galiel

With all due respect, when someone requests clarification for something I posted, you should not presume to respond in my staid.

Second, I find your analysis of my "logic" to be so absurd and counter-intuitive that I an only assume that you have an agenda other than honest intellectual discourse. You will not advance this discussion by attempting to discredit me, by focusing on the messenger rather than the message. (You especially don't do yourself any favors by advancing the absurd notion that advocacy of teaching people critical thinking is somehow congruent with the fundy's agenda.)

As for "ways of evaluating a didactic system", when in my posts have I said anything about didactic systems as a whole, or about "evaluating teachers?" Surely you do not object to adding a grounding in critical thinking and the scientific method to whatever else you wish people to learn?

Unless you share organized religion's interest in keeping people like mushrooms, in the dark and fed bullshit.

scigirl

Ok so even if we all agreed that your solution is the best one - why isn't it the current solution? It has to do with more than just ignorance, IMHO. As a biologist, I believe there are biological/evolutionary components to our behavior that can't be blamed on education or religion or any other political system.

I like what Clutch said here:
scigirl

{edited because of a cross-post issue}

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

galiel

one where ad hominems are not a substitute for cogent argumentation.

scigirl

galiel and principa, (and everyone else):

Nobody here is on the "side" of religion - your ad hom attacks are getting on my nerves so please cease and desist. Thank you,

scigirl

scigirl

I think there are two separate arguments streaming through this thread:

1) Why do people think the way they do?

and

2) Why is the specific belief of Creationism so prevalent in the USA? (the actual name of this topic)?

Obviously the full answer to #2 involves some of the answer to #1. But the details on why this country is creationist, whereas the next country believes some other hokey theory, to me does have to do with our political history and church influences and such.

So everyone that posted an answer is probably correct on some level.

scigirl

Clutch

scigirl, agreed. But I would mention that one further question, and a quite interesting one, was also asked here: Why do moderate Christians, who far outnumber the radicals, tolerate and/or tacitly encourage them in their know-nothingism about evolution?

That might not be answerable with anything other than conjectures, but the conjectures are worth considering. It would be a major step forward in the USA for the forces of science education to get the vast number of nearly inert Christians more consciously distinguishing themselves from the malignant text-burning types.

Pomp

galiel,

But I have yet to find a religious person who applies the rules of critical thought to their faith, and emerges whole. More typical, even among the "best" educated, is the statement that "when it comes to my religion, I have to stop thinking and just believe". That kind of unnatural ability comes only with strong conditioning. Critical thinking, IMO, is the best vaccine against the virus of organized religion.

I agree that religion rarely survivies the apllication of critical thougyht, but the issue seems to be more that people are unwilling to apply critical thought to their religions, not that they are unable to. People manage to attend school, earn livings, and balance their checkbooks on the strength of their abillity to think critically, so they are obviously capable of such thought. The trick, IMO, is getting them to stop seeing their religions as something out of bounds to critical thought and that lies more in the realm of persuasive argument than in education, IMO.

Starboy

You are right galiel. I apologize. To address the topic directly I think the answers are obvious. The Christians know how to work the system far better than atheists. Atheists are out numbered. Christians hold the power and are intent on keeping it. They have branch offices everywhere. They really do want to take over the world whereas I don't think that atheists are very keen to take over the world.

On the bright side our numbers do appear to be growing. Assuming Christianity doesn't have a last spasm of rightousness, maybe we can make it untouched to a world where such sillyness doesn't prevail.

All this does bring up an interesting question. If critical thinking is all that is needed to shake free of creationism, and education in critical thinking is the key but it is currently lacking, then how are all these new skeptical atheists comming to be?

Starboy

galiel

scigirl, perhaps you can help me out here. For that matter, perhaps other people with constructive intentions can help me out here.

You seem to have responded to this utterly innocuous and non-aggressive post as if every sentence I wrote meant something completely different than what I intended. Please help me understand whether this represents a failure to communicate on my part, or a failure on your part to separate whatever your pre-concieved notions of me are from the actual content of what I posted.

If you can help me solve this, perhaps my participation in these forums will be more productive. I am really, really, tired of this.


Can you explain where in my comment quoted above I even imply anything like what you are saying? Have I said ANYTHING about what I do or do not know? Is there anything in what I posted that has anything to do with me, let alone with your response? Where, oh where, is this coming from?

galiel:
scigirl:

Somehow you interpreted this as some kind of slight, when I made clear that in my opinion social causes and other things people have suggested as things to address are symptoms of a deeped problem, namely ignorance and a lack of adequate education in thinking tools. You are certainly free to disagree with my thesis, just as I have disagreed with yours. I can't for the life of me find, however, a post of mine in this thread where I made a similar kind of snide, defensive comment. Why can't you simply address the content of the argument, instead of attacking the messenger. Given the extremely high quality of your posts, which I read across this board, and the thoroughness with which you demolish fundy nonsense with regularity, I am really surprised to see you take this tack with me. Can you help me understand what I wrote that could possibly have set you off this way?

galiel:
scigirl:
Did I say otherwise? Did you understand my commenting on the lack of success in combating creationism to somehow mean that I blame the posters here for that? Again, how is you response relevant to my point, which was simply that we shouldn't reject any ideas out of hand because, as a whole, we haven't done so well.

