thus, what belongs in a science class. Your secondary argument by analogy has been proven invalid logically, which shouldn't have had to be done because of the main argument easily dismissed. The only reasoning you can find is belief, which is intrinsically a set of value judgements; therefore, you can not ever prove that ID belongs in a science class without relying on the argument "because I feel it does".

/end thread
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:34 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:And yet, some of humanity's greatest scientists studied and practiced alchemy, such as Sir Isaac Newton. Did I mention that a lot of them were deeply religious as well? A significant number of the inductees of the National Academy of Science also report being religious.


There is so much wrong in this short post that I don't really want to go too far into it. Because Newton studied alchemy does not make alchemy anything other than what it is -- mystical belief and proven false by years of tested theories and experiments.

Second, your statement is fallacious in that you use appeal to authority. Yes, newton was a genius, but he was also human and a product of his time. This says nothing about alchemy other than Newton practiced alchemy -- nothing else. It also says nothing about scientific theory or the scientific method.

Scientists believing in God -- again, appeal to authority. It bears no significance to the argument that Leibnitz believed in God any more than any scientist having an irrational phobia or an OCD. Everyone has their beliefs, but notice how we strip the parts of what they did scientifically, teach it in science class, and toss the rest to the historians to talk about? Again, it bears no significance to the argument.

The last statement is guilty of all which has been said in this post.

I would also like to point out you're using the red herring fallacy by even creating this post and the straw man fallacy by attempting to create a rebutal to an argument that was never made (that scientists only believe in science).

I could go on, but I think what I have is conclusive enough to dismiss what you wrote entirely.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:50 pm

Did you read the article Kifle?

I'm attacking Ragorn's ignorance where he stated we couldn't teach alchemy in science class, when in fact it is on track to be recognized as the precusror or early form of Chemistry. In fact, techniques developed under Alchemy by alchemists following stringent lab techniques are still used today in chemistry and are taught in science class.

I may go too far by saying that you can justify teaching ID in class by teaching some history like alchemy... but the claim that you can only teach science in science class and Ragorn will determine what science is ... is flawed as noted with alchemy.

Part of what is going on is a redefinition of alchemy from "quacks who tried to turn lead into gold" to people who conducted extensive research and experimentation on the chemical properties of various substances... most of which were probably trying to come up with the elixir of life or lead to gold formula.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:58 pm

kiryan wrote: the precusror or early form of Chemistry.


pre·cur·sor   
[pri-kur-ser, pree-kur-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person or thing that precedes, as in a job, a method, etc.; predecessor.
2.
a person, animal, or thing that goes before and indicates the approach of someone or something else; harbinger: The first robin is a precursor of spring.
3.
Chemistry, Biochemistry . a chemical that is transformed into another compound, as in the course of a chemical reaction, and therefore precedes that compound in the synthetic pathway: Cholesterol is a precursor of testosterone.
4.
Biology . a cell or tissue that gives rise to a variant, specialized, or more mature form.


Precursor does not mean "early form of."

the claim that you can only teach science in science class


Should. Should only teach science in science class. The teacher COULD, for example, go off on a tangent about how we're aliens that were dumped in a volcano thousands of years ago and we have get rid of our thetans. Or whatever.

It's just a waste of time in science class.

and Ragorn will determine what science is ... is flawed as noted with alchemy.


It's only flawed if you think "precursor" means "early form of" AND don't think we should teach ACTUAL chemistry instead of "early forms" of chemistry. Oh, AND think that alchemy should be covered, which it shouldn't. History class can say "alchemy was precursor to chemistry." Science class can say "These elements are on the periodic table, and this is how we form compounds..."


Part of what is going on is a redefinition of alchemy from "quacks who tried to turn lead into gold" to people who conducted extensive research and experimentation on the chemical properties of various substances... most of which were probably trying to come up with the elixir of life or lead to gold formula.


So what?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:42 pm

So to sum it up, it used to be science, techniques created by alchemists are still used in science, but we can only mention it in history class.

Well at least your consistent with your acrobatics.

I guess we'll just rename science class so you can't use pedantic definitions to exclude ID.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:49 pm

kiryan wrote:So to sum it up, it used to be science, techniques created by alchemists are still used in science, but we can only mention it in history class.


Yep. Except I'm not sure it was ever really science, any more than Latin is actually French. But hey, whatever. The point is, what is taught in Chemistry class is chemistry. Not the history of chemistry, not how they used to do things, but how chemistry is performed now.

Get it? Chemistry is the analysis of atoms and molecules and how they interact. That is all. Not "what people did 100 years ago." That's history class.

I guess we'll just rename science class so you can't use pedantic definitions to exclude ID.


We said you should do a comparitive religion class a long time ago.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:54 pm

no, we'll just change the class name. Its retarded to teach ID in a religion class.

It is a theory that challenges a scientific theory who'se proponents use science to justify and attempt to prove it even if though technically its not science. The only appropriate place to teach anything about ID is in science class.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:56 pm

kiryan wrote:no, we'll just change the class name. Its retarded to teach ID.


fixed.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:00 pm

kiryan wrote:no, we'll just change the class name. Its retarded to teach ID in a religion class.

It is a theory that challenges a scientific theory who'se proponents use science to justify and attempt to prove it even if though technically its not science. The only appropriate place to teach anything about ID is in science class.


Scientology offers a theory that challenges scientific theory. Here, I'll make one right now. All forms of life spawned from my asshole, and time is not linear, so it's not anachronistic. Should we teach both of these in science class?

ID IS NOT SCIENCE. SCIENCE IS SCIENCE. ONLY SCIENCE IS TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS. THEREFORE, ID IS NOT TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS.

