Anti-Intellectualism is Alive and Ugly in America
Gandalf Grey
Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
By Ellen Sorokin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Professors and administrators are to blame for anti-American sentiment
on college campuses today, according to a report by the American Council of
Trustees and Alumni.
More than 140 college campuses in 36 states have held anti-war rallies
denouncing the country's military actions in Afghanistan, the report says.
The document — "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are
Failing America and What Can Be Done About It" — concludes that many
professors and administrators are quick to clamp down on acts of patriotism,
such as flying the American flag, and look down on students who question
professors' "politically correct" ideas in class. The report was completed
last month.
Such practices should be stopped because they threaten the very essence
of a college experience, which should encourage a robust exchange of ideas,
said Anne Neal, vice president and general counsel for ACTA, a
Washington-based educational group. Professors need to change their
curriculum to include both sides of historical issues, or else they will
continue to short-change their students, Ms. Neal said.
"We're not saying this sentiment exists 100 percent on all college
campuses," Ms. Neal said. "But there are college campuses out there where
there is this anti-American sentiment, and we're very concerned about it
because this is an attitude that affects our self-understanding."
The ACTA report lists 117 examples of anti-American sentiment.
What has particularly caused concern among groups such as ACTA is the
anti-patriotic attitude making its way into post-September 11 college
courses.
Examples of such courses being offered this spring and next fall are:
"The Sexuality of Terrorism" at University of California at Hayward; and
"Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge" at UCLA, a class that, according
to its course description, examines "America's record of imperialistic
adventurism."
Such courses are a "perfect example of blaming the victim, a favorite
phrase of the left," said Winfield Myers, of the Intercollegiate Studies
Institute. "To equate the attack on terrorist strongholds and their state
sponsors with old-fashioned imperialism or territorial warfare is
disingenuous at best," Mr. Myers said.
Rick Parsons, a campus program director at the Young America's
Foundation, said offering a course that's skewed is typical on college
campuses. Most of those classes are taught by professors who were anti-war
protesters of the 1960s and 1970s.
"They feel like America is to blame for everything. It's that simple,"
Mr. Parsons said.
ACTA officials said professors should adopt a curriculum that include
courses on the foundations of Western civilization. "If both sides are
heard, students and all of us will benefit," Ms. Neal said.
But some college officials said academic institutions have always been
known as places where people will find the most freedom to think
differently.
"You want people to think differently on college campuses, you want to
them to think critically," said Forest Wortham, director of multicultural
programs in the Women's Center at Wittenberg University in Ohio.
"But people have to be careful in assuming a person's allegiance on
what they think or say. I just hope we haven't returned to the McCarthy
era."
The anti-American sentiment has been a part of campus life since it
first appeared during the Vietnam War era, when students held anti-war
rallies to urge the federal government to stop the conflict overseas.
That sentiment became more evident in the months after the September 11
terrorist attacks, when professors and administrators removed American flags
that students had put up.
But some students traded in the American flag for the international
peace symbol (a circle with an upside "Y" in the center) because, as one
student at Wittenberg University in Ohio explained in an interview, the flag
is a symbol of military and male oppression. The peace sign promotes a "more
inclusive atmosphere."
College professors and university officials mentioned in the ACTA
report for taking down American flags days after the attacks called their
actions "lapses of judgement" or "knee-jerk reactions from the 1960s," and
said they regretted their behavior.
Professors, university officials and associations that represent them
denounced the ACTA's conclusions, saying the report inaccurately described
campus responses to the terrorist attacks.
"Students, faculty, and campus leaders have, in fact, come together ...
in deliberative dialogues about the dangers of racial profiling, and in
serious study of the underlying issues and challenges these attacks pose for
our nation's future," said Carol Geary Schneider, president of the
Association of American Colleges and Universities, which represents 740
colleges and universities nationwide.
William Scheuerman, president of the United University Professions, the
country's largest higher education union, accused ACTA of using the attacks
as an opportunity to force faculty to teach "America Is the Best"
1950s-style curricula.
"Most Americans believe we're the best, but we won't remain so for long
if the very American activity of challenging orthodoxy is suppressed on U.S.
campuses," Mr. Scheuerman said.
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"This is not a monarchy.... We've got a dictatorial President and a Justice
Department that does not want Congress involved.... Your guy's acting like
he's king."
--Congressman Dan Burton, referring to George W. Bush
"It's more difficult to seem bipartisan after the Daschle memo."
---Frank Luntz: GOP pollster and propaganda producer
Jeffrey Davis
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>
It couldn't be that anti-intellectualism is part of the
price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> By this time, my lungs
were burning for air!
hal
>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>
>Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
Ah yes. And now we see the beginning of the typical purge of the
intellectuals who dare to question the authoritarian government. So
where do you suppose the Republicans will start the first
concentration camps?
Hal
righ...@scumbag.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>
>Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>>
>
>It couldn't be that anti-intellectualism is part of the
>price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
considering the addiction runs to the slop that Faux promotes,
especially the pat robertson news channel
====================================================
Poor, pathetic, DIMWIT DANA, blusterers thusly:
IT PROVES YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Hey ASSHOLE no one but you cares about this,
but it does show you are a hypocritical LOON.
Come on Roseasshole tell us what town you live in,
or are you to chicken to fight.
I am in Phoenix, and my number is listed,
come on chicken man, make your hat.
Gandalf Grey
<hal> wrote in message news:3c8e6c92....@news.blackfoot.net...
The anti-intellectualism of the right goes back a lot farther than most
people realize in this country. And there is far more to it than the
celebration of stupidity that appears on the surface. Part of it is the
fact that dissent most often originates from the intellectual and academic
community. The right needs to silence dissent and we've certainly seen the
various attempts to do so since 9/11. But part of it is also the cynical
recognition that only a dumbed-down population can swallow the complete
right wing agenda. As long as there is any freedom of learning and speech
left, the conservative agenda will never be safe in this country.
>
> Hal
>
>
Captain Compassion
My son is finishing his third year at UC Riverside and has very little
politics either liberal or conservative in his classes. Of course his
fellow students are 85% oriental. Not much PC in the Math Department.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you can't eat their food, drink their liquor, fuck their
whores and take their money and STILL vote AGAINST them, you
don't belong in this business." -- Jess Unruh.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
"O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
--Voltaire
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Captain Compassion
All the Philosophy, Women's Studies, Ethnic Studies, Gender Studies,
Sociology, Phsycology, Political Science et al these don't create jobs
or goods or services. We need more scientists and engineers less of
the above.
I say this have an Undergraduate degree in Psychology and an MA in
Social Psychology.
Scott D. Erb
Jeffrey Davis wrote:
>
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >
> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >
>
> It couldn't be that anti-intellectualism is part of the
> price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
You know, that point gets me to thinking and I want to
offer the following analysis...
uh, never mind, the Simpsons are about to start...
Gandalf Grey
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3c8e7b34...@news.verizon.net...
As soon as you become the decider of "what we need" I'll get the word out.
Until then, this is still a free country regardless of how hard the right
wing is working on making it something else and anyone who wants to study
the disciplines above is free to do so and will be all the better citizens
for that study.
Gandalf Grey
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
news:3C8E7B8D...@maine.edu...
"DOH!!!"
Have I got a book for you!
*The Tao of Homer*
hal
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:47:09 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:>>left, the conservative agenda will never be safe in this country.
>>
>All the Philosophy, Women's Studies, Ethnic Studies, Gender Studies,
>Sociology, Phsycology, Political Science et al these don't create jobs
>or goods or services. We need more scientists and engineers less of
>the above.
That's a subjective conclusion. Scientists and engineers try to
change our world (hopefully for the better), all the rest try to help
us learn to deal with it.
Hal
Eric da Red
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:57:33 -0800, wrote:
>
>>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>>
>>Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
>
>Ah yes. And now we see the beginning of the typical purge of the
>intellectuals who dare to question the authoritarian government.
Pol Pot would be so proud.
--
ShrubQuote Of The Week: "...for a century and a half now, America and
Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern
times."
Brain Death
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
Another leftie who apparently doesn't know that the higher one's
degree of education, the more likely it is that person will vote
Republican. The MOST dependable non-ethnic block of Democratic voters
are high school dropouts.
It is the Democrats who depend on the people remaining stupid. As I
have pointed out before, most of the rightward shift in voting over
the last 40 years can be explained by the increasing numbers of
college graduates as compared to the decreasing numbers of high school
dropouts.
BD
Scott Erb
"Brain Death" <jgl...@letsroll.com> wrote in message
news:ri6t8uklt778ibq0k...@4ax.com...
Actually, most Republicans and Democrats are not anti-intellectual.
Anti-intellectualism is a part of fascist thought, and the extreme right
(which is no better or worse than the extreme left) often engages in
anti-intellectualism, focusing on insults, personal attacks, sloganesque
tactics and other anti-intellectual methods of rational political discourse.
True liberals and conservatives each have good arguments on their side and
recognize that no one has a monopoly on truth, and that through competition,
debate, compromise and a willingness to try to understand the arguments of
the other side, we can use our differences for the betterment of the polity.
I also wonder if saying there has been a 'rightward shift' in the last forty
years is accurate. What was 'liberal' forty years ago is probably more
'conservative' today. I think things tend to go in cycles. A study just
reported that more college students see themselves as liberal today than any
time since 1971. Most voters are centrist and split their vote.
Mitchell Holman
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:47:09 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><hal> wrote in message news:3c8e6c92....@news.blackfoot.net...
>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:57:33 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>>> >
>>> >Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
>>>
>>> Ah yes. And now we see the beginning of the typical purge of the
>>> intellectuals who dare to question the authoritarian government. So
>>> where do you suppose the Republicans will start the first
>>> concentration camps?
>>
>>The anti-intellectualism of the right goes back a lot farther than most
>>people realize in this country. And there is far more to it than the
>>celebration of stupidity that appears on the surface. Part of it is the
>>fact that dissent most often originates from the intellectual and academic
>>community. The right needs to silence dissent and we've certainly seen the
>>various attempts to do so since 9/11. But part of it is also the cynical
>>recognition that only a dumbed-down population can swallow the complete
>>right wing agenda. As long as there is any freedom of learning and speech
>>left, the conservative agenda will never be safe in this country.
>
>Another leftie who apparently doesn't know that the higher one's
>degree of education, the more likely it is that person will vote
>Republican. The MOST dependable non-ethnic block of Democratic voters
>are high school dropouts.
>
That explains "C-average" Bush and Rhodes Scholar Clinton.
Right. Is line of thinking a "subliminable" thing with conservatives?
Keynes
Not much of a problem.
All they need to do is give the students choices.
Let them take "Ignoring American Foreign Policy 101"
and "History Never Happened 102" instead of that
boring stuff they have now.
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try and blame Bill Clinton."
( CONs - men at work greasing the "Axles of Evil". )
Captain Compassion
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
In my business life I've hired Computer Programmers, System Analyists,
Engineers, Salesmen, secretaries, janitors, Assembly workers, so on
and so forth. I've never had any need for ethnic or woman's study
technicians. There is no question that these folks can make good
citizens many of them make good Fry Cooks.
Get any big Sunday newspaper. Look at the help wanted section. Tell me
how many you find where a degree in gender studuies is required.
Captain Compassion
> I would argue that there's no "complete right-wing agenda"
> for anyone TO swallow. The "right" is not a monolith, not
> in the least. It spans from fascists and theocrats at the
> one extreme to sensible moderates and not-quite-so-sensible
> Libertarians at the other. The only factions that appreciate
> stupidity are those at the totalitarian extreme. Surely, you
> can't assert that the National Review is written by or for
> mindless idiots ???
