Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:23:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Author Topic: Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.  (Read 25119 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: August 30, 2008, 11:12:12 PM »

J. J.,

Yes, I understand that Palin's governmental policy is not disagreeable to me.  However, her personal opinion (that ID should be taught) is.  That's all I've ever claimed.
[/quoite]

I'm not sure that this was her "personal opinion."  It seems only that it should be left to the local board and not required by the state (court action might cover the former).

This seems to be a "straw man" or "straw woman," at this point.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where?   I have not seen it, in that regard.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, as indicated, is a subclass of "abstract thinking," but it marks a leap from the the practical.   Thinking about piling rocks up to stand on to reach the fruit is abstract thinking; it does make sense to develop this abstraction, and logical thinking.  I can understand that thought developing.

What is the evolutionary benefit of asking why the fruit is growing?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since you still have not answered my question, I'll attempt to give you a clearer answer.  I can understand, very easily, how abstract thinking and logical thinking can prove to be beneficial to a species.  I've hope the example of the rocks will show that.  I cannot understand how the the particular question of "Why is the fruit here," is a benefit to the species, within the context of where the genus Homo was at the time.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What link, I didn't see one.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, what link?  I have been passingly familiar with the HGP, and checked it out, cursery, to see if there was something that was relevant.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor li'l Alcon, I've suck my finger the eye of his god, Science (didn't even come close to killing it, and don't want to), and now he's running home to Mommy.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: August 31, 2008, 01:24:57 AM »
« Edited: August 31, 2008, 01:28:37 AM by Alcon »

I'm not sure that this was her "personal opinion."  It seems only that it should be left to the local board and not required by the state (court action might cover the former).

This seems to be a "straw man" or "straw woman," at this point.

I'm not attacking a position she never held, so it's not a strawperson (Smiley).  She said that she supports teaching of ID aside macroevolution, just not forcing it in the curriculum.  I disagree with the former.

Where?   I have not seen it, in that regard.

It was a big deal ca. 2001.  I actually remember my dad coming home when I was eleven, and talking about baboons for like an hour for some reason.  This was why.  (Note: Text "this" is a link)

This, as indicated, is a subclass of "abstract thinking," but it marks a leap from the the practical.   Thinking about piling rocks up to stand on to reach the fruit is abstract thinking; it does make sense to develop this abstraction, and logical thinking.  I can understand that thought developing.

What is the evolutionary benefit of asking why the fruit is growing?

You're missing my point.  Metacognition comes when a certain level of analytical thinking is developed.  That level could be reached by evolutionary benefit.  It may not be beneficial to know why fruit exists, but things that require equal (or comparable) cognitive ability may be.  It's not beneficial for baboons to think abstractly, as I just demonstrated they do; but they do, because they are capable of it, for reasons that may be beneficial in other sectors.  Intelligence is also a factor in mating, thankfully for you Smiley.

Since you still have not answered my question, I'll attempt to give you a clearer answer.  I can understand, very easily, how abstract thinking and logical thinking can prove to be beneficial to a species.  I've hope the example of the rocks will show that.  I cannot understand how the the particular question of "Why is the fruit here," is a benefit to the species, within the context of where the genus Homo was at the time.

I haven't answered your question because I do not accept the premise upon which it is built.  You are committing a logical fallacy called petitio principii, or "begging the question."


The blue "quite incorrect" in this post.  Maybe you're on a low-contrast monitor and missed it; if so, click here (warning: PDF).

As I said, what link?  I have been passingly familiar with the HGP, and checked it out, cursery, to see if there was something that was relevant.

Well, if your understanding is only cursory, I can see why you might not be familiar with the extent of the application of the HGP.  I've spent several hours reading about it, and I still have barely scratched the service.  I can see why someone with a basic understanding might assume the HGP doesn't address brain evolution -- but it very much does.

Poor li'l Alcon, I've suck my finger the eye of his god, Science (didn't even come close to killing it, and don't want to), and now he's running home to Mommy.

I was kind of being self-deprecating there to apologize for the somewhat adversarial-seeming tone I unconsciously take on during debates...ouch, though.  The third-grader in me is deeply hurt.

(But, seriously, I'm sorry if I did take on that tone.  I don't have contempt.  After all, you have been Just and spared my god Smiley)
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: August 31, 2008, 02:54:05 AM »

I'm not sure that this was her "personal opinion."  It seems only that it should be left to the local board and not required by the state (court action might cover the former).

