> > I'm glad that you watched it so that you can discuss it with your
> > student(s). However, in no way should it be as a debate. A debate
> > supposes that there are valid viewpoints to be discussed. Would you
>
> Well, I disagree with you on this one. Debate is necessary to point
> out the validity (or lack thereof) of the points made. In fact,
> refusal to debate this issue is the major premise of the movie - that
> scientists are close-minded and do not tolerate dissent. This is far
> from true. There are debates involving ID all of the time. A good
> portion of Shermer's schedule is devoted to it.
>
> The problem is, and this is what I find so disappointing, the movie
> offers nothing to debate.
>
> It wasn't pseudoscience. It was propaganda.
>
I suspect we have a bit of connotation/denotation issue over the word
debate. If not, we will continue to agree to disagree at the end of
the day. I finally had the time to consult a Merriam-Webster
dictionary to see if the distinction in my mind between discussion and
debate was at all credible. As I posted previously, I think ID should
be discussed but not debated. You stated that scientists' refusal to
debate was a major point of the movie. You followed this by stating
that the movie offered nothing to debate. A later post of yours makes
me think that you will not refuse to talk with your student about the
movie, but I must presume that you won't be debating it with her, per
the post I am replying to. As for how Merriam-Webster defines these
words and for good measure, arguement:
de·bate Pronunciation: \di-ˈbāt, dē-\ Function: noun Date:13th
century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a
motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of
parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition
between two matched sides
dis·cus·sion Listen to the pronunciation of discussion
Pronunciation:\di-ˈskə-shən\ Function:noun Date:14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing
ar·gu·ment Pronunciation:\ˈär-gyə-mənt\ Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum,
from arguere Date:14th century
1obsolete : an outward sign : indication2 a: a reason given in proof
or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade3 a: the act or process
of arguing : argumentation b: a coherent series of statements leading
from a premise to a conclusion c: quarrel , disagreement4: an abstract
or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the
poem>5: the subject matter especially of a literary work6 a: one of
the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends
b: a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is
required by a predicate in grammar c: amplitude 4
How do these definitions relate to the point I was trying to make
about engaging in discussions but not debates with creationists? When
I discouraged debate, I was thinking of something along the lines of b
in the definition of debate and 3b in the definition of arguement. The
definition of discussion does include "informal debate". To me, this
part of the definition connotes something much less formal than b and
3b that I referenced above. It is my view and others that if ID is
given formal debate opportunities, such as we do with candidate
debates, that you give legitimacy to their cause or give them another
platform from which to preach. This was touched on in an article in a
local newspaper today,
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/columnists/bud_kennedy//story/1046804.html
.
Let me say that I can agree wholeheartedly that we must respond to the
comments that the Discovery Institute and the like put out about ID. I
think the scientific community has been doing this, so for them to
whine about a lack of feedback is disingenuous propaganda. What also
irritates me is that they seem to think that scientists don't
regularly rethink scientific theories such as evolution or the big
bang or hypotheses. Does anyone remember ether? Physicists thought
this hypothetical, odorless, colorless material was the substance
through which electromagnetic radiation propagated, until they
eventually proved themselves wrong. People without scientific training
need to leave science to the scientists. This doesn't mean that
scientists should retreat to an ivory tower to do their work. They
should always look for ways to communicate with the public. They
should even listen to ideas that the general public thinks up, decide
if that thought is worth pursuing and communicate their conclusion.
When asked about it, my son thought that there would be no harm in
teaching creationism (ID). He thought that by presenting ID in the
classroom (to the harsh light of day) that the lack of substance would
expose it for what it is and it would wither and die. Unfortunately,
while in a perfect world, this should happen, in reality it hasn't
after all of the court battles that have ruled against it. So I do
think everyone should engage with people and try to educate people
about ID when appropriate. I also think that it is important to be
careful so that the specific act of engagement does not serve to
legitimize turning science into a specific religion's propaganda tool.