>
> Anti-intellectualism is a feature of EXTREMISM ... and it
> doesn't matter WHICH extreme. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and
> Ho Chi Minh were just as eager to "dumb down" their subjects
> as any right-wing megalomaniac -- and perpetrated wholesale
> purges of "intellectuals" and teachers. Extremist agendas
> are rarely logical -- ergo the logical people MUST be
> eliminated if the plan is to be successful. None may question
> the party line, what's "PC". Extremist party-lines cannot
> stand-up to close scrutiny (or even casual scrutiny).
>
> American anti-intellectualism is a residue of the extremist
> religious groups which originally colonized this continent.
> As more sensible people immigrated here, they were
> contaminated by the established nut-cases and the bias was
> perpetuated ... call it a "meme".
>
> Of course there IS one other reason why "intellectuals"
> are un-loved ... it's because they are too-often full
> of shit - elitist granfaloons blowing their own horns.
>
> There *is* such a thing as an "ivory-tower mentality" -
> detached from real people living real lives in the gritty
> real world. Just because one can start with a premise and
> a few axioms and follow the thought out until it is
> all-encompassing does NOT make the ideas correct.
> Intellectualisms are too often "idiot-isms" - grounded on
> suspect facts, warped by imperfect deductions, hostage
> to the soft grey edge between the objective and subjective.
> The human mind is an inferior tool for discovering Truth.
> Just because you can think it does not make it true.
>
> "Intellectuals" tend to be far-too impressed by their
> mental creations to really concern themselves with its
> accuracy or real-world relevance -- but they ARE quite
> willing to sing their own praises and recommend changes
> to public policy. Is it any wonder the average Joe, even
> if he is quite intelligent, may view "intellectuals" with
> a jaundiced eye ?
>
I would like to point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been much
harder on intellectuals than any on the right in America.
Roger R.
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3c8e7b34...@news.verizon.net...
Business research indicates that the higher management positions have a much
higher percentage of liberal arts majors as opposed to scientists and
engineers. As a past teacher of Corporate Strategy, I can tell you that the
technical degrees are unsuitable for the highest positions in corporate
management. They focus too much on reliable and repeatable results and not
enough on gathering significant information and making decisions where data
is unstructured and difficult to organize and goals are not clear and agreed
on in advance.
Scientists, Engineers and financial experts don't create jobs. Strategists
do, and strategists tend to have less highly structured degrees and
educations.
Captain Compassion
wrote:
Actually the majority of those with post baccalaureate degrees vote
Democrat. That's because the majority of these people are Lawyers or
Education professionals. Doctors, engineers, Business Professionals
and hard scientists vote Republican. Over all those with College
degrees vote Republican.
Captain Compassion
Isn't there a college course somewhere in the Midwest on the
Philosophy of Homer Simpson?
Gandalf Grey
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
Now all you need to do is prove that the United States isn't any different
from your business.
Gandalf Grey
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:59:03 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3C8E7B8D...@maine.edu...
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > It couldn't be that anti-intellectualism is part of the
> >> > price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
> >>
> >> You know, that point gets me to thinking and I want to
> >> offer the following analysis...
> >>
> >> uh, never mind, the Simpsons are about to start...
> >
> >"DOH!!!"
> >
> >Have I got a book for you!
> >
> >*The Tao of Homer*
> >
> Isn't there a college course somewhere in the Midwest on the
> Philosophy of Homer Simpson?
I don't know, but I did see the book a few weeks ago.
Ellen Mercer
often completely at odds with what would have been the opinion of the masses,
had that opinion even been sought. The best of our friends, from Chile to UK to
Canada know this truth, and to deny it is to leave in a dreamworld. The best
examples are those many cases in which the CIA has overthrown governments for
the sake of planting rightwing dictators, so often against the will of the
people. These covert ops are done in our name, but rarely if ever with our
blessing.
The mere titles of "suspect" college courses say precious little about their
content. It could be that the professors in question are anti-American; could
also be that they are not.
Zino
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6lq42$1iu$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>
> Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> By Ellen Sorokin
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
>
> Professors and administrators are to blame for anti-American
sentiment
> on college campuses today, according to a report by the American Council
of
> Trustees and Alumni.
>
> More than 140 college campuses in 36 states have held anti-war
rallies
> denouncing the country's military actions in Afghanistan, the report says.
> Failing America and What Can Be Done About It" - concludes that many
Why is it that the right is the side that is physically intimidated,
scorned, and refused the chance to even speak on most college campuses? What
I see here is an opinion on paper, not the destruction of newspapers with
leftist ideas, or the silencing of leftist speech. The leftists are the ones
who will brook no dissension, not the right. How many times have leftist
sponsored gatherings been literally thrown off campus, as the conservatives
were at Columbia a few years ago? How many speakers from the left have been
shouted down before they even had a chance to speak? How many times have
left slanting campus newspapers been stolen and destroyed because the right
couldn't even let a dissenting opinion be heard? It's a common occurence
with conservative papers, but I have never heard of it happening to a
leftist paper. Despite all this voodoo rhetoric, who is really suppressing
free speech? It's pretty telling that leftists who actually engage in the
suppression of free speech should point a finger at the right and wrongfully
accuse them of exactly what the left has been doing for more than thirty
years.
Zino
Yaaaah, bullshit. You're right. Anybody is free to "study" this stuff, but
it's still just "feel-goodism" at it's finest. You know, at one time, the
United Staes was unsurpassed in education. Gee. I wonder why we're down near
the bottom of thr barrel in the industrialized world now? "The Sexuality Of
Terrorism". Now there's a real fuckin' winner.
>
>
Brain Death
Describing most of these folks as intellectuals is a bastardization of
the term. They are poseurs, for the most part, and they got caught
striking a pose. I mean, where was that idiot teaching, the one who
said anybody who bombed the Pentagon got his vote? IIRC it was at
some podunk school in New Mexico.
For the most part it is only the lesser lights of academia and
Hollywood and politics who have disgraced themselves. "Intellectuals"
like Bill Maher and Susan Sontag and Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky.
BD
Ellen Mercer
BlackWater wrote:
Again, BW, you prove yourself too good for nasty little groups like this. I'm
truly impressed!
In this case, the polemic that initiated this discussion was miles away from
supporting its potent conclusions. A few course titles, largely noncommittal,
are trotted out as "evidence" for all kinds of conclusions about the nasty
leftist agenda of professors. A professor who saw the obvious truth that the US
has behaved imperialistically is held up to ridicule.
I love my country and believe, fundamentally, that the public of America is good
and generous in spirit, at least about as good as fatally flawed humanity gets.
But the government has NOT acted in our interests overseas, nor has its actions
been manifest of the "will of the people". To deny this may make one feel
better, but the rest of the world is not fooled and we should embrace reality
nonetheless. And, whenever we have any input into imperialistic overthrow of
sovereign governments (rare) we must speak out forcefully and vote accordingly.
gales
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:55:28 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:3c8e7b34...@news.verizon.net...
> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:47:09 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><hal> wrote in message news:3c8e6c92....@news.blackfoot.net...
> >> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:57:33 -0800, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah yes. And now we see the beginning of the typical purge of the
> >> >> intellectuals who dare to question the authoritarian government. So
> >> >> where do you suppose the Republicans will start the first
> >> >> concentration camps?
(first concentration camps in the USA were started by
Democrats...FDR.....American Citizens of Japanese descent.... WWII? Ring a
bell?)
> >> >
> >> >The anti-intellectualism of the right goes back a lot farther than
most
> >> >people realize in this country. And there is far more to it than the
> >> >celebration of stupidity
(courtesy of liberals in government)
that appears on the surface. Part of it is the
> >> >fact that dissent most often originates from the intellectual and
> >academic
> >> >community. The right needs to silence dissent and we've certainly
seen
> >the
> >> >various attempts to do so since 9/11. But part of it is also the
cynical
> >> >recognition that only a
dumbed-down population
(again, courtesy of the liberals in government)
Roger R.
"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:T3yOPLx=gumEKNOyxr...@4ax.com...
Actually it does. If the premises are correct and the processes of thought
are logical, then the results must be correct. What you mean to say is that
the results may not be practical or usable, which is quite true. Of course,
there are areas of mathematics in which the development of the mathematics
was done entirely as an excercise in mathematics, and only 200 years later
was a practical application for the mathematical theory found.
> Intellectualisms are too often "idiot-isms" - grounded on
> suspect facts, warped by imperfect deductions, hostage
> to the soft grey edge between the objective and subjective.
> The human mind is an inferior tool for discovering Truth.
> Just because you can think it does not make it true.
However, facts and logic are more likely to be true than politics and
emotionalism. Over a period of time, facts and logic are certainly better.
>
> "Intellectuals" tend to be far-too impressed by their
> mental creations to really concern themselves with its
> accuracy or real-world relevance -- but they ARE quite
> willing to sing their own praises and recommend changes
> to public policy. Is it any wonder the average Joe, even
> if he is quite intelligent, may view "intellectuals" with
> a jaundiced eye ?
>
Probably because the average Joe has no idea what is involved in the logical
process, and is willing to sneer at those who work in a job he has no
concept of. Much like you, in fact. You haven't a clue as to what is being
done in academia.
How is your self-satisfied sneer at "intellectuals" any different from your
complaint that they are willing to sing their own praises and recommend
changes to public policy? Your last original public policy recommendation
was what? Based on what evidence?
Ellen Mercer
Gandalf Grey wrote:
My personal favorite- a "Homerism" to rival the Iliad and the Odyssey...
Homer, offering sagacious fatherly advice to Bart:
"Son, if there is ever anything that you want to do that turns out to be
really hard to do, just don't do it!"
;-)
Captain Compassion
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
Hey guy. I have no problem with anyone studing anything they choose to
study. I'm just pointing out that some areas of study are more
valuable to society and commerce than others. Then there is the
question of market saturation. How many Ph.D's in Chicano studies can
the market handle. God knows we have too many Lawyers and too few
engineers. You're a philosophical guy. What % of the population in
Plato's Republic should be philosophers?
Captain Compassion
wrote:
In starting programming and management positions I often would hire
English majors.
Steve Canyon (Ace)
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:11:57 GMT, Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net>
>wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>>
>>Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>>>
>>
>>It couldn't be that anti-intellectualism is part of the
>>price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
>
>considering the addiction runs to the slop that Faux promotes,
>especially the pat robertson news channel
>
>
>====================================================
>Poor, pathetic, DIMWIT DANA, blusterers thusly:
>
>IT PROVES YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
>
>Hey ASSHOLE no one but you cares about this,
>but it does show you are a hypocritical LOON.
>
>Come on Roseasshole tell us what town you live in,
>or are you to chicken to fight.
>
>I am in Phoenix, and my number is listed,
>come on chicken man, make your hat.
Apparently he's right, you are chicken.
--Ace
Gandalf Grey
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
That also is not your decision to make.
Gandalf Grey
"Ellen Mercer" <elmerc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C8EC2F8...@hotmail.com...
DOH!!!
>
> ;-)
>
>
Nap
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>
> Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
>
> Professors and administrators are to blame for
anti-American sentiment
> on college campuses today, according to a report by the
American Council of
> Trustees and Alumni.
This whole article is about how liberal "intellectuals" are
oppressive
unthinking, and pro-draconian government, and you retitle it as
if being
against that is wrong?
Captain Compassion
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
No. That's a market decision. Thank God theres lots of positions at
Burger King, Micky D's and Dennys.
Gandalf Grey
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
Can I supersize that for you?
Captain Compassion
nah
>(first concentration camps in the USA were started by
>Democrats...FDR.....American Citizens of Japanese descent.... WWII? Ring a
>bell?)
you forgot the reservations for aboriginal americans
Gregory Gadow
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>
> Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> By Ellen Sorokin
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> Professors and administrators are to blame for anti-American sentiment
> on college campuses today, according to a report by the American Council of
> Trustees and Alumni.