In your argument, you're stating that all theories that challenge science should be taught in science class. Just think about that for a second. Seriously, think about it.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:25 pm

My issue is not that ALL crazy ideas must be taught, just the ones that that have an insanely large following.

When 50 fucking percent 50% or 180 some million Americans believe some alternate explanation to evolution and another 30% or 100 million americans believe directly in ID... I think its fair to present some information on the alternate view points along with the dominant scientific theory IN SCIENCE CLASS. You can piss and moan till you're blue in the face that its not science, but far in excess of 50% of America believes something more than plain jane darwinism. Right or wrong, it should be covered in Science class before or after a rigorous study of Darwinism is made.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:52 am

kiryan wrote:My issue is not that ALL crazy ideas must be taught, just the ones that that have an insanely large following.

When 50 fucking percent 50% or 180 some million Americans believe some alternate explanation to evolution and another 30% or 100 million americans believe directly in ID... I think its fair to present some information on the alternate view points along with the dominant scientific theory IN SCIENCE CLASS. You can piss and moan till you're blue in the face that its not science, but far in excess of 50% of America believes something more than plain jane darwinism. Right or wrong, it should be covered in Science class before or after a rigorous study of Darwinism is made.


Informal Fallacy Alert! Ad Populum

I'm sure at some point that 50% of people in the world believed in witchcraft and witches, but that doesn't mean we should teach or have ever taught about witches or witchcraft in schools.

From now on, I think I'm just going to post the fallacy's you're using and just move on.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:01 am

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:And yet, some of humanity's greatest scientists studied and practiced alchemy, such as Sir Isaac Newton. Did I mention that a lot of them were deeply religious as well? A significant number of the inductees of the National Academy of Science also report being religious.


There is so much wrong in this short post that I don't really want to go too far into it. Because Newton studied alchemy does not make alchemy anything other than what it is -- mystical belief and proven false by years of tested theories and experiments.

Second, your statement is fallacious in that you use appeal to authority. Yes, newton was a genius, but he was also human and a product of his time. This says nothing about alchemy other than Newton practiced alchemy -- nothing else. It also says nothing about scientific theory or the scientific method.

Scientists believing in God -- again, appeal to authority. It bears no significance to the argument that Leibnitz believed in God any more than any scientist having an irrational phobia or an OCD. Everyone has their beliefs, but notice how we strip the parts of what they did scientifically, teach it in science class, and toss the rest to the historians to talk about? Again, it bears no significance to the argument.

The last statement is guilty of all which has been said in this post.

I would also like to point out you're using the red herring fallacy by even creating this post and the straw man fallacy by attempting to create a rebutal to an argument that was never made (that scientists only believe in science).

I could go on, but I think what I have is conclusive enough to dismiss what you wrote entirely.

You dismiss the most granular arguments while being blind to the main argument I've been presenting for most of this thread. The reason you didn't see a point in what I said was because you have no skill in reading that which does not directly support your argument.

I will educate: my point is that philosophy is an integral component of science - that why has led us to observe and to make observations of what. The willful discovery is what leads people to things like religion and alchemy. It's unfounded belief in the face of significant evidence against - that keeps people in things like alchemy after most are pretty sure that it's a dead end. And philosophy on why existence is - rarely has any evidence against it.

Rarely is only science taught in science class. Atomic models that have been shown to have been incorrect are still taught - that is history. Mathematics is reinforced because it is also a part of science. English is taught where students papers are corrected for grammar, spelling, word choice, and/or coherence. Philosophy is taught whenever a professor or teacher muses as to the nature of natural laws and their relationships, or speculates as to a scientist's motivations.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to it. Or perhaps YOUR science class was all about indoctrination - and you bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Kids would be better off if you kept your crap education to yourself.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:29 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:And yet, some of humanity's greatest scientists studied and practiced alchemy, such as Sir Isaac Newton. Did I mention that a lot of them were deeply religious as well? A significant number of the inductees of the National Academy of Science also report being religious.


There is so much wrong in this short post that I don't really want to go too far into it. Because Newton studied alchemy does not make alchemy anything other than what it is -- mystical belief and proven false by years of tested theories and experiments.

Second, your statement is fallacious in that you use appeal to authority. Yes, newton was a genius, but he was also human and a product of his time. This says nothing about alchemy other than Newton practiced alchemy -- nothing else. It also says nothing about scientific theory or the scientific method.

Scientists believing in God -- again, appeal to authority. It bears no significance to the argument that Leibnitz believed in God any more than any scientist having an irrational phobia or an OCD. Everyone has their beliefs, but notice how we strip the parts of what they did scientifically, teach it in science class, and toss the rest to the historians to talk about? Again, it bears no significance to the argument.

The last statement is guilty of all which has been said in this post.

I would also like to point out you're using the red herring fallacy by even creating this post and the straw man fallacy by attempting to create a rebutal to an argument that was never made (that scientists only believe in science).

I could go on, but I think what I have is conclusive enough to dismiss what you wrote entirely.

You dismiss the most granular arguments while being blind to the main argument I've been presenting for most of this thread. The reason you didn't see a point in what I said was because you have no skill in reading that which does not directly support your argument.

I will educate: my point is that philosophy is an integral component of science - that why has led us to observe and to make observations of what. The willful discovery is what leads people to things like religion and alchemy. It's unfounded belief in the face of significant evidence against - that keeps people in things like alchemy after most are pretty sure that it's a dead end. And philosophy on why existence is - rarely has any evidence against it.

