They are only your indoctrinated valid truths. For most all truths are subjective. You don't believe the ToE? You think marxism is taught in public schools? You are out in the ozone on those, and what would be far right. So I don't think you studied/researched with an open mind.
I am becoming convinced that we humans tend to rely upon fallible feelings as opposed to an objective examination of the evidence. Seeing is believing but believing is not synonymous with an objective reality as I have believed things to be true that later I found to be false.
I know the reasons given.. i was not talking about those, just the facts, that in the last century, creationism was taught in the public schools (& well into the previous century, as well) Then, as the ToE gained a following, it demanded equal footing.. to be taught alongside creation. And as evolutionist gained power & supremacy, they eventually banned any teaching of creationism, by the turn of this century. I just find it very ironic, from a historical perspective, especially since the ToE is only a theory, not 'settled science'. Oh, i know it is taught & INDOCTRINATED as Absolute Truth, but that is an error. A lot of people believe it, though. Here is an interesting timeline about the various court cases in the US, that shows the evolution of teaching origins: * 1925- the state of Tennessee passes a law banning the teaching of evolution in public school. It went to court, in what has been called the 'Scopes monkey trial'. Many other states followed suit, banning the teaching of evolution. The tennessee law was upheld initially. * 1967 Tennessee repeals the Butler Act, the law that banned the teaching of evolution in public schools. * 1968 In Epperson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court strikes down an Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution. * 1973 Tennessee passes a law requiring that public schools give equal emphasis to "the Genesis account in the Bible" along with other theories about the origins of man. * 1975 Tennessee's "equal time" law is declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. * 1982 In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a U.S. district judge strikes down an Arkansas law that required public schools to give "balanced treatment" to evolution and creationism whenever either was taught. * 1987 In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court rules that a Louisiana law requiring public schools to give "balanced treatment" to creationism and evolution is unconstitutional. * 1990 - In Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science. * 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. * 2005 - in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The disclaimer stickers stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." So evolution went from a 'theory' demanding equal treatment in the educational system, to the state belief on origins, & any others are banned. I find this amazing & completely based on ideology, not science. All Truth is subjective? I think you illustrate the OP.. this is your indoctrination, believing in a totally relative universe.. not one of natural law, & absolute truth. Do you have absolute proof, that all truth is relative? I find this to be a delicious twist of logic. The different perceptions of reality are certainly an interesting study, but i just can't follow through with the 'all is relative' crowd. It seems to me that there is an objective reality that is there & true, whether we believe it, know it, or not. In another thread, i listed 3 historical worldviews, from a philosophical perspective: Skepticism Relativism Empiricism Skepticism says basically that knowledge is unknowable. It was once a popular view, but not so much today. Technological advances, & the consistency of scientific methodology has rendered it a little silly. Nothing can be known, not even this". Carneades (c. 214 - 129 B.C.) The other 2 are more common. The relativist believe everything is relative.. there is no absolute truth, but it varies with the time, geography, perception, or other subjective variables. That is what i have described as the marxist/darwinist view.. that of relativity of morality, law, & even knowledge. It is in stark contrast to Empiricism, which says that knowledge is absolute, & can be known. The age of reason spawned the growth & success of that view, & it is (was?) the default one in most educational circles.. in the hard sciences, anyway (but i see that changing as well) As a culture, western civilization is departing from its roots from Newton, Copernicus, & the other empiricists, as a basis in worldviews. Now, it is more marxist/darwinist in its outlook, & the shift to relativity as a basis for ideology is beginning to dominate the educational systems. You see an increasing lack of scientific methodology, as belief & agenda become the driving force for 'truth'. I see this clearly in AGW, & even the ToE, which are both indoctrinated as Absolute Fact. As i have said before, you can ask any recent graduates, & they can tell you all about the wonders of socialism, the horrors of global warming, & the settled science of evolution, but they can't balance a checkbook, know no history, & can't spell words. They are mere puppets of indoctrination, for an ideological agenda, that has a political motivation. Why are those things so earnestly indoctrinated, into eager young people? Why are those things considered 'more important' than the 3 R's.. Reading, Riting, 'Rithmatic? It is because our educational system has shifted its focus from a 'liberal arts education', where critical thinking, a wide exposure to different beliefs, opinions, & ideologies, & has become a narrow tool of indoctrination. IMO, indoctrination has always been with us. But at one time, education was an attempt to broaden one's views, & gain perspective on life. Now, it does just the opposite. The educational system has become an echo chamber of progressive ideology, with little exposure to alternate views. It is a tool of indoctrination, not education.