This seems to be a "straw man" or "straw woman," at this point.

I'm not attacking a position she never held, so it's not a strawperson (Smiley).  She said that she supports teaching of ID aside macroevolution, just not forcing it in the curriculum.  I disagree with the former.


Again this is a "strawperson" Wink after her clarification, which was:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

There is a difference between saying, "If it comes up, you can talk about it," and "I want you to teach it."  I'm sorry if that distinction is too abstract for you, but I think even the baboons would get it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a big deal ca. 2001.  I actually remember my dad coming home when I was eleven, and talking about baboons for like an hour for some reason.  This was why.  (Note: Text "this" is a link)
[/quote]

Thank you for the link.  Again, however, I am not referring to "Analogical thinking" as the article describes it.  An example here might be, "The fruit is small and round, and it tastes good.  That fruit is large and round, so it must taste good (or better)."  That still isn't the same thought process.

The question that was as asked was "The fruit is small and round, so it tastes good.  That fruit is large and round, so why is it here?"

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're missing my point.  Metacognition comes when a certain level of analytical thinking is developed.  That level could be reached by evolutionary benefit.  It may not be beneficial to know why fruit exists, but things that require equal (or comparable) cognitive ability may be.  It's not beneficial for baboons to think abstractly, as I just demonstrated they do; but they do, because they are capable of it, for reasons that may be beneficial in other sectors.  Intelligence is also a factor in mating, thankfully for you Smiley.

[/quote]

Mating, perhaps not in your case, is instinctive, so that would not apply (Thank you trilobites.).

You've missed the point entirely.  It is not that our genus developed the capacity to ask, "Why is there fruit," it is that they did and then spent resources to try to learn the answer.  Their answers were not necessarily right, but they still attempted it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you have tried, and failed, to define my question, in your terms.  You've assumed that all "metacognition" is helpful to survival.  It is not.

I can make an argument that some things involving thought processes are helpful.  Toolmaking, even some art, as an illustration are helpful.  The question "Why is the fruit here," is not one of the helpful ones.  The questions "How do you make a spear tip," and "What does a pregnant woman look like," are helpful.  The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't.

Homo did ask that question, and they came up with an answer.  Let's say that their answer was, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) gives us this fruit."  That answer is a construct.  It is something that was solely created in Homo's mind; we know it's the wrong answer.  Why continue to believe that answer is correct when it does not produce results.  Why continue to believe in it, if it fails?  I can understand inventing rituals to try to convince the FSM to give them fruit, but why continue to waste resources on them without tangible result?  In the words of a certain presidential candidate, why "cling" to that belief in the FSM?

It does not make a great deal of sense to ask the question or hold on to even a constructed answer, from an evolutionary standpoint.  Yet genus Homo has done it, uniquely in terms of intelligent species.

I have downloaded the other PDF and will read it.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: August 31, 2008, 03:17:50 AM »
« Edited: August 31, 2008, 03:21:36 AM by Alcon »

There is a difference between saying, "If it comes up, you can talk about it," and "I want you to teach it."  I'm sorry if that distinction is too abstract for you, but I think even the baboons would get it.

I wonder how good baboons' memories are?

Palin: "Teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both."

Thank you for the link.  Again, however, I am not referring to "Analogical thinking" as the article describes it.  An example here might be, "The fruit is small and round, and it tastes good.  That fruit is large and round, so it must taste good (or better)."  That still isn't the same thought process.

The question that was as asked was "The fruit is small and round, so it tastes good.  That fruit is large and round, so why is it here?"

But neither are evolutionarily necessary, so by your logic, baboons are also gifted with a property that science doesn't understand.

Mating, perhaps not in your case, is instinctive, so that would not apply (Thank you trilobites.).

Oh, really, so mate choice is not at all defined by intelligence?  I'm sorry to hear you've had such bad luck.  Or, is that your excuse?  Wink

You've missed the point entirely.  It is not that our genus developed the capacity to ask, "Why is there fruit," it is that they did and then spent resources to try to learn the answer.  Their answers were not necessarily right, but they still attempted it.

No, you have tried, and failed, to define my question, in your terms.  You've assumed that all "metacognition" is helpful to survival.  It is not.