Yup. We all know that, in the current political climate, learning to think for
yourself and come to your own conclusions of the world around you -- including
the policies of the current administration -- is the very height of unAmerican
activites.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
If it is the act of a traitor to speak out against the
unConstitional acts of my government, to excercise my
rights guaranteed by that Constitution -- the right to
publish my opinions and speak my thoughts, the right
to petition for a redress of grievances, the right to
be secure in my person and property against search and
seizure without due process of law -- then I am a traitor.
And God grant us many, many more traitors, for we are in
dire need of them.
Gregory Gadow
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:57:33 -0800, wrote:
>
> >http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >
> >Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
>
> Ah yes. And now we see the beginning of the typical purge of the
> intellectuals who dare to question the authoritarian government. So
> where do you suppose the Republicans will start the first
> concentration camps?
Actually, the only concentration camps to have been on American soil --
the internment camps of Japanese Americans during WWII -- was authorized
and rationalized by that great Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
hal
>>
>I would like to point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been much
>harder on intellectuals than any on the right in America.
Well DUH ! That's because we have the Constitution to protect us.
The same Constitution that the right is gradually whittling away at.
Hal
hal
>"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><hal> wrote in message news:3c8e6c92....@news.blackfoot.net...
>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:57:33 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>>> >
>>> >Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
>>>
>>> Ah yes. And now we see the beginning of the typical purge of the
>>> intellectuals who dare to question the authoritarian government. So
>>> where do you suppose the Republicans will start the first
>>> concentration camps?
>>
>>The anti-intellectualism of the right goes back a lot farther than most
>>people realize in this country. And there is far more to it than the
>>celebration of stupidity that appears on the surface. Part of it is the
>>fact that dissent most often originates from the intellectual and academic
>>community. The right needs to silence dissent and we've certainly seen the
>>various attempts to do so since 9/11. But part of it is also the cynical
>>recognition that only a dumbed-down population can swallow the complete
>>right wing agenda. As long as there is any freedom of learning and speech
>>left, the conservative agenda will never be safe in this country.
>
> I would argue that there's no "complete right-wing agenda"
> for anyone TO swallow. The "right" is not a monolith, not
> in the least. It spans from fascists and theocrats at the
> one extreme to sensible moderates and not-quite-so-sensible
> Libertarians at the other. The only factions that appreciate
> stupidity are those at the totalitarian extreme. Surely, you
> can't assert that the National Review is written by or for
> mindless idiots ???
>
> Anti-intellectualism is a feature of EXTREMISM ... and it
> doesn't matter WHICH extreme. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and
> Ho Chi Minh were just as eager to "dumb down" their subjects
> as any right-wing megalomaniac -- and perpetrated wholesale
> purges of "intellectuals" and teachers. Extremist agendas
> are rarely logical -- ergo the logical people MUST be
> eliminated if the plan is to be successful. None may question
> the party line, what's "PC". Extremist party-lines cannot
> stand-up to close scrutiny (or even casual scrutiny).
>
> American anti-intellectualism is a residue of the extremist
> religious groups which originally colonized this continent.
And still continue to wrestle for control.
> As more sensible people immigrated here, they were
> contaminated by the established nut-cases and the bias was
> perpetuated ... call it a "meme".
>
> Of course there IS one other reason why "intellectuals"
> are un-loved ... it's because they are too-often full
> of shit - elitist granfaloons blowing their own horns.
Those who do not know, usually resent those that do.
>
> There *is* such a thing as an "ivory-tower mentality" -
> detached from real people living real lives in the gritty
> real world.
The most threatening "ivory-tower mentality" are the corporate empire
builders, not the thinkers.
> Just because one can start with a premise and
> a few axioms and follow the thought out until it is
> all-encompassing does NOT make the ideas correct.
> Intellectualisms are too often "idiot-isms" - grounded on
> suspect facts, warped by imperfect deductions, hostage
> to the soft grey edge between the objective and subjective.
Of course many mistakes have been made, but Science is a
self-correcting process.
> The human mind is an inferior tool for discovering Truth.
Bullshit.
> Just because you can think it does not make it true.
"I think, therefore I am."
Hal
Captain Compassion
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 02:27:01 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>I would like to point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been much
>>harder on intellectuals than any on the right in America.
>
>Well DUH ! That's because we have the Constitution to protect us.
>The same Constitution that the right is gradually whittling away at.
>
OK. Besides the "Right" to kill unborn babies. What rights have the
rights "whittled" away?
pyjamarama
> price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
Could be. Could also be the distinct lack of quality intellect
embodied in so many "intellectuals".
Not a hard case to make if hacks like McKinnon, Dworkin, Chomsky,
Sontag et al. are considered to be the cream of the crop.
awestport
> In article <ri6t8uklt778ibq0k...@4ax.com>, Brain Death <jgl...@letsroll.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:47:09 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> ><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><hal> wrote in message news:3c8e6c92....@news.blackfoot.net...
> >>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:57:33 -0800, wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >>> >
> >>> >Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> >>>
> >>> Ah yes. And now we see the beginning of the typical purge of the
> >>> intellectuals who dare to question the authoritarian government. So
> >>> where do you suppose the Republicans will start the first
> >>> concentration camps?
> >>
> >>The anti-intellectualism of the right goes back a lot farther than most
> >>people realize in this country. And there is far more to it than the
> >>celebration of stupidity that appears on the surface. Part of it is the
> >>fact that dissent most often originates from the intellectual and academic
> >>community. The right needs to silence dissent and we've certainly seen the
> >>various attempts to do so since 9/11. But part of it is also the cynical
> >>recognition that only a dumbed-down population can swallow the complete
> >>right wing agenda. As long as there is any freedom of learning and speech
> >>left, the conservative agenda will never be safe in this country.
> >
> >degree of education, the more likely it is that person will vote
> >Republican. The MOST dependable non-ethnic block of Democratic voters
> >are high school dropouts.
> >
>
> That explains "C-average" Bush and Rhodes Scholar Clinton.
> Right. Is line of thinking a "subliminable" thing with conservatives?
You must be an imposter. How could a real member of the "intellectual
left" draw a conclusion based on a statistical sample size of two?
Eric da Red
Most leftists recognize that Chomsky is an order of magnitude higher
in intellectual gifts than the rest on that list. Folks like
Dworkin and McKinnon are a cut below, and probably occupy the same
level of American intellectualism as Thomas Sowell and Paul Johnson.
--
ShrubQuote Of The Week: "They didn't think we were a nation that could
conceivably sacrifice for something greater than our self, that we were
soft, ... My, were they wrong. They just were reading the wrong magazine,
or watching the wrong Springer show."
Gandalf Grey
"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3C8F6629...@serv.net...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >
> > Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> > By Ellen Sorokin
> > THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> >
> > Professors and administrators are to blame for anti-American
sentiment
> > on college campuses today, according to a report by the American Council
of
> > Trustees and Alumni.
>
> Yup. We all know that, in the current political climate, learning to think
for
> yourself and come to your own conclusions of the world around you --
including
> the policies of the current administration -- is the very height of
unAmerican
> activites.
To the reactionary mind, thinking and questioning are subversive activities
by definition.
Tubesteak Morris
political spectrum. If the right wing has a problem with what is being
taught on campus they should quit making money and building things, go
get an advanced degree and start teaching their point of view.
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:<a6lq42$1iu$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>
> Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> By Ellen Sorokin
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
>
> Professors and administrators are to blame for anti-American sentiment
> on college campuses today, according to a report by the American Council of
> Trustees and Alumni.
>
> More than 140 college campuses in 36 states have held anti-war rallies
> denouncing the country's military actions in Afghanistan, the report says.
> The document — "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are
> Failing America and What Can Be Done About It" — concludes that many
> professors and administrators are quick to clamp down on acts of patriotism,
> such as flying the American flag, and look down on students who question
> professors' "politically correct" ideas in class. The report was completed
> last month.
> Such practices should be stopped because they threaten the very essence
> of a college experience, which should encourage a robust exchange of ideas,
> said Anne Neal, vice president and general counsel for ACTA, a
> Washington-based educational group. Professors need to change their
> curriculum to include both sides of historical issues, or else they will
> continue to short-change their students, Ms. Neal said.
> "We're not saying this sentiment exists 100 percent on all college
> campuses," Ms. Neal said. "But there are college campuses out there where
> there is this anti-American sentiment, and we're very concerned about it
> because this is an attitude that affects our self-understanding."
> The ACTA report lists 117 examples of anti-American sentiment.
> What has particularly caused concern among groups such as ACTA is the
> anti-patriotic attitude making its way into post-September 11 college
> courses.
> Examples of such courses being offered this spring and next fall are:
> "The Sexuality of Terrorism" at University of California at Hayward; and
> "Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge" at UCLA, a class that, according
> to its course description, examines "America's record of imperialistic
> adventurism."
> Such courses are a "perfect example of blaming the victim, a favorite
> phrase of the left," said Winfield Myers, of the Intercollegiate Studies
> Institute. "To equate the attack on terrorist strongholds and their state
> sponsors with old-fashioned imperialism or territorial warfare is
> disingenuous at best," Mr. Myers said.
> Rick Parsons, a campus program director at the Young America's
> Foundation, said offering a course that's skewed is typical on college
> campuses. Most of those classes are taught by professors who were anti-war
> protesters of the 1960s and 1970s.
> "They feel like America is to blame for everything. It's that simple,"
> Mr. Parsons said.
> ACTA officials said professors should adopt a curriculum that include
> courses on the foundations of Western civilization. "If both sides are
> heard, students and all of us will benefit," Ms. Neal said.
> But some college officials said academic institutions have always been
> known as places where people will find the most freedom to think
> differently.
> "You want people to think differently on college campuses, you want to
> them to think critically," said Forest Wortham, director of multicultural
> programs in the Women's Center at Wittenberg University in Ohio.
> "But people have to be careful in assuming a person's allegiance on
> what they think or say. I just hope we haven't returned to the McCarthy
> era."
> The anti-American sentiment has been a part of campus life since it
> first appeared during the Vietnam War era, when students held anti-war
> rallies to urge the federal government to stop the conflict overseas.
> That sentiment became more evident in the months after the September 11
> terrorist attacks, when professors and administrators removed American flags
> that students had put up.
> --
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
> has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
> making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
> environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
> social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
> such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
>
> "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
> long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
>
> "This is not a monarchy.... We've got a dictatorial President and a Justice
> Department that does not want Congress involved.... Your guy's acting like
> he's king."
> --Congressman Dan Burton, referring to George W. Bush
>
> "It's more difficult to seem bipartisan after the Daschle memo."
> ---Frank Luntz: GOP pollster and propaganda producer
Martin McPhillips
>
> In article <6ebc086.02031...@posting.google.com>,
> pyjamarama <pyjama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3C8E6E6A...@verizon.net>...
> >> Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >> >
> >>
> >> It couldn't be that anti-intellectualism is part of the
> >> price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
> >
> >Could be. Could also be the distinct lack of quality intellect
> >embodied in so many "intellectuals".
> >
> >Not a hard case to make if hacks like McKinnon, Dworkin, Chomsky,
> >Sontag et al. are considered to be the cream of the crop.
>
> Most leftists recognize that Chomsky is an order of magnitude higher
> in intellectual gifts than the rest on that list.
Is that Andrea Dworkin, the radical lesbian-feminist? I read a review
of her new book in the NY Times Book Review that recounted her telling,
in the book, about how Allen Ginsberg followed her around relentlessly
at a party, harranguing her about her views on censorship. At least she
has a sense of humor. McKinnon, of course, is the drip who was attached
to Tom Brokaw's hip during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill blowup, who
on cue could run-down the importance of Clarence's alleged dirty talk
to the future of womankind, but whose telephone number Brokaw apparently
lost during the Clinton/Lewinsky business.