I agree with this... and we are in a time where feelings & emotions are given equal footing with empirical reality. I see it in the changes that are being mandated regarding our genders. It is no longer a biological fact, but a belief. Your actual gender, that is coded in your dna, is irrelevant.. what matters is who you 'feel' you are, or would like to be. This is totally subjective, with no empirical reality. It is an abandonment of reason for a fantasy, something that was once considered insanity.
Because the ToE is science and Creationism isn't and it never will be. Some enlightened people figured that it is better to teach science rather than religion in a science class, the religious cranks lost and the internet will pretty much see them off for good in a few decades. The crank religions know this and are fighting to keep the next generation indoctrinated and they will lose because people know which of the two has given them increased lifespans and a standard of living far in excess of what we had 200 years ago. So, where do you figure in this? You still haven't answered the questions so I figure your avoidance means that you believe that the Universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old, observational science is the only valid science, the ToE is, 'just a theory', you don't understand the ToE etc. Quite frankly, your list of conspiracy theories is absurd. I've told people in here before, I know what they are going to say before they know it themselves, I could have predicted that you are pretty much YEC from the first post of yours that I read and I could have written what you have posted for you. the question I am curious about is why you are so furtive about it, most YECs I have encountered are not nearly so embarrassed by it, so why are you?
It is satisfying for me that I figured that this one would come up among your various pronouncements but, I figured that it would be in about 10 more pages so I feel like you have prematurely put this one out there. I'll claim it anyway.
Care to tackle the reasoning & evidence for the theories? Sure, it is easy to just do a dismissal, or ad hominem smear, but that is just an illustration of my point, that indoctrination has removed reason & empirical logic from our culture. Instead of having a fact based view of reality, it is emotional.. feeling based, or based on groupthink loyalties, as you illustrate. You make no rational rebuttal, but only put me in a ideological box, so you can summarily dismiss anything i have to say. It is convenient, i must confess, to not have to deal with reason & facts, but cling with unthinking loyalty to an ideological groupthink. IMO, it is a sad state of affairs, & shows the decline of reason & empiricism, the foundations of western civilization & technological advances. The 'science by decree' crowd will merely drag us back to the dark ages, where they mandate conformity of thought, & dictate the 'facts' of science. Critical thinking is a dying art.. it will likely be completely gone in another 50 yrs, if there is not some kind of cultural renaissance. Progressive ideology is driving this bus, & won't let anyone off. I can see ahead, & it is dark.. like the dark ages. Goodbye, Enlightenment. Goodbye Reason. Goodbye critical thinking. You were great for a while, but you will be written out of the history books by progressive ideology.
I didn't say 'all' truth. I said most. Especially if it involves opinion. Because they don't teach what you believe, you think the education system indoctrinates. Well that is just your uninformed opinion. How is teaching ToE as absolute fact? Isn't the word 'theory' in the subject? Yes, it is.
This is the reason for research. I personally do not accept I am correct until I have researched a situation deeply enough to be comfortable doing so. Until that time I make assumptions that allow me to proceed along that path. Even when I am assured however, I leave open the possibility of further research indicating I am incorrect and if so the process begins again.