I can make an argument that some things involving thought processes are helpful.  Toolmaking, even some art, as an illustration are helpful.  The question "Why is the fruit here," is not one of the helpful ones.  The questions "How do you make a spear tip," and "What does a pregnant woman look like," are helpful.  The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't.

I have not ignored your question, or redefined anything you said.  I don't consciously ignore questions.  In fact, I have answered it four times, by disputing your postulate, by saying that metacognition is a product of evolutionary beneficial brain development.  You've still not answered to this.

Metacognition develops not separately from, but with, critical thinking.  You can see this by comparing the regional developments of different parts of the brain.  In fact, our brain structure is essentially the same as apes, just with the critical thinking centers more developed.  So, hell, there -- you have organic proof that metacognition comes along with greater development of critical thinking.  It's not some separately-developed part of the mind, because it's the same sort of thought process.  And, in tool-making behaviors and problem-solving behaviors, you have proof that critical thinking is evolutionarily established.

Now, if that is not an adequate response, you need to tell me what I've failed to address (that isn't fruit from the tree of disputed poison status.)

Homo did ask that question, and they came up with an answer.  Let's say that their answer was, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) gives us this fruit."  That answer is a construct.  It is something that was solely created in Homo's mind; we know it's the wrong answer.  Why continue to believe that answer is correct when it does not produce results.  Why continue to believe in it, if it fails?  I can understand inventing rituals to try to convince the FSM to give them fruit, but why continue to waste resources on them without tangible result?  In the words of a certain presidential candidate, why "cling" to that belief in the FSM?

It does not make a great deal of sense to ask the question or hold on to even a constructed answer, from an evolutionary standpoint.  Yet genus Homo has done it, uniquely in terms of intelligent species.

This is an interesting argument, but the problem is that your rhetorical questions have other answers.  People also cling to a general irrational belief that they have more control over their lives than they do.  This is exhibit time after time.  Where do you think superstition comes from?  Chance gambling behaviors?  Those are demonstrably untrue; people still cling to them.  In fact, cognitive bias defines a whole hell of a lot of human behaviors.  Superstitious behaviors, and cognitive biases, are rarely redacted unless directly challenged or disproven--and sometimes, not even then.

Still, though, you're getting your theological philosophy in my science.  I like both, but you've branched out to trying to prove that God exists.  I dunno why.  These are interesting arguments although not without flaws (hence why I'm an agnostic), but what are you trying to prove/dispute with them?

I have downloaded the other PDF and will read it.

OK, cool Smiley
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: August 31, 2008, 03:22:48 AM »

internet fights over religion = winnable, but at a cost.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: August 31, 2008, 03:26:30 AM »

internet fights over religion = winnable, but at a cost.

Like 100,000 words of wasted typing, or everyone realizing you're a puerile jerk who reads APA publications on car trips?  A bit of both?  Sad
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: August 31, 2008, 03:27:50 AM »

This is a very clever line of attack by Democrats.  First, they distort a quote to make it seem that Palin wants to use public schools to indoctrinate children.  When they are shown to have distorted the quote, Democrats change the subject and charge Republicans with not believing in evolution.  Even after the Republican acknowledges that evolution occurred, the Democrat continues to assert the Republican does not believe in evolution.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: August 31, 2008, 03:30:09 AM »

Hahahaha, those weren't even the costs crossing my mind, but they work.

I mean, you're on the right side of things and there's no way that successful and rational arguments won't bring you to the fact that creationism should not be taught along side actual science, but it's a difficult journey to make on the internet forum.  If someone is truly open minded, I think the winning arguments are already all out there for her to absorb, possibly on wikipedia but I haven't checked.  If not there, at least some other easily Google-able source.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: August 31, 2008, 03:31:57 AM »

internet fights over religion = winnable, but at a cost.

     Depends on the people involved. You'll never convince anybody of anything regarding religion unless they were prepared to change anyway before you came along.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: August 31, 2008, 09:39:59 AM »

Hahahaha, those weren't even the costs crossing my mind, but they work.

I mean, you're on the right side of things and there's no way that successful and rational arguments won't bring you to the fact that creationism should not be taught along side actual science, but it's a difficult journey to make on the internet forum.  If someone is truly open minded, I think the winning arguments are already all out there for her to absorb, possibly on wikipedia but I haven't checked.  If not there, at least some other easily Google-able source.