I don't see Sontag around that much. She, of course, is famous for her
scandalous remark of about 20 years ago about how Communism was the
equivalent of Fascism. This was very upsetting to Leftist salons
everywhere, and she was briefly flogged.
Chomsky is certainly dopier than all three of these women put together,
which, if what you say about the Left holding him "an order of magnitude
higher in intellectual gifts" is true, should speak volumes about
the intellectual blight that has settled on the Left (a bit of
redundancy there).
Chomsky is a delusional liar, which makes him the perfect propagandist.
He's like a man who shows up in a small town in Kansas, someplace like
that, and on finding that there is no Starbucks carries on about how
the ruling class in Seattle has on purpose, with malevolence, deprived
the citizens of the small town of wakefullness, and then, upon finding
that there is a Wal-Mart, he accuses the ruling class of Arkansas of
neo-colonialism.
For Chomsky, and those who believe in him, America is the Great Satan
and the West in general is hell.
> Folks like
> Dworkin and McKinnon are a cut below, and probably occupy the same
> level of American intellectualism as Thomas Sowell and Paul Johnson.
You could boil down every Leftist intellectual alive and you still
wouldn't come up woth one Thomas Sowell, that's how much brighter
he is than anyone on the Left.
hal
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:46:31 GMT, hal wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 02:27:01 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>I would like to point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been much
>>>harder on intellectuals than any on the right in America.
>>
>>Well DUH ! That's because we have the Constitution to protect us.
>>The same Constitution that the right is gradually whittling away at.
>>
>OK. Besides the "Right" to kill unborn babies. What rights have the
>rights "whittled" away?
freedom of press, freedom of speech, reproductive freedom, right to
seperation of church and state, right to privacy, right to a clean
environment, right to equal public education, right to adequate
health care, freedom of information about public officials.
Need I go on?
But of course, those are other peoples rights, and the rightwingnuts
have never cared about anyone else's rights, only their own.
Hal
nah
>Chomsky is ...
obviously well beyond your limited capacity
Chris Holt
> "BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote...
>> There *is* such a thing as an "ivory-tower mentality" -
>> detached from real people living real lives in the gritty
>> real world. Just because one can start with a premise and
>> a few axioms and follow the thought out until it is
>> all-encompassing does NOT make the ideas correct.
> Actually it does. If the premises are correct and the processes of thought
> are logical, then the results must be correct. What you mean to say is that
> the results may not be practical or usable, which is quite true. Of course,
> there are areas of mathematics in which the development of the mathematics
> was done entirely as an excercise in mathematics, and only 200 years later
> was a practical application for the mathematical theory found.
Not so fast. While I see what you're saying, and by and large
agree, it's frequently the case that very small 'errors' in
the starting conditions lead to really big mistakes later on.
In philosophy, a classic example is Hume's Treatise of Human
Nature; the first third is pretty much spot on, the second
third starts going wrong, and the final third, though 'logically'
following from everything else, isn't really very helpful in
understanding anything very much.
In mathematics, the way you phrase an axiom can have an
enormous effect in the way things play out later on. If
set theory had been done slightly differently, Russell's
paradox wouldn't have been so devastating (IMHO), and
Frege wouldn't have collapsed in a heap, but would have
revived the idea that we can identify intension and extension.
[Heaven knows what effect this would have had on Carnap and
people like that; the point is that these things are really
ill-conditioned.]
Does it matter if we use category theory as a foundation instead
of set theory? Probably not; but it might lead to a change
of emphasis that actually does have an effect; why shouldn't
we teach categories to 8-year-olds? The point of all this
is that we don't know what 'correct' means, and that very
small and subtle changes can lead to striking changes later
on; saying "the results must be correct" just avoids this
issue.
>> Intellectualisms are too often "idiot-isms" - grounded on
>> suspect facts, warped by imperfect deductions, hostage
>> to the soft grey edge between the objective and subjective.
>> The human mind is an inferior tool for discovering Truth.
>> Just because you can think it does not make it true.
> However, facts and logic are more likely to be true than politics and
> emotionalism. Over a period of time, facts and logic are certainly better.
It's a nice theory. In real life, we're neural nets, not expert
systems, and although formalizing knowledge is a good and useful
thing to do, we still need to make sanity/reality checks, to
see that our theories haven't led us astray by mistake.
>> "Intellectuals" tend to be far-too impressed by their
>> mental creations to really concern themselves with its
>> accuracy or real-world relevance -- but they ARE quite
>> willing to sing their own praises and recommend changes
>> to public policy. Is it any wonder the average Joe, even
>> if he is quite intelligent, may view "intellectuals" with
>> a jaundiced eye ?
> Probably because the average Joe has no idea what is involved in the logical
> process, and is willing to sneer at those who work in a job he has no
> concept of. Much like you, in fact. You haven't a clue as to what is being
> done in academia.
He might be thinking of The Best and The Brightest, who got
the US into Vietnam. It *is* easy to put too much trust in
a theory; surely we've all seen it happen. [Look at libertarians,
for instance. :-]
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
Captain Compassion
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:53:36 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:46:31 GMT, hal wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 02:27:01 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I would like to point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been much
>>>>harder on intellectuals than any on the right in America.
>>>
>>>Well DUH ! That's because we have the Constitution to protect us.
>>>The same Constitution that the right is gradually whittling away at.
>>>
>>OK. Besides the "Right" to kill unborn babies. What rights have the
>>rights "whittled" away?
>
>freedom of press, freedom of speech, reproductive freedom, right to
>seperation of church and state, right to privacy, right to a clean
>environment, right to equal public education, right to adequate
>health care, freedom of information about public officials.
>
What press has the "rightwing" US government closed down? What speech
has any "rightwing" US government ever abridged? Where in the
constutionion are "rights" for seperation of church and state, right
to privacy, right to equal public education, right to health care,
right to a clean environment or information on public officials?
>Need I go on?
>
>But of course, those are other peoples rights, and the rightwingnuts
>have never cared about anyone else's rights, only their own.
>
You seem to have some difficulty in telling the difference between
rights and wishes. But that's ok. The right to say stupid things is
protected under the first ammendment.
Martin McPhillips
>
> >>>>> Martin McPhillips writes:
>
> Martin> Eric da Red wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <6ebc086.02031...@posting.google.com>,
> >> pyjamarama <pyjama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3C8E6E6A...@verizon.net>...
> >> >> Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It couldn't be that anti-intellectualism is part of the
> >> >> price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
> >> >
> >> >Could be. Could also be the distinct lack of quality intellect
> >> >embodied in so many "intellectuals".
> >> >
> >> >Not a hard case to make if hacks like McKinnon, Dworkin, Chomsky,
> >> >Sontag et al. are considered to be the cream of the crop.
> >>
> >> Most leftists recognize that Chomsky is an order of magnitude higher
> >> in intellectual gifts than the rest on that list.
>
> Martin> of her new book in the NY Times Book Review that recounted her telling,
> Martin> in the book, about how Allen Ginsberg followed her around relentlessly
> Martin> at a party, harranguing her about her views on censorship. At least she
> Martin> has a sense of humor. McKinnon, of course, is the drip who was attached
> Martin> to Tom Brokaw's hip during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill blowup, who
> Martin> on cue could run-down the importance of Clarence's alleged dirty talk
> Martin> to the future of womankind, but whose telephone number Brokaw apparently
> Martin> lost during the Clinton/Lewinsky business.
>
> Martin> I don't see Sontag around that much. She, of course, is famous for her
> Martin> scandalous remark of about 20 years ago about how Communism was the
> Martin> equivalent of Fascism. This was very upsetting to Leftist salons
> Martin> everywhere, and she was briefly flogged.
>
> Martin> Chomsky is certainly dopier than all three of these women put together,
>
> Really? Which one of them founded a whole new branch of
> study which in turn stimulated neurological research into
> brain function?
Excuse me, Andrew. This is a discussion of...
> I expect you were confining your comment to his political
> sideline.
Oh, so you know that already.
Except for one thing. He's published about 30 books on his
"political sideline," and it is what this discussion refers
to.
> The field of mathematical linguistics, which he
> founded, is solid, and your "dopier" does not apply there.
Well, you certainly buried the lead, didn't you.
Martin McPhillips
Your response doesn't exactly betray high-volume.
hal
>>>>>I would like to point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been much
>>>>>harder on intellectuals than any on the right in America.
>>>>
>>>>Well DUH ! That's because we have the Constitution to protect us.
>>>>The same Constitution that the right is gradually whittling away at.
>>>>
>>>OK. Besides the "Right" to kill unborn babies. What rights have the
>>>rights "whittled" away?
>>
>>freedom of press, freedom of speech, reproductive freedom, right to
>>seperation of church and state, right to privacy, right to a clean
>>environment, right to equal public education, right to adequate
>>health care, freedom of information about public officials.
>>
>What press has the "rightwing" US government closed down?
Banning (or at least attempting to ban) books such as: 'Catcher in
the Rye', 'Why the Caged Bird Sings', 'Harry Potter', etc, etc, etc
etc,. . . .
>What speech
>has any "rightwing" US government ever abridged?
Gag orders on Planned Parenthood, attempts to censor the Internet,
trying to forbid teachers from teaching Evolution in public school
> Where in the
>constutionion are "rights" for seperation of church and state,
1st Amendment
> right
>to privacy,
4th Amendment
need to go back to Civics class?
> right to equal public education, right to health care,
Public education and healthcare, of course were not part of the
original Constitution, but have been implemented as law since, which
is a function enabled by the Constitution.
>right to a clean environment or information on public officials?
See above. Envirionmental Protection Act, and Freedom of Information
Act.
>
>>Need I go on?
>>
>>But of course, those are other peoples rights, and the rightwingnuts
>>have never cared about anyone else's rights, only their own.
>>
>You seem to have some difficulty in telling the difference between
>rights and wishes. But that's ok. The right to say stupid things is
>protected under the first ammendment.
No, you do not understand the difference between basic Constitutional
rights and laws passed by Congress. Rights are granted by Congress,
which is enabled by the Constitution, therefore are constitional
rights. You saying it is not is no different than the lefties saying
the Constitution doesn't ensure individual ownership of guns because
they didn't specifically mention modern weapons.
Hal
Chris Holt
> ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com wrote:
[Chomsky]
>>The field of mathematical linguistics, which he
>>founded, is solid, and your "dopier" does not apply there.
> Well, you certainly buried the lead, didn't you.
I'm not exactly sure what this means, but I was vaguely unhappy
about seeing this the first time, and I'm more unhappy about
seeing it again. I entirely agree that Chomsky did lots of
good things concerning mathematical linguistics (in the sense
that we can understand it as the study of formal languages).
However, I wouldn't agree that he founded it.
He basically stood on the shoulders of giants, just like everyone
else. There was loads of stuff done by 'mathematical' philosophers
like Carnap and Quine before he came on the scene; there was loads
of stuff done by mathematicians on the study of language as far
as truth is concerned, which is a lot of what's behind both Goedel
numbers and Tarski's analysis of the distinction between syntactic
and semantic truth.
Make no mistake; I respect Chomsky's academic contributions. But
he's not head and shoulders above lots of other people. More
recently (i.e. in the '70s), Dana Scott's denotational semantics
is probably comparable; more historically, people like Curry
did a lot to set the scene. So I'm just trying to suggest that
he (Chomsky) was part of an evolutionary process, rather than
a revolutionary one.
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
Keynes
wrote:
>Looks like freedom of speech is alive and well for both ends of the
>political spectrum. If the right wing has a problem with what is being
>taught on campus they should quit making money and building things, go
>get an advanced degree and start teaching their point of view.
>
Those that can, teach.
Those that can't pursue money.
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try and blame Bill Clinton."