To me the empirical reality on this subject is that we know more about the cosmos than the human brain. Without a better understanding into the bio-electrical mechanics of the human brain no solid conclusion on the subject can be made. Arguments from a position of ignorance are largely feelings based IMO. Indeed there are male parts and female parts, but is not our psychology part of sexual identity? As the human brain is still quite a mystery I do not think there is enough evidence to come to a scientific conclusion on the subject of sexual identity.
Well, it seems to me that much of our 'information' or knowledge about either are pretty sketchy. Arguments from psychology are valid, imo, & are the only real explanations for the many aberrations in the human animal. Oh, i'm sure there are some mental illnesses for some things.. like if you think you are napoleon, or a rabbit, but we are not talking about those 'identity' problems. My point is that there are only physiological facts about us, as physiological beings. We are not asexual, like earthworms, but have definite, genetic & physiological differences. That is a scientific fact. Psychological explanations are pretty vague, & rely on assumptions, speculations, & belief.. with perhaps some juggled statistics tossed in for good measure. But it does, IMO, point to the cultural changes in our society.. that of going from an empirical basis, to an emotional one, or more of a feeling based cultural norm. That has been increasing for decades, as the old notions of absolute truth, scientific methodology, due process, & other empirical disciplines have given way to more emotional processes. Grievance based 'truth' is presented, based on feelings or perception. Political agendas are shrouded in scientific terminology to give the appearance of credibility. Identity is becoming a feeling oriented process, rather than accepting empirical reality. And, our indoctrination processes reflect these trends. Schools don't care about the 3 R's, but go right for the philosophical indoctrination. Students come out of schools with no ability to spell, do math, and have no sense of history or geography, but they can recite the tenets of global warming, or evolution, or the joys of socialism. And, they can also carry the water for identity politics.. pitching special interests for what has historically been considered an aberration in humanity. That's how i see it in our social evolution, anyway. Facts, history, classic literature, science, & mathematics are not encouraged, but philosophical & politically driven agendas, that promote a worldview, instead of critical thinking or a liberal arts education.
I will admit that I am being dismissive but, that is based upon good evidence that you do not understand what you criticise, have no intention of understanding what you criticise and will never accept any evidence that supports what you criticise. If I mock people, it is generally because they are dull, add nothing and will never learn to be any different. I particularly despise naysaying, conspiracy theory and presuppositional apologetics. Take what you like from that.
Good evidence? Where? What have i criticised, that, according to you, 'i don't understand?' Dull? Me? You cut me to the quick, Bill.. i've never been described as dull before. But i accept your pronouncements, even though i don't see any evidence for it. I take pride in my empiricism, & keep my reasoning pretty close to the vest. I don't flit about much, but try to stay on topic. I do find it very ironic, that in the last couple of threads i've started, the topic invariably gets to me, personally, & why my arguments should not even be listened to.. a 'poison the well' logical fallacy, if there ever was one. But that is common in the forums. See you around.
Your choices of language and phrasing betrays you usfan. What would change your mind? Evidence would change mine. I fear that you don't even understand irony since you have been poisoning the well for some time now with your 'science conspiracy theory'. The great thing about science is that it is true regardless of what you think.
My language betrays me? You judge me based on my choice of words? Man, that is heavy! No, 'poisoning the well' has to do with NOT dealing with the points of logic, or the reasoning of the poster, & instead dismissing them based on a pejorative smear, or other ad hominem.. like you are doing here. From wiki: Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength. I submit that you have not dealt with the logic or content of my posts, but have dismissed them based on summary judgements about my ideological beliefs, which are unknown to you specifically, but you assume what they are, & base your dismissal on that. So, you are exactly illustrating what 'poisoning the well' is, as a logical fallacy. I have only covered ideals & conclusions about ideology, as an examination of the basis of philosophical views, & the different ways those views are indoctrinated in society. I will leave you with some quotes from Noam Chomsky, a leftist, & his analysis of the American media & education system: State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day. ~Noam Chomsky Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media. ~Noam Chomsky The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media. ~Noam Chomsky
A good argument if there is an overwhelming consensus that is backed by solid science, but as far as I know there is not. I see it the other way, that we as a society in a very general way are moving away from emotion based decisions and towards objective use of critical thinking. What point in our past history do you argue that we humans were more objective and critical in our thinking as opposed to today? Do you have scientific source citation to back your argument or anecdotal evidence like I? I find it interesting that we are discussing critical thinking vs emotional thinking and you make the claim that "Students come out of schools with no ability to spell". Your argument is not backed by evidence as kids today can spell, not all, but I do not know a single child in my family who cannot spell, so what is the source of your claim if other than emotion? What is the above based upon if not anecdotal opinion? What objective source citation do you have to back the above claim if you want to elevate the claim to a fact?