Except, No one is really making that argument in this case that ID should be. Palin said, and granted it was a clarification of an a statement she made the day before:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

The claim that she feels that Palin does favor the teaching of both is a straw man argument, that seems to be in vogue with the Democrats this year.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: August 31, 2008, 12:34:28 PM »

Hahahaha, those weren't even the costs crossing my mind, but they work.

I mean, you're on the right side of things and there's no way that successful and rational arguments won't bring you to the fact that creationism should not be taught along side actual science, but it's a difficult journey to make on the internet forum.  If someone is truly open minded, I think the winning arguments are already all out there for her to absorb, possibly on wikipedia but I haven't checked.  If not there, at least some other easily Google-able source.

Except, No one is really making that argument in this case that ID should be. Palin said, and granted it was a clarification of an a statement she made the day before:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

The claim that she feels that Palin does favor the teaching of both is a straw man argument, that seems to be in vogue with the Democrats this year.

No, it is not.  She said she supported teaching it -- twice.  She then clarified to say that she didn't want it in the curriculum, which was probably a reference to the official state curriculum.

What else would, "teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both," followed by "it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," mean?  Maybe she contradicted herself, but she didn't specify, so the only way this involves a non-contradiction is the scenario I described.

I'm not pulling a "strawman" on anyone Smiley
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: August 31, 2008, 12:42:11 PM »

Hey, Alcon, wouldn't you have loved to have "debated" ID in your high school biology class?  Of course you would!  Go Palin go!  Grin
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: August 31, 2008, 02:14:35 PM »

First, I did read it, and their conclusion, which isn't relevant to our discussion, can be summarized as this:  "Maybe the upregulation of genes was a mutation, maybe it was natural selection, ah, we don't have a mechanism."  It doesn't answer the question.

The question "Why is the fruit here," in the context we're discussing, is something more than an abstract question; it is a metaphysical one in this context.  Seeking the answer does not help genus Homo survive.  Arguably by diverting resources from other things, hunting, gathering or tool making, for example, it limited survivability.  Yet Homo insisted on asking the question and came up with answers.  And Homo is still asking the question, abet in a non metaphysical context.

I'm not saying that shouldn't ask the question; it's a good question.  I'm asking:  Why are we asking this question?  Why aren't other intelligent creatures asking it?  Why does it now seem at least to be an instinctual question?  Important questions, and we don't have an answer.

Hahahaha, those weren't even the costs crossing my mind, but they work.

I mean, you're on the right side of things and there's no way that successful and rational arguments won't bring you to the fact that creationism should not be taught along side actual science, but it's a difficult journey to make on the internet forum.  If someone is truly open minded, I think the winning arguments are already all out there for her to absorb, possibly on wikipedia but I haven't checked.  If not there, at least some other easily Google-able source.

Except, No one is really making that argument in this case that ID should be. Palin said, and granted it was a clarification of an a statement she made the day before:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

The claim that she feels that Palin does favor the teaching of both is a straw man argument, that seems to be in vogue with the Democrats this year.

No, it is not.  She said she supported teaching it -- twice.  She then clarified to say that she didn't want it in the curriculum, which was probably a reference to the official state curriculum.

What else would, "teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both," followed by "it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," mean?  Maybe she contradicted herself, but she didn't specify, so the only way this involves a non-contradiction is the scenario I described.

I'm not pulling a "strawman" on anyone Smiley


The key here is her comment:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." [/u]

There is a distinction between, **I want it taught with other things,**  with "I don't think there should be a prohibition" are different.  That her second comment was clarification of the first, should be sufficient to say that Palin feels that the state should not "prohibit" the discussion of it, if it comes up in class.  Sorry, but that seems very clear.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: August 31, 2008, 02:30:30 PM »
« Edited: August 31, 2008, 02:36:50 PM by Alcon »

First, I did read it, and their conclusion, which isn't relevant to our discussion, can be summarized as this:  "Maybe the upregulation of genes was a mutation, maybe it was natural selection, ah, we don't have a mechanism."  It doesn't answer the question.

You said there were no plausible scientific explanations.  You've just read several, and the footnotes contain articles that suggest others.  They have no less scientific evidence behind them than divine intervention, yet you seem stuck on that.  And you didn't admit you were wrong about the HGP, either.  Whatever.