( CONs - men at work greasing the "Axles of Evil". )
War_Dog
TRIED TO GET A REAL JOB. TENURE FOR THE NON-PRODUCERS
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>
> Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> By Ellen Sorokin
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> Professors and administrators are to blame for anti-American sentiment
> on college campuses today, according to a report by the American Council of
> Trustees and Alumni.
>
> More than 140 college campuses in 36 states have held anti-war rallies
> denouncing the country's military actions in Afghanistan, the report says.
> The document — "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are
> Failing America and What Can Be Done About It" — concludes that many
Alan McIntire
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:53:36 GMT, wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:46:31 GMT, hal wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 02:27:01 GMT, wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>I would like to point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been much
> >>>harder on intellectuals than any on the right in America.
> >>
> >>Well DUH ! That's because we have the Constitution to protect us.
> >>The same Constitution that the right is gradually whittling away at.
> >>
> >OK. Besides the "Right" to kill unborn babies. What rights have the
> >rights "whittled" away?
>
> freedom of press, freedom of speech, reproductive freedom, right to
> seperation of church and state, right to privacy, right to a clean
> environment, right to equal public education, right to adequate
> health care, freedom of information about public officials.
>
> Need I go on?
>
> But of course, those are other peoples rights, and the rightwingnuts
> have never cared about anyone else's rights, only their own.
>
> Hal
>
grounds to criticize others' perceptions.
The nearest thing to separation of church and state is the first
amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The nearest thing to a right to privacy is the fourth amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unrerasonable searchees and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Notice that the bill of rights does not give anybody anything. The
bill of rights restricts government power.
The first amendment prohibits the government from suppressing
political speech, religious practice, and the press. It doesn't
require the government to build me a church or supply me with a
printing press.
The second amendment restricts the government from disarming the
populace. It doesn't require the government to purchase arms and to
train the entire populace.
The sixth amendment might appear to give something, a right to a jury
trial by an impartial jury, but this amendment also is a restriction
on government's ability to imprison troublemakers.
Your "rights" to equal public education, health care, etc are not
restrictions on government power, and thus are not rights. If I were
accidentally to cut myself with a chain saw and bleed to death, who is
responsible for depriving me of my bogus "right" to health care?
Should the state of California be sued because some people haven't
graduated from state colleges, from high school, or even in some
cases from elementary school, and thus were deprived of an equal
education? - A. McIntire
tkdowning
Well, I find it anti-intellectual to paste millions of words written
by other people into newsgroups, then adding titles like "Lying
Bastard pResident xxxx" (which usually do not even reflect the
original author of the work's thinking)
Scott Erb
"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:aYqQPMIlL=LACjvTQrI...@4ax.com...
> hal wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:56:29 GMT, wrote:
>
> >>What speech
> >>has any "rightwing" US government ever abridged?
> >
> >Gag orders on Planned Parenthood, attempts to censor the Internet,
> >trying to forbid teachers from teaching Evolution in public school
>
> attempts to censor the internet (nazi/racist/militia/'sex
> and violence' sites), trying to forbid teachers from
> teaching 'creationism'/'intelligent-design' in public
> school ... ??????????
>
> Never, EVER, imagine that the urge to censor is restricted
> to any one political group or part of the political
> spectrum. The game is *power* - and part of getting and
> maintaining *power* is to silence your critics and remove
> 'wrongthinking' from public pervue. Censorship is "thought
> control by omission" - and both rightist theocrats and
> leftist social-enginner types are keen on eliminating
> ideas that do not aid their quest for *power*.
Which explains why everyone should join the ACLU and support a group that
will do what they can to protect civil liberties, even if they are exercised
by Nazi right wingers as in the Illinois case awhile back.
The defense of civil liberties has to be for everyone.
Scott Erb
>
> >>What speech
> >>has any "rightwing" US government ever abridged?
> >
> >Gag orders on Planned Parenthood, attempts to censor the Internet,
> >trying to forbid teachers from teaching Evolution in public school
>
> attempts to censor the internet (nazi/racist/militia/'sex
> and violence' sites), trying to forbid teachers from
> teaching 'creationism'/'intelligent-design' in public
> school ... ??????????
I do think that what is taught in public schools does need oversight.
Creationism isn't scientific, and while the possibility should be considered
(given the fact that non-scientific theories cannot be falsified), schools
have to have a certain rigor about what's allowed. You don't want a teacher
who practices astrology to spend the semester teaching about the zodiac and
how it explains the universe, nor do you want an Islamic teacher trying to
convert classes to Islam. Public schools are not forum for free speech most
of the time, but institutions of learning.
I don't think its a violation of free speech to limit what can be taught in
public schools. I'm about as civil libertarian as they come, but I don't
think letting anything be taught in schools qualifies. Though clearly
people can advocate that.
nah
>...trying to forbid teachers from
> teaching 'creationism'
kinda like making sure they don't teach
alchemy or witch-hunting
nah
you wouldn't know it if it decibelled your eardrums in
try getting someone to explain chomsky to you, if you
can't manage to read what he says for yourself
you might learn something
nah
>Well, I find it anti-intellectual
something's got you anti-intellectual as all get out anyway
no doubt in your ignorance you'll try to blame somebody else
>... millions of words written
>by other people ...
you could've tried learning from those, instead of fearing them,
if you'd only had the capacity
>...do not even reflect the
>original author of the work's thinking
you'd have had to have done some to do better
do you stand outside libraries yelling at them because they
offer people copies of written words?
do you really want to be such a buffoon? why not think
and learn and question and support peace instead?
Martin McPhillips
> then ALL can.
>
> The ACLU cannot do it alone - they specialize in
> a few forms of censorship, persecution and
> disempowerment but don't cover the entire spectrum
> of State-vs-Citizen issues.
The ACLU has a left-wing political agenda first, an interest
in civil liberties second and mostly as a front to legitimize
the former. Yes, the ACLU *can* be on the right side of an issue,
but that's not the point. The very way in which they radicalize
the idea of civil liberties, particularly their endless campaign
against religious expression as though it were a disease, is
in fact an assault on the foundations of civil society. They'll
fight *for* pornography and *against* religion, for instance.
> We fall to easily into the old diametric ... good/evil,
???? Man, we don't want to be put upon by that "old diametric"
good and evil, do we?
What is it? Are we living in a world "beyond good and evil?"
> black/white,
If by black/white you mean clarity of distinctions, are you assuming
that because shades of grey exist that black/white clarity does not?
> liberal/conservative.
Well, these terms need to be defined. But as they are generally understood
in the U.S. they do have relatively clear meanings and can be very
helpful terms.
> It's an easy way
> to think about things - minimal brainpower is required
> if the answer to everything is "It's THEIR fault".
Well there's no amount of brainpower that will find clarity and
definition when everything under the sun is mixed together into
a grey/green glop. That's entropy. And in my stand against entropy
I'll state up front that the ACLU is liberal, evil and gets its
share of the fault for the radical onslaught on the structures of
civil society.
Jeffrey Davis
BlackWater wrote:
>
> There is a *way* to marginally include "creationism"
> and such in the science curriculum.
Yes: posit the theory in a scientific fashion. When it does
that it doesn't need to be "marginally" included.
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> By this time, my lungs
were aching for air!
Martin McPhillips
> >news:aYqQPMIlL=LACjvTQrI...@4ax.com...
> >> hal wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:56:29 GMT, wrote:
> >>
> >> >>What speech
> >> >>has any "rightwing" US government ever abridged?
> >> >
> >> >Gag orders on Planned Parenthood, attempts to censor the Internet,
> >> >trying to forbid teachers from teaching Evolution in public school
> >>
> >> Hmmm ... how about gag orders on anti-abortion advocates,
> >> attempts to censor the internet (nazi/racist/militia/'sex
> >> and violence' sites), trying to forbid teachers from
> >> teaching 'creationism'/'intelligent-design' in public
> >> school ... ??????????
> >
> >I do think that what is taught in public schools does need oversight.
> >Creationism isn't scientific, and while the possibility should be considered
> >(given the fact that non-scientific theories cannot be falsified), schools
> >have to have a certain rigor about what's allowed.
> >You don't want a teacher
> >who practices astrology to spend the semester teaching about the zodiac and
> >how it explains the universe, nor do you want an Islamic teacher trying to
> >convert classes to Islam. Public schools are not forum for free speech most
> >of the time, but institutions of learning.
>
> with a short declaration from the teacher along the
> lines of :
>
> "Many people and religions believe that the earth
> and all the life which inhabits it were created all
> at once, by supernatural beings or other means.
> Hundreds of scenerios along those lines have been
> proposed throughout history and we shall briefly
> discuss several of them. However, careful research
> into the subject clearly demonstrates that none of
> these ideas really fit the observed facts. In this
> class we shall elucidate the known facts and, when
> appropriate, see how they differ from historical
> explainations of the origins of our life, our planet
> and our universe."
>
> Framed as such, "creationism", "ID" and such WOULD
> get discussed --
Well, you're confused. "Creationism," which is essentially
Biblical literalism, is not the same thing, or even close
to the same thing as "Intelligent Design," which is certainly,
at the very least, a theory that scientists should be able
to consider. It's not the job of a scientist to rule that
evidence for a theory cannot be considered simply because it
asserts that the universe was, in fact, designed.
> but what can be PROVEN, the objective
> facts and logical inferences from those facts, gets
> priority. It would still be a "science" class, without
> artificially excluding or summarily discrediting any
> alternative ideas.
>
> Much of the history of science involves its slow
> triumph over supernaturalist viewpoints. Science
> wins on its MERITS and discussing just HOW it
> proved its cases might be more instructional than
> a dry recitation of phylum genera and species,
> igneous metamorphic and sedimentary. Science is
> a *process* and a *method* for finding certain
> kinds of Truth -- and it's worth showing how it
> works, even (perhaps especially) to high-schoolers.
>
> >I don't think its a violation of free speech to limit what
> >can be taught in public schools.
>
> Depends on how it's DONE. Paranoid, blanket bans are
> an indefensible approach. Structured inclusion is
> the better way (with enough slack so individual
> teachers don't feel bound in a straightjacket).
>
> >I'm about as civil libertarian as they come, but I don't
> >think letting anything be taught in schools qualifies.
> >Though clearly people can advocate that.
>
> I advocate it ... everything and anything - but
> not any WAY. Learning institutions, if they are
> to live up to their title, must not exclude ideas.
> They CAN structure their inclusion in ways that
> prevent very marginal subjects from "taking over"
> the process. That's fair.
>
> Note that the "connectionist" viewpoint has emerged
> quite popular of late. Really, there ARE NO subjects
> which have no bearing on the rest. Creationist ideas
> had considerable influence on the development and paths
> taken by evolutionists, geologists, physicians and
> cosmologists. To properly teach the latter, you MUST
> include some of the former for purposes of context
> and contrast.
Brain Death
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Brain Death" <jgl...@letsroll.com> wrote in message
>news:ri6t8uklt778ibq0k...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:47:09 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> Another leftie who apparently doesn't know that the higher one's
>> degree of education, the more likely it is that person will vote
>> Republican. The MOST dependable non-ethnic block of Democratic voters
>> are high school dropouts.
>>
>> It is the Democrats who depend on the people remaining stupid. As I
>> have pointed out before, most of the rightward shift in voting over
>> the last 40 years can be explained by the increasing numbers of
>> college graduates as compared to the decreasing numbers of high school
>> dropouts.
>
>Actually, most Republicans and Democrats are not anti-intellectual.
>Anti-intellectualism is a part of fascist thought, and the extreme right
>(which is no better or worse than the extreme left) often engages in
>anti-intellectualism, focusing on insults, personal attacks, sloganesque
>tactics and other anti-intellectual methods of rational political discourse.
The only real anti-intellectualism in America is the revolt against
the poseurs, the faux intellectuals. Think of a wine snob, or an art
snob and you will get the general picture. All deconstructionists
fall into the same category, although I am not kidding myself about
there being any awareness in the general public of deconstructionism.