Rarely is only science taught in science class. Atomic models that have been shown to have been incorrect are still taught - that is history. Mathematics is reinforced because it is also a part of science. English is taught where students papers are corrected for grammar, spelling, word choice, and/or coherence. Philosophy is taught whenever a professor or teacher muses as to the nature of natural laws and their relationships, or speculates as to a scientist's motivations.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to it. Or perhaps YOUR science class was all about indoctrination - and you bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Kids would be better off if you kept your crap education to yourself.


I think you've regressed. So much for that new Teflor garbage. I'll be putting you back on ignore after this one. I don't see the point in Ad Hominem, but since you make an extremely weak argument, I'm not surprised you're reaching in to your old bag of "can't beat'em, insult'em".

Atomic models which use the static orbits are taught because high school students aren't, on average, able to grasp the concept of a dynamic electron cloud. That is reality. Mathematics is used in science, taught in math class. Notice how science courses generally have a minimum requirement of mathematics. No, math is not taught in science course, it is used. There's a difference, but I don't expect you to concede that fact at this point in you regression. English is not taught in a corrected paper, it is reinforced. Again, English class is for learning English. Once you are at a certain level of education, you are expected to know certain grammatical principles. If you do not, you are, most times, counted against it on your grade in any class. But the prof doesn't run over grammar, spelling, etc. errors in class -- they assume, rightfully, that you made a mistake and know how to correct it. Why? Because you are assumed to know how to read and right effectively at this point. Again, because I feel the need to express this one more time, usage of a discipline does not imply teaching of a discipline. Science courses teach you science, but you use other things while in the class -- which you are already supposed to know so the teacher does not waste valuable time teaching proper punctuation instead of the structural anatomy of an atom.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention. Or perhaps YOUR science class had to teach remedial mathematics and English, which caused you to learn less in class. Maybe you should prep a little harder for entrance exams next time so you don't have to take remedial courses. Kids would be better off if you kept your crap education to yourself.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:42 am

Interesting, you rely upon the exact same insults you criticize. My advice to you? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The other hilarious thing is that I never said anything about 'new' Teflor - that was an observation by other people, which I did not comment on the correctness of.

Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok. Education is all-encompassing. By separating what naturally goes together not only in nature but as a part of logic, you're reducing it to lesser parts of the whole it should have been.

http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html
Last edited by Teflor Lyorian on Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:50 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok.


Because my education in science stopped at high school... Now you make ad hominem assumptions! Clearly your education in argument and logic was lacking.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:51 am

Didn't realize you were online, I added more to the previous post for ya, specifically regarding your prior response.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:54 am

Kifle wrote:Clearly your education in argument and logic was lacking.



You just figured that out?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:57 am

Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:Clearly your education in argument and logic was lacking.



You just figured that out?

When Obama talks about the Echo chamber, I think he was talking about you.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:03 am

Kifle the Ad Hominator wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok.


Because my education in science stopped at high school... Now you make ad hominem assumptions! Clearly your education in argument and logic was lacking.

You're kind of dense, aren't you?

Special thanks to the posters that aren't cry babies on here.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:10 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Interesting, you rely upon the exact same insults you criticize. My advice to you? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The other hilarious thing is that I never said anything about 'new' Teflor - that was an observation by other people, which I did not comment on the correctness of.

Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok. Education is all-encompassing. By separating what naturally goes together not only in nature but as a part of logic, you're reducing it to lesser parts of the whole it should have been.

http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html


viewtopic.php?f=43&t=22557&p=213083#p213083

The last post is, then, very misleading. I wasn't assuming by "growth" you meant "inoperable tumor". My mistake for thinking that when proven wrong, you were going to stop acting like a prideful baby in a vein attempt to ease the embarrassment or loss of self-esteem.

To your new "insight" you felt the need to post. By separating what naturally goes together, you can specialize. The act of separation give an attempt to understand the parts before allowing them to form into a whole. Should chemists simply study the molecule, the substance, the world? No, they start at the sub-atomic particles and move up -- combining the knowledge as they go along.

And it is funny that you write about separation being negative in terms of logic. I understand you don't know much about it, but one of the most important parts is to separate in logic. In fact, it is necessary to separate. Only by separation in logic can you determine the validity of any argument or statement. It is by separation that you examine and reformulate the whole in order to better understand or correct the whole.

Look, I'm going to tell you something your parents may not have: It's ok to be wrong. It doesn't make you less of a person, and people in general will not deny you attention if you are wrong. Also, the most important part of education is to have ignorance -- without it, education is meaningless. You, like all people, are ignorant of many, many things. For this reason, it is wise, with respect to education, to concede when you are wrong.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:12 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle the Ad Hominator wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok.


Because my education in science stopped at high school... Now you make ad hominem assumptions! Clearly your education in argument and logic was lacking.

You're kind of dense, aren't you?

Special thanks to the posters that aren't cry babies on here.


Dense or tired, you pick. But, I suppose my kiryan strategy must be employed with you as well. Anything else is wasting time:

Hasty Generalization: You assume my education in science is less than yours because I didn't feel the need to exhaust the full list of atomic models when only one was necessary to support my claim.
Last edited by Kifle on Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:13 am

Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:Clearly your education in argument and logic was lacking.



You just figured that out?


Nah, just needed reminding, I suppose.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:13 am

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Interesting, you rely upon the exact same insults you criticize. My advice to you? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The other hilarious thing is that I never said anything about 'new' Teflor - that was an observation by other people, which I did not comment on the correctness of.

Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok. Education is all-encompassing. By separating what naturally goes together not only in nature but as a part of logic, you're reducing it to lesser parts of the whole it should have been.

http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html


viewtopic.php?f=43&t=22557&p=213083#p213083

The last post is, then, very misleading. I wasn't assuming by "growth" you meant "inoperable tumor". My mistake for thinking that when proven wrong, you were going to stop acting like a prideful baby in a vein attempt to ease the embarrassment or loss of self-esteem.

To your new "insight" you felt the need to post. By separating what naturally goes together, you can specialize. The act of separation give an attempt to understand the parts before allowing them to form into a whole. Should chemists simply study the molecule, the substance, the world? No, they start at the sub-atomic particles and move up -- combining the knowledge as they go along.

And it is funny that you write about separation being negative in terms of logic. I understand you don't know much about it, but one of the most important parts is to separate in logic. In fact, it is necessary to separate. Only by separation in logic can you determine the validity of any argument or statement. It is by separation that you examine and reformulate the whole in order to better understand or correct the whole.

Look, I'm going to tell you something your parents may not have: It's ok to be wrong. It doesn't make you less of a person, and people in general will not deny you attention if you are wrong. Also, the most important part of education is to have ignorance -- without it, education is meaningless. You, like all people, are ignorant of many, many things. For this reason, it is wise, with respect to education, to concede when you are wrong.

College is for specialization, Kifle. That's why they call it post-secondary education. That's also when you start paying for it mostly yourself.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:15 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Interesting, you rely upon the exact same insults you criticize. My advice to you? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The other hilarious thing is that I never said anything about 'new' Teflor - that was an observation by other people, which I did not comment on the correctness of.

Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok. Education is all-encompassing. By separating what naturally goes together not only in nature but as a part of logic, you're reducing it to lesser parts of the whole it should have been.

http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html


viewtopic.php?f=43&t=22557&p=213083#p213083

The last post is, then, very misleading. I wasn't assuming by "growth" you meant "inoperable tumor". My mistake for thinking that when proven wrong, you were going to stop acting like a prideful baby in a vein attempt to ease the embarrassment or loss of self-esteem.

To your new "insight" you felt the need to post. By separating what naturally goes together, you can specialize. The act of separation give an attempt to understand the parts before allowing them to form into a whole. Should chemists simply study the molecule, the substance, the world? No, they start at the sub-atomic particles and move up -- combining the knowledge as they go along.

And it is funny that you write about separation being negative in terms of logic. I understand you don't know much about it, but one of the most important parts is to separate in logic. In fact, it is necessary to separate. Only by separation in logic can you determine the validity of any argument or statement. It is by separation that you examine and reformulate the whole in order to better understand or correct the whole.

Look, I'm going to tell you something your parents may not have: It's ok to be wrong. It doesn't make you less of a person, and people in general will not deny you attention if you are wrong. Also, the most important part of education is to have ignorance -- without it, education is meaningless. You, like all people, are ignorant of many, many things. For this reason, it is wise, with respect to education, to concede when you are wrong.

College is for specialization, Kifle. That's why they call it post-secondary education.


No, it's called post-secondary education because it is temporally after secondary school. Seriously, get a dictionary.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:22 am

If you say so. It's still the most appropriate time for specialization. Most people that would have been successful in college could have probably escaped public education before high school or just after starting with a GED.

Really, public education just isn't for the people who would have performed a couple of deviations above the mean in the first place.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:31 am

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle the Ad Hominator wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok.


Because my education in science stopped at high school... Now you make ad hominem assumptions! Clearly your education in argument and logic was lacking.

You're kind of dense, aren't you?

Special thanks to the posters that aren't cry babies on here.


Dense or tired, you pick. But, I suppose my kiryan strategy must be employed with you as well. Anything else is wasting time:

Hasty Generalization: You assume my education in science is less than yours because I didn't feel the need to exhaust the full list of atomic models when only one was necessary to support my claim.

Well, I don't honestly think you're dense, tired is probably it and I definitely post stupid shit when tired on occasion.

My mention of the other two atomic models was to dispute your claim that an alternate model was taught because students can't understand the electron cloud. All four models are taught to demonstrate, using history, the progression of the understanding of the atom as science progressed. Furthermore, the reason why new models developed that contradicted our previous, accepted, scientific understanding, is part philosophy, part the expansion of the modern scientific method.

Bear in mind that at one time, each of the four models was accepted as being the nature of the atom. There was much that we could not observe, many of the observations that led us to new insight were often gained by accident.

It's SCIENCE: part history, part philosophy, and part blind dumb luck (though mostly science). That's a real science lesson, and the curiosity of the student as to what science is can only help with science education. NOTHING benefits a science lesson on evolution in a classroom of religious children as when one child asks "but the preacher says that god created all of the animals." Teachers can do one of two things: 1) the stupid route: indoctrination, 2) the teacher can educate the children on the true nature of science: observation, and factually state that science can't determine how everything that is and everything that was came into being, but it has a lot of important information for us today.
Last edited by Teflor Lyorian on Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:33 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:If you say so. It's still the most appropriate time for specialization. Most people that would have been successful in college could have probably escaped public education before high school or just after starting with a GED.

Really, public education just isn't for the people who would have performed a couple of deviations above the mean in the first place.


That's a step in the right direction. I'll take it. I've noticed a lot of suburb high schools (that have better funding) offering specialization classes for college credit now. And, I also agree that high school isn't necessary. At that point, you should have learned enough to qualify your for a life entrance exam (GED) or applied to a specialization school like college.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:38 am

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:If you say so. It's still the most appropriate time for specialization. Most people that would have been successful in college could have probably escaped public education before high school or just after starting with a GED.

Really, public education just isn't for the people who would have performed a couple of deviations above the mean in the first place.