The question "Why is the fruit here," in the context we're discussing, is something more than an abstract question; it is a metaphysical one in this context.  Seeking the answer does not help genus Homo survive.  Arguably by diverting resources from other things, hunting, gathering or tool making, for example, it limited survivability.  Yet Homo insisted on asking the question and came up with answers.  And Homo is still asking the question, abet in a non metaphysical context.

I'm not saying that shouldn't ask the question; it's a good question.  I'm asking:  Why are we asking this question?  Why aren't other intelligent creatures asking it?  Why does it now seem at least to be an instinctual question?  Important questions, and we don't have an answer.

But, for the umpteenth time, abstract thinking leads to metacognition.  They are part and parcel of development of the same parts of the brain.  Basic understanding of brain structure, as I just told you in the last post, makes this evident.  Why do you keep ignoring that point?

The key here is her comment:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." [/u]


There is a distinction between, **I want it taught with other things,**  with "I don't think there should be a prohibition" are different.  That her second comment was clarification of the first, should be sufficient to say that Palin feels that the state should not "prohibit" the discussion of it, if it comes up in class.  Sorry, but that seems very clear.

She has said:

I. ""Teach both [macroevolution and ID]"

II: "I am a proponent of teaching both [macroevolution and ID]."

III. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

IV. "It [intelligent design] doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Under your interpretation, which is that she wants it to be debate-only, her statements (I) and (II) are false and contradicted.  Besides, she has never said she wants it to be debate-only, so that's a leap of assumption.  She has just said she doesn't want debate to be disallowed (III), and that she doesn't want it to be part of the (state-mandated?) curriculum (IV).  But, for your interpretation to be true, you have to make an assumption about something that she didn't say, and assume two of her four statements were false.

Now, my interpretation is that she personally thinks it should be debated (fine) and taught (not fine), just not by state mandate.  This interpretation requires no falsehoods on Palin's part, and incorporates all four of her statements in total.  It also requires no unstated assumptions (beyond arguably the caveat that follows.)  So, not only is it a reasonable interpretation, it's the more reasonable assumption.

Caveat:  If we interpret (IV) to refer to individual curricula, then (I) and (II) are obviously contradicted, and she has stated two mutually-exclusive policy positions.  Still, not your interpretation.

(Although I still think the most reasonable assumption is that she doesn't have an entirely articulated position on this, and was just going with the flow.  Smiley)
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: August 31, 2008, 05:54:09 PM »

First, I did read it, and their conclusion, which isn't relevant to our discussion, can be summarized as this:  "Maybe the upregulation of genes was a mutation, maybe it was natural selection, ah, we don't have a mechanism."  It doesn't answer the question.

You said there were no plausible scientific explanations.  You've just read several, and the footnotes contain articles that suggest others.  They have no less scientific evidence behind them than divine intervention, yet you seem stuck on that.  And you didn't admit you were wrong about the HGP, either.  Whatever.

Saying that there is no evidence for either (and frankly that both have some problems), is not a "plausible" explanation.  It is, at best, a possible explanation.  Roll Eyes


But, for the umpteenth time, abstract thinking leads to metacognition.  They are part and parcel of development of the same parts of the brain.  Basic understanding of brain structure, as I just told you in the last post, makes this evident.  Why do you keep ignoring that point?

And for the upteentth time, that is not the question.  It is not, repeat not, if the mind of an earlier genus Homo could process the information.  It is, what sparked that interest and why did they dwell on it?

The key here is her comment:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." [/u]


There is a distinction between, **I want it taught with other things,**  with "I don't think there should be a prohibition" are different.  That her second comment was clarification of the first, should be sufficient to say that Palin feels that the state should not "prohibit" the discussion of it, if it comes up in class.  Sorry, but that seems very clear.

She has said:

I. ""Teach both [macroevolution and ID]"

II: "I am a proponent of teaching both [macroevolution and ID]."

III. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

IV. "It [intelligent design] doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."


[/quote]

She said, no points one and two are not my position.  Maybe she misstated it, maybe she was initially "going with the flow," maybe she flipped flopped, maybe she thought about it and said, "No, I don't think that was a good idea."  The position she then claimed the next was was points III and IV.  She said finally this was her position.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: August 31, 2008, 08:56:29 PM »

J. J.,

Did you not check the studies in the footnotes like I mentioned?  That's probably a rhetorical question.  Honestly, I'm starting to suspect the only thing you did is read the conclusion of the study and try to rephrase it.

And for the upteentth time, that is not the question.  It is not, repeat not, if the mind of an earlier genus Homo could process the information.  It is, what sparked that interest and why did they dwell on it?

Are you now arguing that any thoughts exterior to survival are remarkable?  That other beings' brains only think about survival, and nothing else?  That's ridiculous.  Apes think of other things, at their cognitive abilities, that are not necessary to survival.  Apparently you didn't read the abstract thinking study I linked you to.

Do you reject either of these ideas?

I. Metacognition comes along with a development in analytical thinking.  They go hand-in-hand.

II. Animals have thoughts that are not specific to just survival.

If you disagree with (I), you need to refute my brain development example.  If you disagree with (II), you need to give me proof of a mechanism that limits thoughts, or proof that thoughts are limited in other animals.  Otherwise, taken together, they substantiate my position and destroy yours.

She said, no points one and two are not my position.  Maybe she misstated it, maybe she was initially "going with the flow," maybe she flipped flopped, maybe she thought about it and said, "No, I don't think that was a good idea."  The position she then claimed the next was was points III and IV.  She said finally this was her position.

You should re-read my last post.

She never said points (I) and (II) are not her position?  She said that it does not have to be in the curriculum.  She could support not forcing teaching via state curriculum, but supporting individual teachers doing so.  That, again, incorporates all of her statements without any contradictions.  You choose to make one arbitrary assumption, and assume two contradictions.  Why?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: August 31, 2008, 09:01:43 PM »

Here, actually, I won't make you dig through footnotes.  I'll do your research for you.  Look up Bruce Lahn's work with the ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) on whatever academic databases you have at your disposal.  Then, if that fails your plausibility test somehow, I guess then we can discuss your underlying tacit argument of theism.

But, first, I'd still like to know why you're arguing theistic evolution -- unless you're arguing that Palin agrees with me, and disagrees with you.  I'm a little lost on that Smiley
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: August 31, 2008, 09:55:03 PM »

J. J.,

Did you not check the studies in the footnotes like I mentioned?  That's probably a rhetorical question.  Honestly, I'm starting to suspect the only thing you did is read the conclusion of the study and try to rephrase it.


I did read it, and it doesn't support your conclusion.  I have no disagreement that the brain of the genus Homo evolved to process more complex thought.  That is not the issue.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you now arguing that any thoughts exterior to survival are remarkable?  That other beings' brains only think about survival, and nothing else?  That's ridiculous.  Apes think of other things, at their cognitive abilities, that are not necessary to survival.  Apparently you didn't read the abstract thinking study I linked you to.
[/quote]

I argue that, while abstract thinking, and they referred to it as analogical thinking, IIRC, clearly can be related to survival.  I would argue that "How can get I to the fruit, that is out of reach," and "Why is the fruit here," are both abstract questions; both require abstract thought to answer.  One answer leads to a payoff, food.  The other does not.  The second, in this context I'll call metaphysical thinking.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I no not disagree.  Do you feel that metaphysical thinking comes along with analytical thinking?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, yes, I think that animals, even working animals like a dog that herds other animals, are limited to perhaps two thoughts, survival and gratification, and I'm not entirely sure of the second.


You should re-read my last post.

She never said points (I) and (II) are not her position?  She said that it does not have to be in the curriculum.  She could support not forcing teaching via state curriculum, but supporting individual teachers doing so.  That, again, incorporates all of her statements without any contradictions.  You choose to make one arbitrary assumption, and assume two contradictions.  Why?

Because, as governor, she does not control or order individual teachers.  She could mandate them to do certain thinks by putting it in the curriculum, but states she does wish to do so.  This more relates to the role of a governor, not her views ID.

For example, in PA, geography was NOT required to be taught as part of the state curriculum.  You can (or could when I was involved with it) graduate from high school without taking a course in geography; though I took a course in it, it was not required for graduation in my district.  Some districts (like the one where I was on the school board) did mandate it and say, in this district, to graduate, you must pass geography.  