>True liberals and conservatives each have good arguments on their side and
>recognize that no one has a monopoly on truth, and that through competition,
>debate, compromise and a willingness to try to understand the arguments of
>the other side, we can use our differences for the betterment of the polity.
I commented on another thread that the two party system may be the
reason for this country's phenomenal success. The dynamic tension
between the parties balances the needs of capitalism with the rights
of the workers. Although I will argue to the death that on about 95%
of the issues the Repubs are correct where they disagree with the
Dems, the reality is that times and needs change.
>I also wonder if saying there has been a 'rightward shift' in the last forty
>years is accurate. What was 'liberal' forty years ago is probably more
>'conservative' today. I think things tend to go in cycles. A study just
>reported that more college students see themselves as liberal today than any
>time since 1971. Most voters are centrist and split their vote.
The country has definitely moved right, perhaps more accurately since
about 1968. At that point, the Republicans had won only two of the
prior nine Presidential elections, and then only with a tremendously
popular war hero. Counting 1968, Republican fortunes in Presidential
sweepstakes have improved markedly. They have won six of nine
elections. That is not an illusion, and it has come from a party that
has definitely shifted right over the years. George W. Bush is
comfortably right of Richard Nixon; Bill Clinton was comfortably right
of Hubert Humphrey and especially George McGovern.
And look where the left is. In 1968 the left was big enough to
paralyze the Democrats; in 1972 they took over the party. But
nowadays the left is a very lonely place. They no longer work with
the confidence that socialism is coming; instead they are reduced to
trying to preserve the remnants of the socialist failures of the past,
like welfare and social security.
Do I think there might be a swing back the other way? Eventually,
certainly. But the point is that a lot of what the left was trying
for (and seemed to have nearly in their grasp in the late 1960s) is
gone forever. Nobody believes in high marginal tax rates anymore, and
without those you can't have meaningful redistribution of income.
Clinton sacrificed Congress to the Republicans in order to get the top
rate back up to 38%; 15 years earlier the top rate had been 70%. And
without redistribution of income, the left has lost its signature
issue.
BD
Jeffrey Davis
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Well, you're confused. "Creationism," which is essentially
> Biblical literalism, is not the same thing, or even close
> to the same thing as "Intelligent Design," which is certainly,
> at the very least, a theory that scientists should be able
> to consider. It's not the job of a scientist to rule that
> evidence for a theory cannot be considered simply because it
> asserts that the universe was, in fact, designed.
>
Every interaction of quark with quark across innumerable
multiverses may be directed by a single benign figure in
whose image we were created. Or it may be random. Occam's
Razor -- a scientific tool -- applies. When someone can
fashion a scientific theory which incorporates Intellgent
Design as something other than, "Well, it seems impossible
to me that all this just happened by accident..." then ID
will be a welcome part of the biological curriculum.
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>BlackWater wrote:
>> We fall to easily into the old diametric ... good/evil,
>
>???? Man, we don't want to be put upon by that "old diametric"
>good and evil, do we?
>
>What is it? Are we living in a world "beyond good and evil?"
>
>> black/white,
>
>If by black/white you mean clarity of distinctions, are you assuming
>that because shades of grey exist that black/white clarity does not?
"*Not* 'black and white': *right* and *wrong*."
(Tom Clancy)
That dodge doesn't even qualify as a metaphor: it's a device of
tactical rhetoric designed to evade the facts.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Keynes
wrote:
You hate the ACLU because you hate the US constitution.
The ACLU always takes the unpopular position, because
the popular one (if constitutional) needs no extra defense.
You are another shining example of the contempt the
CONs hold for the constitution. You are not an American
at all. You are a power grabbing yahoo - the kind of jerk
the constitution was designed to protect us from.
Scott D. Erb
BlackWater wrote:
>
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >You don't want a teacher
> >who practices astrology to spend the semester teaching about the zodiac and
> >how it explains the universe, nor do you want an Islamic teacher trying to
> >convert classes to Islam. Public schools are not forum for free speech most
> >of the time, but institutions of learning.
>
> There is a *way* to marginally include "creationism"
> and such in the science curriculum. It should open
> with a short declaration from the teacher along the
> lines of :
>
> "Many people and religions believe that the earth
> and all the life which inhabits it were created all
> at once, by supernatural beings or other means.
> Hundreds of scenerios along those lines have been
> proposed throughout history and we shall briefly
> discuss several of them. However, careful research
> into the subject clearly demonstrates that none of
> these ideas really fit the observed facts. In this
> class we shall elucidate the known facts and, when
> appropriate, see how they differ from historical
> explainations of the origins of our life, our planet
> and our universe."
Good point.
Furthermore, the case can be used to to introduce
students to the importance of testable hypotheses as a
requirement for scientific investigation. The idea
that all happens because God wills it is untestable and
unfalsifiable, so it cannot be the subject of
scientific inquiry. The doesn't mean that the God
hypothesis is wrong, it simply is outside science and
hence cannot be dealt with in a physics or biology
class.
> Framed as such, "creationism", "ID" and such WOULD
> get discussed -- but what can be PROVEN, the objective
> facts and logical inferences from those facts, gets
> priority. It would still be a "science" class, without
> artificially excluding or summarily discrediting any
> alternative ideas.
>
> Much of the history of science involves its slow
> triumph over supernaturalist viewpoints. Science
> wins on its MERITS and discussing just HOW it
> proved its cases might be more instructional than
> a dry recitation of phylum genera and species,
> igneous metamorphic and sedimentary. Science is
> a *process* and a *method* for finding certain
> kinds of Truth -- and it's worth showing how it
> works, even (perhaps especially) to high-schoolers.
>
> >I don't think its a violation of free speech to limit what
> >can be taught in public schools.
>
> Depends on how it's DONE. Paranoid, blanket bans are
> an indefensible approach. Structured inclusion is
> the better way (with enough slack so individual
> teachers don't feel bound in a straightjacket).
>
> >I'm about as civil libertarian as they come, but I don't
> >think letting anything be taught in schools qualifies.
> >Though clearly people can advocate that.
>
> I advocate it ... everything and anything - but
> not any WAY. Learning institutions, if they are
> to live up to their title, must not exclude ideas.
> They CAN structure their inclusion in ways that
> prevent very marginal subjects from "taking over"
> the process. That's fair.
>
> Note that the "connectionist" viewpoint has emerged
> quite popular of late. Really, there ARE NO subjects
> which have no bearing on the rest. Creationist ideas
> had considerable influence on the development and paths
> taken by evolutionists, geologists, physicians and
> cosmologists. To properly teach the latter, you MUST
> include some of the former for purposes of context
> and contrast.
A lot of people demanding creationism be taught want it
to have the status of a science, and have its arguments
taught as equivalent to the true scientific arguments
out there. As long as the fundamental difference
between scientific and non-scientific inquiry is
emphasized, with the course focusing on science, I
think you're right.
Scott D. Erb
Brain Death wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:09:35 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >True liberals and conservatives each have good arguments on their side and
> >recognize that no one has a monopoly on truth, and that through competition,
> >debate, compromise and a willingness to try to understand the arguments of
> >the other side, we can use our differences for the betterment of the polity.
>
> I commented on another thread that the two party system may be the
> reason for this country's phenomenal success. The dynamic tension
> between the parties balances the needs of capitalism with the rights
> of the workers. Although I will argue to the death that on about 95%
> of the issues the Repubs are correct where they disagree with the
> Dems, the reality is that times and needs change.
The brilliance of democracy is that it values conflict
and disagreement in a manner that also values harmony
and stability. No other system I know of can handle
that mix. Go too far to the conflictual side, and
there is little progress or development. Go too far to
the stability side and you can have one party states or
polities governed by an elite who make the choices for
the public. Making that balance between conflict and
harmony work is always tough.
The US and Great Britain each have Single Member
District systems for their legislature (though Britain
is a parliamentary system while the US is
Presidential), and these are also the only two major
democracies that didn't fall to fascism or communism
during the Great Depression. However, multiparty
systems like France's Fifth Republic has done well
since 1958 when it was introduced. It's a modified
single member district system, where one wins on the
first vote only if there is a majority for a candidate
-- 50% + 1. In most cases no one gets a majority so
candidates below 12.5% are dropped and in the next
vote, two weeks later, a plurality wins (whoever gets
the most votes). That creates cooperation between
parties (they form alliances where candidates from each
drop out in different districts in order to form a
larger bloc of votes) and has helped create stable
multiparty competition.
In Germany you still have a proportional representation
system for the most part (though it has a confusing two
ballot voting system, where essentially the second
ballot determines the makeup of the Bundestag) there
has been stability due to a 5% cut off rule. Until
1983 it was a three party system with a centrist FDP
being the 'kingmaker,' but now it's moved towards five
parties, though so far still stable.
> >I also wonder if saying there has been a 'rightward
shift' in the last forty
> >years is accurate. What was 'liberal' forty years ago is probably more
> >'conservative' today. I think things tend to go in cycles. A study just
> >reported that more college students see themselves as liberal today than any
> >time since 1971. Most voters are centrist and split their vote.
>
> The country has definitely moved right, perhaps more accurately since
> about 1968. At that point, the Republicans had won only two of the
> prior nine Presidential elections, and then only with a tremendously
> popular war hero.
But JFK's approach is more to the right than that of a
lot of Republicans these days. I'd argue that there
was a left move after Vietnam, followed by a right move
after the events of 1979-80, then slight left in the
nineties.
>Counting 1968, Republican fortunes in Presidential
> sweepstakes have improved markedly. They have won six of nine
> elections. That is not an illusion, and it has come from a party that
> has definitely shifted right over the years. George W. Bush is
> comfortably right of Richard Nixon; Bill Clinton was comfortably right
> of Hubert Humphrey and especially George McGovern.
I don't know if he's right of Hubert Humphrey -- look
at the policies Humphrey championed. At the time they
seemed very liberal, now they'd be accepted by most
Republicans. McGovern was more left on a number of
issues, part of seventies shift left. Carter and
Clinton seem similar.
> And look where the left is. In 1968 the left was big enough to
> paralyze the Democrats; in 1972 they took over the party. But
> nowadays the left is a very lonely place. They no longer work with
> the confidence that socialism is coming; instead they are reduced to
> trying to preserve the remnants of the socialist failures of the past,
> like welfare and social security.
Socialism coming? Kennedy? Humphrey? McGovern?
Carter? I think not. The American left have always
been liberals, not socialists. Their idea of
liberalism (equal opportunity) required more
governmental action than what conservatives thought
would create equal opportunity, but ideologically the
United States has never had anything close to a
socialist party. But that goes back to your two party
comment -- two party systems create centripetal
competition, making it unlikely extremes of either
party can succeed.
> Do I think there might be a swing back the other way? Eventually,
> certainly. But the point is that a lot of what the left was trying
> for (and seemed to have nearly in their grasp in the late 1960s) is
> gone forever. Nobody believes in high marginal tax rates anymore, and
> without those you can't have meaningful redistribution of income.
> Clinton sacrificed Congress to the Republicans in order to get the top
> rate back up to 38%; 15 years earlier the top rate had been 70%. And
> without redistribution of income, the left has lost its signature
> issue.
Left and right change their focus, but I suspect you're
engaging in some wishful thinking there, expecting what
you want. Time will tell.
Keynes
Without going into probabilities and the magic numbers that allow
the cosmos and human life to exist, here is a simple question.
If the cosmos is dead and dumb, are we also dead and dumb?
Are we just a 'special' case of unconsciousness and death?
We are made of the cosmos and grow in it and are not different.
(Jesus said something similar.)
As far as teaching christianity in school (which I don't favor),
why not have a daily rotation of the congregation stand (on one foot)
one at a time outside the school when kids come and go, and say -
"Love God with all your heart and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
That should suffice.