That's a step in the right direction. I'll take it. I've noticed a lot of suburb high schools (that have better funding) offering specialization classes for college credit now. And, I also agree that high school isn't necessary. At that point, you should have learned enough to qualify your for a life entrance exam (GED) or applied to a specialization school like college.

The public school system I went through had a VERY aggressive AP program. Some of the students who tried hard enough were able to sock away an entire freshman year's worth of college credits. Still, it just seems that for the highly intelligent people, GEDing out of high school and heading straight for community college would have been the best idea.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:44 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle the Ad Hominator wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Pretty sure my education in science was better than yours, as you seem to be forgetting the Dalton (solid sphere) and Thompson (pudding) models (also taught in the vast majority of high school chemistry classes), but ok.


Because my education in science stopped at high school... Now you make ad hominem assumptions! Clearly your education in argument and logic was lacking.

You're kind of dense, aren't you?

Special thanks to the posters that aren't cry babies on here.


Dense or tired, you pick. But, I suppose my kiryan strategy must be employed with you as well. Anything else is wasting time:

Hasty Generalization: You assume my education in science is less than yours because I didn't feel the need to exhaust the full list of atomic models when only one was necessary to support my claim.

Well, I don't honestly think you're dense, tired is probably it and I definitely post stupid shit when tired on occasion.

My mention of the other two atomic models was to dispute your claim that an alternate model was taught because students can't understand the electron cloud. All four models are taught to demonstrate, using history, the progression of the understanding of the atom as science progressed. Furthermore, the reason why new models developed that contradicted our previous, accepted, scientific understanding, is part philosophy, part the expansion of the modern scientific method.

Bear in mind that at one time, each of the four models was accepted as being the nature of the atom. There was much that we could not observe, many of the observations that led us to new insight were often gained by accident.

It's SCIENCE: part history, part philosophy, and part blind dumb luck (though mostly science). That's a real science lesson, and the curiosity of the student as to what science is can only help with science education.


It's been a while since I was in high school, and the chemistry and physics taught there, and still to this day at my son's high school, is the Rutherford model. Of course, the Bohr model is used later (but still using the Rutherford as a visual aid). And, in physics, the Rutherford model is the norm. When the average person is asked to draw a model of an atom, I would wager they would draw something akin to the Rutherford model. I asked my physics teacher in high school why we still teach Newton's theory of gravity in schools after Einstein had proven him wrong. He told me, as did my mechanics professor in college, that quantum mechanics is simply too difficult for non majors or average students to understand. And, since the Newton model works for average, everyday mechanics problems, which is the scope of lower level physics, the Newton Model is still used -- often without even mentioning the better model.

And, yes, science is part history, philosophy, mathematics, luck, etc, but much of that is not taught in these classes. I wasn't allowed into physics my freshman year because I had to take trig first (high school). Meaning, they weren't going to teach me math.

The last statement you made is spot on, and I couldn't agree more.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:45 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:If you say so. It's still the most appropriate time for specialization. Most people that would have been successful in college could have probably escaped public education before high school or just after starting with a GED.

Really, public education just isn't for the people who would have performed a couple of deviations above the mean in the first place.


That's a step in the right direction. I'll take it. I've noticed a lot of suburb high schools (that have better funding) offering specialization classes for college credit now. And, I also agree that high school isn't necessary. At that point, you should have learned enough to qualify your for a life entrance exam (GED) or applied to a specialization school like college.

The public school system I went through had a VERY aggressive AP program. Some of the students who tried hard enough were able to sock away an entire freshman year's worth of college credits. Still, it just seems that for the highly intelligent people, GEDing out of high school and heading straight for community college would have been the best idea.


Agreed, and I wish I would have. But, I did get laid quite a bit my senior year, so I'm ok with a few wasted years. I wonder, though, what that strategy would look like on a graduate school application.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:50 am

Kifle wrote:The last statement you made is spot on, and I couldn't agree more.

I am an advocate of science. If I had a belief structure, I'd bet on human ingenuity and the promise of the modern scientific method.

However, I really do have to caution and remind people of a common human social trait that greases the wheels, makes things efficient, and gets stuck human mechanics moving again: respect. When we approach education with a respect for the people we are educating, we respect their values, we respect their beliefs, and we respect the truth.

There IS a way to teach the modern American Christian science the right way, without bludgeoning their beliefs. In the rare instances where it is not possible, then we are simply not trying hard enough or being creative enough in educating. In my opinion, it is laziness and stupidity that causes us to attempt the course of conflict and indoctrination. It's not even effective, the children are not what educators should be venting their frustration on.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:52 am

And crap, I really have to stop editing posts. Added on previously:

NOTHING benefits a science lesson on evolution in a classroom of religious children as when one child asks "but the preacher says that god created all of the animals." Teachers can do one of two things: 1) the stupid route: indoctrination, 2) the teacher can educate the children on the true nature of science: observation, and factually state that science can't determine how everything that is and everything that was came into being, but it has a lot of important information for us today.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:52 pm

Now, to respond to your arguments:

Kifle wrote:Second, your statement is fallacious in that you use appeal to authority. Yes, newton was a genius, but he was also human and a product of his time. This says nothing about alchemy other than Newton practiced alchemy -- nothing else. It also says nothing about scientific theory or the scientific method.

Kifle wrote:Scientists believing in God -- again, appeal to authority. It bears no significance to the argument that Leibnitz believed in God any more than any scientist having an irrational phobia or an OCD. Everyone has their beliefs, but notice how we strip the parts of what they did scientifically, teach it in science class, and toss the rest to the historians to talk about? Again, it bears no significance to the argument.