Fair enough. I'll put together some statistics to show the cultural trends of the country, over the last 50 yrs or so, & see if we can determine any correlation with ideology. That work for you?
No it isn't heavy, it is a strong indicator that regardless of how much lipstick you put on it, your posts are still pigs.
Good! I don't mind researching, & compiling things, if others will at least consider the points being made. I promise not to get too long, and i would hope that the points i make, & the evidence provided, is relatively obvious. I'll start here with a premise: Cultural trends are a direct result of changes in ideological & philosophical beliefs. I will attempt to show the correlation of the dominant worldview on the beliefs, actions, & social trends in American society, as that data set is readily available, & is an environment i am familiar with. I recognize that there are other factors, which are real & have an influence on the worldviews, but these do not negate the influence of the ideology in the cultural trends. Here is a summary of some pertinent trends: Marriage rate Divorce rate Church attendance Religious belief/atheism Illegitimate births Opinions on socialism Opinions on abortion Opinions on evolution Opinions on homosexuality Violent crime rate Functional literacy rate of graduates I'm sure i can come up with more, regarding global warming, or other pet issues & ideologically driven issues. Next i will present the data, charts, & studies that support my premise. ..that is, if you are still interested..
I am not sure that you understand my objection to your previous argument, so let me restate my opposition. Excerpt from post #36 "Students come out of schools with no ability to spell, do math, and have no sense of history or geography". Now as words have meaning and you used no limiting language such as some, many, few, etc., I must assume that you were making a broad generalization or do you literally believe that kids nowadays cannot spell, do math, etc? http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=490184&page=4&p=1067002912#post1067002912 So the data I need you to present is data in support of your claim that "Students come out of schools with no ability to spell, do math, and have no sense of history or geography".
Ok..that is, i hope you know, a statistical analysis. I am not claiming that no single student can spell or do math, but that statistically, students come out of school untrained & unprepared for real world encounters. Not all, but an every growing majority. I will produce some evidence for that, if you wish. Sorry if my overstatement for dramatic effect was lost in translation. Hyperbole is one of my favorite devices, & i'd be lost without it.
I'll provide the context, so you can see the point being made. I was not making empirical data statements, but talking about trends in our culture. I bolded the above to illustrate the point being made. I was not talking about a data set, with defined parameters.
I just wanted to circle back to this and pull out a few things that were part of my own indoctrination. I was indoctrinated into believing that everyone who disagreed with my community's conservative political and religious views were part of a monolithic force, similar to the one you describe. The central premise was that there are only two ideologies: mine and everyone else's; everyone else's ideologies all somehow fit together. Freudian psychologists? Lefties. Darwinists? Lefties. Muslims? Lefties. Literally anyone who wasn't me was part of this demon "Left." It was only when I actually started digging into these ideologies that I saw that the paranoid theory didn't hold. For example, Darwinism and Marxism are incompatible. Marx appealed to the idea of an inevitable march of progress, a dialectic in which human advancement was simply destiny. Darwinism, on the other hand, teaches natural selection. This is part of why Stephen Jay Gould famously left Marxism while studying Darwinian evolution and why the Stalinists banned the teaching of Darwinism and replaced it with their own twist on Lamarckism instead. The whole "them" mentality that tries to lump all non-mes together as if they are part of the same thing is one of the laziest and most prevalent forms of indoctrination.