Jeffrey Davis
BlackWater wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >BlackWater wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a *way* to marginally include "creationism"
> >> and such in the science curriculum.
> >
> >Yes: posit the theory in a scientific fashion. When it does
> >that it doesn't need to be "marginally" included.
>
> Um ... "When it does that, (creationism/ID) doesn't need
> to be 'marginally' included" ... ?
>
> It's not always easy to frame ideas in a "scientific
> fashion". Give it time, we shall see. In the meanwhile,
> "creationism" (not just the xian version) DOES have a
> valid HISTORICAL place in the development of scientific
> thought. The battles against theocrats helped shape
> modern science into what we see today. As such, the
> "creationist" worldview and the kinds of "evidence"
> is uses SHOULD be included in a science class ... even
> if it's just to show how it's inaccurate.
It would currently be appropriate in a History of Science
class. Not in a class where the student is learning the
fundamentals.
fiend999
<res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:47:09 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><hal> wrote in message news:3c8e6c92....@news.blackfoot.net...
> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:57:33 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
> >> >
> >> >Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
> >>
> >> Ah yes. And now we see the beginning of the typical purge of the
> >> intellectuals who dare to question the authoritarian government. So
> >> where do you suppose the Republicans will start the first
> >> concentration camps?
> >
> >The anti-intellectualism of the right goes back a lot farther than most
> >people realize in this country. And there is far more to it than the
> >celebration of stupidity that appears on the surface. Part of it is the
> >fact that dissent most often originates from the intellectual and academic
> >community. The right needs to silence dissent and we've certainly seen the
> >various attempts to do so since 9/11. But part of it is also the cynical
> >recognition that only a dumbed-down population can swallow the complete
> >right wing agenda. As long as there is any freedom of learning and speech
> >left, the conservative agenda will never be safe in this country.
> >
> All the Philosophy, Women's Studies, Ethnic Studies, Gender Studies,
> Sociology, Phsycology, Political Science et al these don't create jobs
> or goods or services. We need more scientists and engineers less of
> the above.
>
Sure, and axe the students of the various arts too, the good for
nothing slackers. We need more worker ants. No place in our society
for anyone who doesn't produce something that someone else can sell,
right?
Some people actually pursue higher education to learn things, not just
to be able to get a job.
Keynes
The real issue is not taxes. It is the ever growing disparity of
incomes, caused by doubling the workforce by adding women,
and by shipping industry offshore, decreasing American jobs.
(Those that remain must compete with slave labor and
high polluting factories offshore for their very existance.)
The 'service economy' is a bubble, just like the dot.coms.
No nation can survive just by everyone taking in each other's
laundry. Globalization has allowed a few 'managers' to have
lucrative jobs while many others must scramble for the low
paying jobs still left. The view from the top is pretty peachy
except for those pesky taxes and all the lazy, low life scum
beneath them. But the elevator smells much different to
the midgets. I mean those little guys we depend on to buy
things with the money they no longer have.
Disparity of incomes leads inevitably to decrease in demand
and production (jobs) in an unstoppable downward spiral.
It's happened before in the life time of a few old timers.
And we're stupid and greedy enough to do it again.
We're already over the edge now, when 50% of the people
can't afford to pay federal taxes. And we just gave the
toboggan to hell an extra shove with the latest tax cuts.
Eric da Red
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Eric da Red wrote:
>>
>> In article <6ebc086.02031...@posting.google.com>,
>> pyjamarama <pyjama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3C8E6E6A...@verizon.net>...
>> >> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020310-84992072.htm
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> price of a nation addicted to TV, could it?
>> >
>> >Could be. Could also be the distinct lack of quality intellect
>> >embodied in so many "intellectuals".
>> >
>> >Not a hard case to make if hacks like McKinnon, Dworkin, Chomsky,
>> >Sontag et al. are considered to be the cream of the crop.
>>
>> Most leftists recognize that Chomsky is an order of magnitude higher
>> in intellectual gifts than the rest on that list.
>
>Is that Andrea Dworkin, the radical lesbian-feminist?
It's the one I mean.
>I read a review
>of her new book in the NY Times Book Review that recounted her telling,
>in the book, about how Allen Ginsberg followed her around relentlessly
>at a party, harranguing her about her views on censorship. At least she
>has a sense of humor.
As did Ginsburg.
>McKinnon, of course, is the drip who was attached
>to Tom Brokaw's hip during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill blowup,
Eeew. Of all the hips in all the gin joints in this crazy world of
ours, why would anyone choose Tom Brokaw's hip?
>who
>on cue could run-down the importance of Clarence's alleged dirty talk
>to the future of womankind, but whose telephone number Brokaw apparently
>lost during the Clinton/Lewinsky business.
As if there wasn't enough fretting on NBC news about Clinton's sex
life.
>I don't see Sontag around that much. She, of course, is famous for her
>scandalous remark of about 20 years ago about how Communism was the
>equivalent of Fascism. This was very upsetting to Leftist salons
>everywhere, and she was briefly flogged.
That's always the problem with thinking independently. That, and
being misquoted.
>Chomsky is certainly dopier than all three of these women put together,
And you were doing so well in this post, until now.
>which, if what you say about the Left holding him "an order of magnitude
>higher in intellectual gifts" is true, should speak volumes about
>the intellectual blight that has settled on the Left (a bit of
>redundancy there).
>
>Chomsky is a delusional liar, which makes him the perfect propagandist.
>
>He's like a man who shows up in a small town in Kansas, someplace like
>that, and on finding that there is no Starbucks carries on about how
>the ruling class in Seattle has on purpose, with malevolence, deprived
>the citizens of the small town of wakefullness, and then, upon finding
>that there is a Wal-Mart, he accuses the ruling class of Arkansas of
>neo-colonialism.
Oh, I see the problem now. You either haven't read much of
Chomsky's writing or had extreme difficulty understanding it.
>For Chomsky, and those who believe in him, America is the Great Satan
>and the West in general is hell.
>
>> Folks like
>> Dworkin and McKinnon are a cut below, and probably occupy the same
>> level of American intellectualism as Thomas Sowell and Paul Johnson.
>
>You could boil down every Leftist intellectual alive and you still
>wouldn't come up woth one Thomas Sowell, that's how much brighter
>he is than anyone on the Left.
I was actually being generous to Sowell, who at least has a record
of occasionally producing interesting and thoughtful work, even
though his columns in the popular press usually sink into streams of
name-calling.
--
ShrubQuote Of The Week: "They didn't think we were a nation that could
conceivably sacrifice for something greater than our self, that we were
soft, ... My, were they wrong. They just were reading the wrong magazine,
or watching the wrong Springer show."
Gandalf Grey
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37q19ucf8fu99nm87...@4ax.com...
McPhillips is admittedly an "absolutist."
He's for the absolute power of conservatism to silence any and all
opposition.
Billy Beck
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>BlackWater wrote:
This is absolutely ridiculous and contemptible.
You people have a lot of goddamned nerve, sitting around talking
about what's "appropriate" in the education of *other* peoples'
children.
Jeffrey Davis
Nonsense. Sitting around talking is what we're doing, my
hyperbole-loving fellow sitting-around-talkinginger.
Martin McPhillips
> >> and such in the science curriculum. It should open
> >> with a short declaration from the teacher along the
> >> lines of :
> >>
> >> "Many people and religions believe that the earth
> >> and all the life which inhabits it were created all
> >> at once, by supernatural beings or other means.
> >> Hundreds of scenerios along those lines have been
> >> proposed throughout history and we shall briefly
> >> discuss several of them. However, careful research
> >> into the subject clearly demonstrates that none of
> >> these ideas really fit the observed facts. In this
> >> class we shall elucidate the known facts and, when
> >> appropriate, see how they differ from historical
> >> explainations of the origins of our life, our planet
> >> and our universe."
> >>
> >> Framed as such, "creationism", "ID" and such WOULD
> >> get discussed --
> >> facts and logical inferences from those facts, gets
> >> priority. It would still be a "science" class, without
> >> artificially excluding or summarily discrediting any
> >> alternative ideas.
>
> >Well, you're confused. "Creationism," which is essentially
> >Biblical literalism, is not the same thing, or even close
> >to the same thing as "Intelligent Design," which is certainly,
> >at the very least, a theory that scientists should be able
> >to consider. It's not the job of a scientist to rule that
> >evidence for a theory cannot be considered simply because it
> >asserts that the universe was, in fact, designed.
>
Your suggestion that they be treated in the same context
seemed to imply that. Quoted from above--
"Framed as such, "creationism", "ID" and such WOULD
get discussed..."
> though I suspect, underneath, it's the SAME people
> peddling both for the SAME reasons.
If they're not the same thing, how could it be for the
same reasons? For instance, the Catholic Church accepts
evolution. Could it not also support scientific inquiry
into intelligent design for reasons that have nothing
to do with the Biblical literalism implied by Creationsism?
> To them, the proposed
> "intelligence" = "The God of the Christians".
Well, maybe that is what it would *mean* to a Christian,
but intelligent design theory would consider only the
evidence that, for instance, DNA was not the result
of a billion monkeys typing for a billion years and
producing War and Peace over the objections of the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
> I'm willing to entertain "Little Grey Men" however ...
> and it *might* be possible to prove whether they have
> tinkered with life here at some time, assuming they
> left some "fingerprints". Pure speculation, long
> trains of dubious reasoning or a restatement of that
> "Anthropic Principle" garbage won't cut the mustard
> however. Gimme objective evidence - "Kilroy Was Here"
> signed in our DNA would do very nicely.
That's not what intelligent design theory is about, as far
as I know. For starters, it's not simply about "*our* DNA."
> In the MEANWHILE though, waiting for the evidence, I've
> nothing against "ID" being touched upon in a science
> class.
Well, I have nothing against evolution being touched upon
in science class. But it won't get interesting until -- I
guess it will be some kind of bio-physicist -- comes up with
a formal anti-entropic force that explains why life systems
organize *at* *all.* But they're so far away from that that
they don't even like to talk about it, and when they do they
sound mighty funny.
> As I said, such ideas - past and present - are
> all PART of what science is about. How has/can the
> scientific method, math and logic help us prove or
> disprove assertions like "ID" or "creationism ?
>
> The good scientist will have to learn how to seperate
> the relevant from the irrelevant, the true from the
> false, the worthy from the unworthy. The same sorts
> of confusions which surround "ID" may also crop up
> in research having nothing to do with "religion" or
> biology -- so the skills and methods used to help
> resolve the "ID" issue are useful in other areas.
>
Scott D. Erb
Once again, Billy's first line of text is a description
of what he is about to write.
Martin McPhillips
>
> >>>>> Martin McPhillips writes:
>
> >> Framed as such, "creationism", "ID" and such WOULD
> >> get discussed --
>
> Martin> Biblical literalism, is not the same thing, or even close
> Martin> to the same thing as "Intelligent Design," which is certainly,
> Martin> at the very least, a theory that scientists should be able
> Martin> to consider. It's not the job of a scientist to rule that
>
> How is it a theory? Can it be falsified?
I don't know if it can be falsified. Can the Big Bang be falsified? How
would you go about falsifying something that your theory tells you
happened 14 billion years ago? In other words, is it not just a
scientific convention of sorts?
Can evolution be falsified? Does anyone know how to prove or disprove
that it actually began to happen at some point? Better question: can't it
simply be encapsulated as nothing more than a genetic/morphological process?
And then get down to the question of whence genes and morphology arise?
How do you get proteins to take on shapes with purposes via a simple
arrangement -- a code -- of amino acids. How do you get an elaborate,
highly specific *code* that is so complex that humans are just
beginning to understand it?