Actually, the argument is not an appeal to authority. It's actually a nonconstructive proof of existence (being the technical term) where I've shown that science is served by individuals with religious beliefs which in turns says that the scientific method can be executed properly by those holding religious beliefs (aside from studying alchemy, Newton was deeply religious and published more religious works, considering himself as chosen by god to uniquely understand the bible, than scientific in his lifetime).

Kifle wrote:I would also like to point out you're using the red herring fallacy by even creating this post and the straw man fallacy by attempting to create a rebutal to an argument that was never made (that scientists only believe in science).

No, the argument was simply to point out the existence of individuals that highly function and serve both science and religion. It stands to reason that if individuals exist that can be both highly scientific and highly religious, that inclusive science education can be given to the highly religious. Curiosity knows no bounds, religious, scientific, or otherwise.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:02 pm

Skipping about 30 posts worth of bickering.

The Scientific Method is the fundamental objective around which the science curriculum is built. In the low grades, students are taught to make observations about nature. They go outside and look at leaves and bugs, and write down what they see. In the middle grades (6-8), students are taught the application of the scientific method as they form and test hypotheses through research. In high school, students are introduced to disciplines which have become accepted as truth after rigorous testing.

There are many versions of the scientific method. The most basic is: Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Conclusion. You observe a phenomenon, form a hypothesis, run controlled experiments, and draw a conclusion from your experiments. The conclusion may support the hypothesis, it may disprove it, or it may be inconclusive.

Inherent to the scientific method is the ability to improve, revise, or discard previously believed hypotheses. This is actually a key benefit of the model. If observation supports a stated hypothesis, and it is later discovered that the previous experiment was confounded by an unforseen variable, the hypothesis can be updated. In this way, we've continually refined our understanding in many areas. We once thought molecules were the smallest particles of matter. As technology improved, we discovered atoms, then atomic particles, then subatomic particles.

Alchemy was a series of experiments where alchemists tried to discover a formula for converting base metals into gold. Alchemy is a "science" because it followed the scientific method. Alchemists hypothesized that there was a compound capable of reacting with base metals that would produce gold. They experimented for centuries, and were never able to produce such a compound. Though it failed to produce results, alchemy can be considered a science because it followed the scientific method. Frenology can also be considered a science for the same reason, though it is also considered a failed science because experimentation never supported the hypothesis.

History curriculum will often touch on these failed sciences, because it's useful to learn about different applications of the scientific method (even the failures). In these cases, the curriculum teaches students about alchemists, their quest to turn lead into gold, and the ultimate failure of the entire discipline. Students are taught that people once believed it possible, but there has never been an experiment that produced successful results. Then in Physics, they're taught about atomic nuclei, proton counts, and magnetic forces at the atomic level, and they begin to understand WHY alchemy didn't work.

Intelligent Design is a belief, not a science. For one, Intelligent Design was invented in the wrong order... the conclusion was written thousands of years ago, and "creation scientists" are busy looking for evidence that fits the conclusion they have already drawn. For two, there is no actual experimentation happening to try to prove the theory of Intelligent Design. ID is not being pushed as a provable or observable phenomenon. Proponents of ID are quick to admit that there is no observable support for the theory, but they want it taught anyway as a "theoretically possible alternative." Unfortunately for ID supporters, ID doesn't meet the standard for what gets taught in science, and it probably never will.

It's known to everybody, people of science and religion both, that ID is merely a gateway for introducing Christianity into schools where it doesn't belong. Giving creationism a new name and mocking it up as a "science" doesn't make it any more appropriate for schools. It'll take hold in some deeply-religious parts of the country, where the democratic majority WANTS Christianity taught in schools, but it will be rejected nearly everywhere else.

In 50 years, our grandchildren may even read about it in History class.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:20 am

Philosophy, the question of "why," is a natural and hardwired component of science. You can't ignore questions that will be asked while teaching science, unless you're just a terrible educator that has no business in the classroom.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Vigis » Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:55 am

I went to high school in Montana. During physics, my teacher actually taught us about ID. The lecture went thus:

Teacher: What is the difference between physics and the theory that somebody named "Fred" (yes, he specifically used the name Fred) created the universe and the fossil record along with other observable evidence as to the age of the world to make us believe that earth is billions of years old rather than 7000?

My Response: Physics is science and relies on the scientific method, therefore can be disproven. Fred is based on faith and is therefore religion.

Teacher: Exactly! And religion has no place in science, so the Fred theory will neither be taught nor discussed in this class.

Now, an open letter to the Kansas School Board for your enjoyment:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:00 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Philosophy, the question of "why," is a natural and hardwired component of science. You can't ignore questions that will be asked while teaching science, unless you're just a terrible educator that has no business in the classroom.

Oh nobody's ignoring the question. The answer is really simple -- Intelligent Design is not supported by observational evidence, and thus has no place in science curriculum.

Question asked, question answered.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:07 pm

Poppycock, pure agenda and demonstrates you and your teacher's bias and ignorance of ID. You both obviously get your science from watching the daily show.

The scientists who propose and research ID conduct scientific research on the subject even if some aspects of it aren't "testable". There is nothing in ID research I've ever read that says "because GOD said so on this page in the Bible".

Supporters do generally believe this and claim this, but the actual theory is being pursued in a scientific manner despite it technically not being a scientific theory. They use the geological record, they look at dna, they do look at carbon dating.

believe whatever you want, I think its reasonable to teach some basic ID in Science class.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:55 pm

Start linking those studies, kiryan. Start linking.