If you feel that I have ,at any point, dismissed someone's suggestion out of hand, rather than apply a relevant argument explaining why I thought a different approach was appropriate, please direct me to it. Why are you so hostile, when all I am suggesting is yet another alternative approach--one, I would note, that doesn't invalidate any of the approaches that have been proposed here, because mine is directed toward a different link in the chain. Teaching critical thinking does not preclude efforts to effect socialization or to address the myriad of other issues that interest you and others.

You asked me, in your previous post, whether it was not possible that there was more than one answer. Do you not see the irony in your determination to discredit my efforts?

galiel:
scigirl:
galiel:

scigirl:
I thought I had addressed that: by more widely spreading opportunities to learn critical thinking and the scientific method, both in formal learning environments and more subtly in informal ones such as popular entertainment.

galiel:
Why would you make this response to a general statement that is quite clear, except to be sarcastic and impugn my credibility? Have I at any point in our on-topic discussion questioned either your sincerity or insinuated that you have some kind of negative attitude?

More than once, various people have responded to ideas about better education by stating that "people are stupid". It was done even in this very thread. In addition, there is a very common phenomenon of mocking theists themselves, rather than challenging their ideas. That is my observation. YMMV. Certainly that is not a statement about you personally. If you percieved it as such, I apologize for the lack of clarity.

galiel:
scigirl:
/qb]

Here we go again. I make a general comment that is not personally directed toward anyone, and certainly not used to try to discredit the person I am debating, and you respond with this kind of crap. I really do not understand what relevance this has to what I actually said, nor why you feel the need to cast aspersions on me, when I have done nothing of the sort against you.

Worst of all, your comment does not seem to have any logical connection with my next comment, which was:

galiel:
scigirl:
Can you explain to me what in my comment has even the whiff ifelitism about it? If anything, I said exactly the opposite: that thinking people reach their own intelligent conclusions if given the opportunity and the tools to do so. I was praising the people here for being able to reject religious dogma of their own accord, using the powers of reason.

How, in the name of all that is secular, do you derive elitism from my statement?

galiel:
scigirl:
What is the purpose of this statement. Are you implying that I have a) not engaged in critical thinking, and b) sought only to fight about why X is Y, and C) not proposed positive solutions to the proglem of ignorance? Hos is proposing a strategy of empowering people with the tools of critical thinking and the scientific method not a positive solution?

Or are you falling in line with "anti-galiel" sentiment, rather than responding in an intellectually responsible way?

You entire response, more than nearly any other I have recieved in my entire time here on iidb (and I have recieved some doozies), offends, insults and hurts me personally, all the more because it seems to come without any provocation, any cause, and utterly without regard to what I have actually posted and the tangible, specific constructive suggestions I have sought to make.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain yourself, and explain why you chose this particular time, when it seemed to me that lots of constructive discussion was taking place, to launch this ad hominem ambush.


I think that is a great idea. This makes me even more puzzled than before. You seem to agree with the content of my argument, so why all the attacks, sarcasm and attempts to discredit me? What is all that about?

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

scigirl

galiel,

First of all, this thread was not going to be the nobel prize winning thread on how to fix society - it started out as a rant (which we need to do from time to time) and then it continued as an interesting dialogue between lots of different people here.

Please go back and look at what you wrote:

I asked you "Don't you think it's possible for the cause of creationism to be multifactorial? In other words, more than one person could be right about this topic?"

and you replied, "Of course it is possible. That doesn't mean that it is, necessarily, in this or any other case, but of course it is possible."

You don't think that sounds arrogant? That the ideas presented by other infidels are "possible" but in nearly most cases are not? I'm sorry but that sounds like a very arrogant statement.

About the elitist thing - I see now that I mis-interpeted one of your sentences. You were talking about elitism but then you said "Few of us, I suspect, were "converted" to atheism by organized "deprogramming". "

I thought you had said something else - that you were saying most atheists hadn't thought about their beliefs either. I see now that I was wrong about that comment and I apologize.

You were angry because I asked "Huh? Are you talking about your critiques of others, or others of you here?"

I was not trying to be mean - I truly honestly didn't know if you were talking about your statements or others statements. It was clearly NOT clear to me what you meant, and I still don't know what you meant.

If lots of people find you hard to talk to sometimes, is that everyone else's fault, or possibly, just maybe, you play a role in that 'sentiment'? Just a suggestion to think about.

Yes I do agree with a lot of what you said. I jsut don't like how you seem to think you are better than the other posters here. Ok I did misinterpret one of your comments. But you come into this thread and say stuff like "No education is the key" and "teachers should have no excuse" (when you should know if you read this forum that we have lots of teachers here) and "I actually think of root causes" and "Of course it is possible. That doesn't mean that it is, necessarily, in this or any other case, but of course it is possible."

Your ideas are wonderful, I'm just not fond of the way in which you choose to present them.

scigirl

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>