And what exactly is it about intelligent design that is so difficult
to grasp, theoretically at least? Does it make less sense than the
billion monkeys typing for a billion years scenario of an accidental
origin of life? Why, for instance, would life complexify? What motivates
complexification? And how did motive get involved? How do you get
motive out of accident? Where has science actually identified the
anti-entropic force (its not evolution) that brings matter into
a living organization? And even if you get to that, how does that
get you from simple organization to complexification?
In other words, there is an a priori mystery here that science shys
away from, which is a measure of the hubris science developed when it
became so full of itself after Newton.
> Martin> evidence for a theory cannot be considered simply because it
> Martin> asserts that the universe was, in fact, designed.
>
> What evidence (objective, scientific) is there? I haven't seen
> any, but I have not bothered to look closely, because every time
> I have seen it brought up it is a thin cover for some flavor of
> creationism.
What evidence is there for intelligent design? What evidence is
there for a billion monkeys typing for a billion years? Let alone
asking again for the prompting anti-entropic force itself.
> Of course if it is a theory, with some evidence backing it,
> it should be included in science classes. But I have yet to
> see either criteria met.
The next revelation that "science" should have is that it has
no serious explanation for why life arises out of matter at all,
why it complexfies, and why it winds up thinking rationally?
Evolution is too small a box for any of that.
Bill Bonde
hal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:56:29 GMT, wrote:
>
> >>>>>I would like to point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been much
> >>>>>harder on intellectuals than any on the right in America.
> >>>>
> >>>>Well DUH ! That's because we have the Constitution to protect us.
> >>>>The same Constitution that the right is gradually whittling away at.
> >>>>
> >>>OK. Besides the "Right" to kill unborn babies. What rights have the
> >>>rights "whittled" away?
> >>
> >>freedom of press, freedom of speech, reproductive freedom, right to
> >>seperation of church and state, right to privacy, right to a clean
> >>environment, right to equal public education, right to adequate
> >>health care, freedom of information about public officials.
> >>
> >What press has the "rightwing" US government closed down?
>
> Banning (or at least attempting to ban) books such as: 'Catcher in
> the Rye', 'Why the Caged Bird Sings', 'Harry Potter', etc, etc, etc
> etc,. . . .
>
None of those books are banned in the United States. The US has much
more freedom of speech than Canada and most of Europe.
> >What speech
> >has any "rightwing" US government ever abridged?
>
> Gag orders on Planned Parenthood, attempts to censor the Internet,
> trying to forbid teachers from teaching Evolution in public school
>
That's funny because the real freedoms that are abridged are from the
left-wing which wants to ban teachers from teaching creationism even if
the parents of the children want it taught.
> > Where in the
> >constutionion are "rights" for seperation of church and state,
>
> 1st Amendment
>
It doesn't mention that.
Martin McPhillips
Well, maybe I went a little light on Noam. Let's say we throw in Alexander
Cockburn, Molly Ivins, and Victor Navasky, and say that he's dopier than
all six of them put together.
> >which, if what you say about the Left holding him "an order of magnitude
> >higher in intellectual gifts" is true, should speak volumes about
> >the intellectual blight that has settled on the Left (a bit of
> >redundancy there).
> >
> >Chomsky is a delusional liar, which makes him the perfect propagandist.
> >
> >He's like a man who shows up in a small town in Kansas, someplace like
> >that, and on finding that there is no Starbucks carries on about how
> >the ruling class in Seattle has on purpose, with malevolence, deprived
> >the citizens of the small town of wakefullness, and then, upon finding
> >that there is a Wal-Mart, he accuses the ruling class of Arkansas of
> >neo-colonialism.
>
> Oh, I see the problem now. You either haven't read much of
> Chomsky's writing or had extreme difficulty understanding it.
Actually, I have no difficulty with it at all, other than simply
withstanding the sheer stupidity of it.
> >For Chomsky, and those who believe in him, America is the Great Satan
> >and the West in general is hell.
> >
> >> Folks like
> >> Dworkin and McKinnon are a cut below, and probably occupy the same
> >> level of American intellectualism as Thomas Sowell and Paul Johnson.
> >
> >You could boil down every Leftist intellectual alive and you still
> >wouldn't come up woth one Thomas Sowell, that's how much brighter
> >he is than anyone on the Left.
>
> I was actually being generous to Sowell, who at least has a record
> of occasionally producing interesting and thoughtful work, even
> though his columns in the popular press usually sink into streams of
> name-calling.
Now that's funny. You don't need to be generous to Sowell, and unlike
Noam Chomsky he doesn't think of Western civilization as a *plague*
that inflicts itself on the world.
Jeffrey Davis
Eric da Red wrote:
>
> I was actually being generous to Sowell, who at least has a record
> of occasionally producing interesting and thoughtful work, even
> though his columns in the popular press usually sink into streams of
> name-calling.
Sowell is a gifted rhetorician, like Peggy Noonan. Not an
intellectual.
Billy Beck
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
Just like I said. And, what? I'm supposed to believe that you
people are *not* interested in maintaining a system in which parents
should just keep quiet and take whatever is handed to them by the
local educational commissariat?
Shut the fuck up, poser. Who do you think you're kidding?
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com wrote:
>> What evidence (objective, scientific) is there? I haven't seen
>> any, but I have not bothered to look closely, because every time
>> I have seen it brought up it is a thin cover for some flavor of
>> creationism.
>
>What evidence is there for intelligent design?
What difference does it make, one way or the other? Why is this
an important question?
Gandalf Grey
"Martin McPhillips" <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C911139...@nyc.rr.com...
That's ridiculous. The difference between evolution and creationism is that
creationism shuts down all further search for facts, evidence, and further
theorizing. The intelligent design theory in a vacuum is just an argument
which can be examined on its merits, and it has been examined and rejected
by most scientists. But, as 'ahall' notes, Intelligent Design is generally
used nowdays as a cover for creationism which is not an argument or a
hypothesis, but is in fact simply anti-science political cultism using the
paraphenalia and language of science as a way of opposing scientific
thought.
Your comments on 'why would life complexify?' are either born out of
ignorance or deceit. Evolution covers a wide area of scientific theory and
research that involves chemical, and biological evolution and offers sound
and logically inescapable reasons why life HAS to complexify, all of which
involve the ongoing idea of falsifiability. Tossing out one-liners like
your comment on multiple monkeys only reveals that you really don't
understand the sophistication of Darwinian theory.
The theory of evolution has become one of the most successful theories in
science because it has survived years of active scientific debate, ongoing
laboratory testing in a wide variety of sciences ranging from Geology to
Physics to Biology, and has unified the biological sciences to such a degree
that one great scientist has said that "nothing in biology makes sense save
in the light of evolution." Evolution is for biology what Physics still
hopes for in the search for a Grand Unification Theory: it has unified and
made sense out of what were once isolated and scientifically unexplained
phenomena while remaining testable, logically and experiementally.
Against this, creationism pits non-science and rhetorical arguments in what
is plainly an attempt to shut scientific thinking down and put Christian
myth in its place.
Your argument is truth turned on its head. Creationism is the "box" that
mankind has remained trapped in for more than 2000 years. It's a box that
denies reality and turns to myth to restrain man's desire to know the facts.
We've seen the result of enforced semi-religious dogmas in the horrible
genetics program instituted in the USSR. It can only be hoped that
creationism will fail in its efforts to dumb down biology in this country.
Anyone who is really interested in this topic should consider reading
Richard Dawkin's brilliant work *The Blind Watchmaker.* For those
interested in the genetic aspect of evolution, Dawkin's *The Selfish Gene*
is very good though hard reading in spots for anyone not familiar with
Mendelian genetics. For those really into genetics, Dawkins' *The Extended
Phenotype* is the book to read [though tough reading]. It led to a
revolution in genetic thinking that has had an impact on the medical world
that's would be difficult to overstate, and Dawkins' arguments are pure
Darwinian evolution.
Today's breakthroughs in disease control are entirely based on evolutionary
arguments. Here again, nothing in medicine ultimately makes sense save in
the light of evolution.
For those interested in seeing 'creationism' for what it is, *The Triumph of
Evolution: and The Failure of Creationism* by Niles Eldredge is a good place
to start. For most intelligent individuals a simple list of the claims of
creationism is enough to recognize that it is a purely religio-political
movement that has nothing to do with science at all.
Jeffrey Davis
If you can frame a theory that can test either Intelligent
Design or Creationism, feel free to do so. The challenge has
been on the table for years with no takers.
>
> Shut the fuck up, poser. Who do you think you're kidding?
Who's kidding? You appear to think that being interested in
kids getting an adequate education is somehow despicable.
There are constraints on Science. One of those is that there
have to be experiments capable of proving or disproving a
theory. The great bugbear of falsifiability. For an issue to
be considered Science it has to play by the rules of
Science.
Your fractional fuse suggests that the issue is of some
importance to you. Get cracking on framing that theory that
can test either one and you'll have advanced your case far
more than the usual round of USENET insults.
Martin McPhillips
> Martin> but intelligent design theory would consider only the
> Martin> evidence that, for instance, DNA was not the result
> Martin> of a billion monkeys typing for a billion years and
> Martin> producing War and Peace over the objections of the
> Martin> 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
>
> Is your understanding of evolution really this shallow?
Perhaps it is, Andrew. Why don't *you* explain it to me?
> >> I'm willing to entertain "Little Grey Men" however ...
> >> and it *might* be possible to prove whether they have
> >> tinkered with life here at some time, assuming they
> >> left some "fingerprints". Pure speculation, long
> >> trains of dubious reasoning or a restatement of that
> >> "Anthropic Principle" garbage won't cut the mustard
> >> however. Gimme objective evidence - "Kilroy Was Here"
> >> signed in our DNA would do very nicely.
>
> Martin> That's not what intelligent design theory is about, as far
> Martin> as I know. For starters, it's not simply about "*our* DNA."
>
> >> In the MEANWHILE though, waiting for the evidence, I've
> >> nothing against "ID" being touched upon in a science
> >> class.
>
> Martin> Well, I have nothing against evolution being touched upon
> Martin> in science class. But it won't get interesting until -- I
> Martin> guess it will be some kind of bio-physicist -- comes up with
> Martin> a formal anti-entropic force that explains why life systems
> Martin> organize *at* *all.* But they're so far away from that that
>
> There is nothing at all in entropy that violates the 2nd law.
Ah, Andrew, entropy *is* the 2nd law.
> Look at your toilet before flushing to get a clue why.
What are you trying to say? That elimination of bodily
wastes equates to increasing randomness, and that that
explains why life organizes in the first place? I hope
that's not what you are trying to say.
> I have never seen anything nearly this ignorant from you. Interesting.
What's interesting is that you haven't said *a* word here that
addresses *a* thing I've said.
> Martin> they don't even like to talk about it, and when they do they
> Martin> sound mighty funny.
>
> You are completely mistaken.
Go ahead, disabuse me.
Jeffrey Davis
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com wrote:
>
> >> What evidence (objective, scientific) is there? I haven't seen
> >> any, but I have not bothered to look closely, because every time
> >> I have seen it brought up it is a thin cover for some flavor of
> >> creationism.
> >
> >What evidence is there for intelligent design?
>
> What difference does it make, one way or the other? Why is this
> an important question?
As opposed to what, for example?
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com wrote:
>
> >> What evidence (objective, scientific) is there? I haven't seen
> >> any, but I have not bothered to look closely, because every time
> >> I have seen it brought up it is a thin cover for some flavor of
> >> creationism.
> >
> >What evidence is there for intelligent design?
>
> What difference does it make, one way or the other? Why is this
> an important question?
That's something you'll have to figure out for yourself.
Why is "why does water run downhill" an interesting question?
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
I'll tell you why: it's because if I don't pay attention to the
actual physical forces involved in that phenomenon, then it means that
I don't understand the world I'm trying to stay alive in, and that
means my life -- my very existence -- is in danger.
Tag; you're it.