Palin is saying, it is not the role of state government to either require or prohibit it.  (The courts have said it's not the role of local government either.)
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: August 31, 2008, 10:10:33 PM »

Let me put it this way.  I can ask three questions:

1.  Is Alcon on the planet Earth?

2.  How did Alcon get on the planet Earth?

3.  Why is Alcon on the the planet Earth?

The first two questions can be answered by abstract thinking.

The third question, if it asked differently than referring to how Alcon got here, is an abstract question, but is also a metaphysical one.
Logged
KeyKeeper
Turner22
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 331
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: August 31, 2008, 10:25:41 PM »

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school, as long as they also teach evolution as well. Let the students choose which one they want to believe in.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: August 31, 2008, 10:26:13 PM »

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school, as long as they also teach evolution as well. Let the students choose which one they want to believe in.

The difference is that evolution has basis in science, and creationism has absolutely no scientific basis whatseover.
Logged
KeyKeeper
Turner22
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 331
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: August 31, 2008, 10:28:45 PM »

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school, as long as they also teach evolution as well. Let the students choose which one they want to believe in.

The difference is that evolution has basis in science, and creationism has absolutely no scientific basis whatseover.

Evolution is base on theories, not fact. Well, the idea that we came from pond scum is a theory, not fact.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: August 31, 2008, 10:29:24 PM »

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school, as long as they also teach evolution as well. Let the students choose which one they want to believe in.

The difference is that evolution has basis in science, and creationism has absolutely no scientific basis whatseover.

Evolution is base on theories, not fact. Well, the idea that we came from pond scum is a theory, not fact.
It is more fact than the creation myth in the Bible and is very well documented by science.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: August 31, 2008, 10:29:38 PM »

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school, as long as they also teach evolution as well. Let the students choose which one they want to believe in.

The difference is that evolution has basis in science, and creationism has absolutely no scientific basis whatseover.

Evolution is base on theories, not fact. Well, the idea that we came from pond scum is a theory, not fact.

Gravity is a theory, not a fact.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: August 31, 2008, 10:29:50 PM »
« Edited: August 31, 2008, 10:33:11 PM by Alcon »

I did read it, and it doesn't support your conclusion.  I have no disagreement that the brain of the genus Homo evolved to process more complex thought.  That is not the issue.

I made two assertions:

1. The Human Genome Project is related to the topic at hand.

2. There are plausible, or possible, explanations other than "God did it."

Both of which I've supported.  Which "conclusion" are you talking about?

I argue that, while abstract thinking, and they referred to it as analogical thinking, IIRC, clearly can be related to survival.  I would argue that "How can get I to the fruit, that is out of reach," and "Why is the fruit here," are both abstract questions; both require abstract thought to answer.  One answer leads to a payoff, food.  The other does not.  The second, in this context I'll call metaphysical thinking.


...

I no not disagree.  Do you feel that metaphysical thinking comes along with analytical thinking?

Yes.  They originate from development of the same parts of the brain.  Do you have a basic, working understanding of the structure of the brain?  If so, you know this is true.  Allowing one, but not the other, would be an artificial block imposed on the primate brain.  You haven't explained why we should assume this.

Basically, yes, I think that animals, even working animals like a dog that herds other animals, are limited to perhaps two thoughts, survival and gratification, and I'm not entirely sure of the second.

Well, you're wrong, since other primates can do abstract, analogy thinking, which is not necessitated by survival, but goes along with thought skills that are helpful to it.  Which is exactly my argument for the development of human metacognition, in fact.

Because, as governor, she does not control or order individual teachers.  She could mandate them to do certain thinks by putting it in the curriculum, but states she does wish to do so.  This more relates to the role of a governor, not her views ID.

Nor can she force them to allow debate.  When you want to believe she doesn't support teaching ID in schools, you argue it must have been a mis-statement, because she can't force that as governor.  But you accept that she was talking about her personal opinion on teaching when she said that debating should be allowed.  Do you think she believes the state government has a right to enforce that, and actively supports forcing allowing debate?

If not, you can't have it both ways; it's special pleading.

Palin is saying, it is not the role of state government to either require or prohibit it.  (The courts have said it's not the role of local government either.)

Which I'm essentially fine with, but if she personally supports teaching it alongside macroevolution, I am disagreeing with that opinion.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 12 queries.