Intelligent Design does not state "God did it on this page of the bible." Intelligent Design states "Humans can never know how life began, so isn't it reasonable to think that maybe life was created by an intelligent creator?"
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:18 pm

No ID says life evolved by order and not disorder as proposed by evolution. Said in another way, life was "created" or directed through manipulation of natural forces by a force. ID could still be true if it was aliens doing experiments on cows... or even some force that is the opposite of entropy (randomness) and the dominate theory in physics that the universe's randomness is always increasing.

They attempt to substantiate this by documenting scientific evidence that supports their claim of ordered evolution or counters the claims of random evolution.

The research looks into many areas including the errors in carbon dating, the evolution of specific features such as the eyeball (the claim is that there is no valid precursive function of the eye until its 100% developed so how did it develop), DNA research of lineage... etc.

Yes they also look at the Bible for inspiration... in the same way that a pharmaceutical researcher might look into claims from verbal history of some Amazonian witch doctor for new medicinal research.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:48 am

That's not research, Kiryan, those are just questions.

Here's how real science goes: Hrm, eyeball question, we need to rework the theory a bit and then test it to see if the theory is correct once fixed (theories always evolve, constantly looking towards truth).

Here's how ID "research goes": I've noticed something that doesn't match with evolution, it must be ID. See, years go by, and the theory of evolution itself evolves to account for errors... then all ID "researchers" do is, after trying to fight the new theory, give up and find something else to discredit evolution. And then the merry-go-round starts all over again. It's what they tried to do with astronomy and cosmology for a loooong time.

ID is basically the church's way to backpeddle from completely rejecting the theory of evolution -- attempting their hardest not to look like idiots that believe in wizardry.

History has shown, and will continue to show, that religions make a claim, science disproves it, church fights claim, science makes church look stupid for ever believing in it, church backpeddles and adjusts their beliefs. It's happened since the time of many gods, when lightning and hurricanes were god being angry, and it continues today with evolution, etc. I understand that the creation story is really the backbone of religion, and it will be hard to have to let it go sometime. So, fight on, crusader.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:58 am

Ragorn wrote:Oh nobody's ignoring the question. The answer is really simple -- Intelligent Design is not supported by observational evidence, and thus has no place in science curriculum.

Question asked, question answered.

Your answer is dishonest, biased, and incomplete - not answering the question correctly or scientifically.

FIRST, however, let me congratulate on your breakthrough on a way to teach ID in a science class, that wasn't so hard nor so painful, was it?

Back to the topic at hand: intelligent design should probably be presented (along with any other philosophical theories you can speak to intelligently or applies to the particular situation) as a philosophical theory to children who are asking about how science APPEARS to conflict with mainstream religious philosophy. More importantly, here's the correction you need to make - IN ALL scientific honesty - "Intelligent Design is neither supported nor refuted by observational evidence, and thus, we cannot speak scientifically to whether or not it's true."

Note: Education should always be tailored to your students. If they're not asking about it, there's no reason to teach it.

For, you see, if you approach it any other way, you're really just being a narrow-minded dick that hates real science, religion, and human rights. Science is about curiosity. To see you dismiss it so blatantly and unscientifically disgusts me.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Teflor going back on ignore soon. Not interested in hacking out 40% of your posts to remove the insults.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:51 pm

kiryan wrote:No ID says life evolved by order and not disorder as proposed by evolution. Said in another way, life was "created" or directed through manipulation of natural forces by a force. ID could still be true if it was aliens doing experiments on cows... or even some force that is the opposite of entropy (randomness) and the dominate theory in physics that the universe's randomness is always increasing.

They attempt to substantiate this by documenting scientific evidence that supports their claim of ordered evolution or counters the claims of random evolution.

The research looks into many areas including the errors in carbon dating, the evolution of specific features such as the eyeball (the claim is that there is no valid precursive function of the eye until its 100% developed so how did it develop), DNA research of lineage... etc.

Yes they also look at the Bible for inspiration... in the same way that a pharmaceutical researcher might look into claims from verbal history of some Amazonian witch doctor for new medicinal research.

ID focuses heavily on counter-claims against the study of evolution, yes. The debate doesn't center on whether Intelligent Design is correct, it focuses on exposing small cracks in the fossil record in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution as a macro theory. ID proponents like to point out a couple difficult evolutionary questions, present the idea that evolution must be a flawed theory, and then propose intelligent design as a possible alternative. No work goes into shoring up ID as a workable theory... it's always just "your theory is wrong, maybe you should consider ours." Unfortunately, the lack of observational evidence puts it right alongside any other arbitrary proposition in terms of scientific rigor. If we should discuss the tenets of ID in science class, then we should also discuss the theory that the Earth sits on the back of a giant turtle. Both theories have exactly the same amount of scientific credibility.

As for the application of entropy and thermodynamics, that's just a new spin on an old argument. The argument used to rely on statistics... creationists like to point out that the odds of life spontaneously generating are hideously low, almost to the point of impossibility. The counter-argument to that, of course, is that humans have observed billions of stars and dozens of other galaxies in our universe. It's a low probability iterated a large number of times.

The law of entropy states that the universe is moving away from order and towards chaos. It does not mean that chaos will emerge in every iteration of a given system. To give an example, consider the lottery. Lottery drawings are selections of random numbers. If the Pick 6 numbers came out 1-2-3-4-5-6, would that be a violation of the law of entropy? No, because a result of 1-2-3-4-5-6 is no less chaotic than any other arrangement of numbers. There is a small probability for that result to occur, and it will occur occasionally and not cause the universe to be torn asunder when it does.

If there is a minute chance for life to spontaneously generate, and it does so on one small planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in all the universe, then that is no more a violation of the law of entropy than sequential numbers being selected in the lottery. It can, and will, happen on occasion.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:42 pm

Ragorn wrote:Teflor going back on ignore soon. Not interested in hacking out 40% of your posts to remove the insults.

There were no insults in my post unless you chose to identify yourself with the unscientific and intellectually dishonest. Also: who cares about who you have on ignore? If you're going to do it, just do it and skip the bellyaching. I bet it doesn't even make you feel any better.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Teflor going back on ignore soon. Not interested in hacking out 40% of your posts to remove the insults.

There were no insults in my post unless you chose to identify yourself with the unscientific and intellectually dishonest. Also: who cares about who you have on ignore? If you're going to do it, just do it and skip the bellyaching. I bet it doesn't even make you feel any better.


I think he, just like me, would like to have conversations with you, as you generally have something to add; however, the way in which you do it outweighs the benefit we get from not having you on ignore when you use insulting language as opposed to neutral. I don't think he meant it as an insult or threat.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:06 pm

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Teflor going back on ignore soon. Not interested in hacking out 40% of your posts to remove the insults.

There were no insults in my post unless you chose to identify yourself with the unscientific and intellectually dishonest. Also: who cares about who you have on ignore? If you're going to do it, just do it and skip the bellyaching. I bet it doesn't even make you feel any better.


I think he, just like me, would like to have conversations with you, as you generally have something to add; however, the way in which you do it outweighs the benefit we get from not having you on ignore when you use insulting language as opposed to neutral. I don't think he meant it as an insult or threat.

Fine. More neutral sounding language then.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:22 pm

Restated argument:

Education as a process, procedure, or effort by the public, has to take into consideration the student that is being educated. One would not teach a reluctant student the same way as a motivated student, nor would one teach a student with one philosophy the same as a student with another set of values.

In all honesty, modern mainstream American religious thinking is quite amenable to modern science. It takes minimal effort to not only get the two to play along, but scientific honesty, the value neutral, observation or experimentation based modern scientific method actually demands it.

It's not so much an issue of teaching Intelligent Design as a possible philosophical explanation as to WHY our observations or ourselves exist, but more of how to approach your students. Philosophical theories such as ID, string theory, etc. are currently neither supported nor diminished by current scientific understanding, observations, or experimentation.

In order to teach Science, it, being a part of natural philosophy, everyday life, and a greater body of academic work, an educator really must address how the modern scientific method and its results fit in with the worlds of the student. Should a student have questions about the nature of existence, as it relates to science, or questions about how science may appear (or actually does) conflict with the student's philosophical, moral, religious, or even scientific views, the educator has, while presenting a course of education, an obligation to address those concerns academically and scientifically - value neutral - presenting a conclusion based on evidence, or presenting the fact that little evidence exists or what evidence exists contradicts.

In summation, for students with a strong belief that appears to run contrary to the body of evidence we currently have, and with philosophical theories existing and widely discussed (evidence not existing for or against the theory) that could potentially resolve or reconcile the conflict, it's not a bad idea to actually bring that theory up, especially if it helps the student develop a wider curiosity, or answers a student's questions in a way that doesn't turn them off to further education.

Furthermore, it has to be presented with integrity as well. While bringing up that no evidence supports the theory, one must state that there is no evidence contrary to the theory (unless you have some, haven't heard of it yet). It's a good exercise, furthermore in teaching about what science is or isn't. Since people haven't really figured out a way to experiment or observe exactly why existence exists, theories like Intelligent Design are outside the realm of the scientific method and are studied really more as philosophy - questioning not what the universe is, but why.

Yes, Intelligent Design is largely a philosophical theory that seeks to resolve why science has observed what it has observed with the idea that a Christian god created the world and all of its creatures (to some degree, many other people have taken to and modified ID to make it work for broader purposes). It is only science in that it relates to science as philosophy. Still, this can make science WORK for people UNMODIFIED without damaging observations or evidence, essentially keeping modern science intact and teachable with the philosophy in mind. This is awesome. It's not like modern science even suggests a reason for existence existing in the first place.

Education is important to present in a well rounded, integrated manner that serves to both satisfy and encourage human curiosity. It's a disservice to both science and education if you turn students away and off, simply because you are either unwilling, unable, or too biased to keep an open mind and have the integrity it takes to educate.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:47 pm

Ragorn wrote:ID focuses heavily on counter-claims against the study of evolution, yes. The debate doesn't center on whether Intelligent Design is correct, it focuses on exposing small cracks in the fossil record in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution as a macro theory. ID proponents like to point out a couple difficult evolutionary questions, present the idea that evolution must be a flawed theory, and then propose intelligent design as a possible alternative. No work goes into shoring up ID as a workable theory... it's always just "your theory is wrong, maybe you should consider ours." Unfortunately, the lack of observational evidence puts it right alongside any other arbitrary proposition in terms of scientific rigor. If we should discuss the tenets of ID in science class, then we should also discuss the theory that the Earth sits on the back of a giant turtle. Both theories have exactly the same amount of scientific credibility.


Evolution relies on randomness, ID relies on order. An argument for ID is an argument for evolution by definition... It is only because there are flaws in evolution theory that ID can exist... it is a theory born from the imperfectness of the theory of evolution.

If there was no evidence that contradicted evolution, and ID was simply a theory that said God created the world such that it would look like evolution occured... we wouldn't be having this discussion and I would agree with you. However there are unsettled arguments and yet academia goes around saying evolution is unconditionally true (despite not having been proven).

and you are right, it is hard to have any kind of discussion about evolution when 20% of America insists that evolution is unconditionally true and discount in entirety the perspective of the other 80% labeling it as purely religious.

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests