It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Separation of Church and State. Why Anti-Theistic Theories don't belong in Public Education.

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth
Ambiguity was not my intent, though I recognize my words are not always as clear as I expect.

My point in this thread is simple: a person who accepts one assumption as fact should not look down upon a person who accepts a different assumption as fact.
Unless the former person wants to be called a hypocrite.

Understand, I am not criticizing science; I am criticizing people who hold up pseudo-science as modern gospel. Hypotheses are a part of the process, not a part of the answer. Rabidly defending an unproven theory is as asinine as insisting on any outlandish religious claim.

While I don't share your apparent disdain for religion, I understand it. Science has always guided my world view. Organized religion has always left a bad taste in my mouth. Spirituality, though...that's another topic altogether.

To answer your question, I believe the climate is changing, but not due to human action.
edit on 19-10-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
As to the misread, see my second post in the thread:

I believe I read the replies you refer to, and do not doubt those members' grasp of conventional scientific theories relating to the OP.

That was me acknowledging your grasp of contemporary scientific theory which is relevant to the OP. You seemed to think I was denying said grasp. Quite likely the wording made more sense to me than it did to others.

I'm sure you realize that the scientific community is composed of human beings, and that all human beings are fallible. Those fallible human beings are the ones gathering information and drawing conclusions. They make mistakes, even when they are absolutely certain of their conclusions. Sometimes those human beings even manipulate data or jump to conclusions intentionally.

To filter out some of that human error, scientists are supposed to be able to distinguish empirical evidence from hypotheticals. Science cannot grow based on what we think we know. The failure to demand empirical evidence is the focus of my criticism toward the modern scientific community.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

A great theory of education there. Might even work if only most children were gifted. Pity they're not.

Still, assuming everyone else is as clever as you does you credit. I never assume that...



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist


[Astyanax is] still citing assumptions. Assumptions made by people with Ph.D.'s, but assumptions none-the-less.

No, Ghost and I are citing proven facts. It is not a scientific theory that light has a certain speed, that red shift occurs, that carbon isotopes have a given half-life, or that seismic and tectonic events invert or mix up geological strata.

I repeat: these are FACTS.

The theories explain them, but the facts are there to start with. Sadly, they are in conflict with the claims made in a certain book. So much the worse for the book. Truth will out in the end.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Ghost147
As to the misread, see my second post in the thread:

I believe I read the replies you refer to, and do not doubt those members' grasp of conventional scientific theories relating to the OP.

That was me acknowledging your grasp of contemporary scientific theory which is relevant to the OP. You seemed to think I was denying said grasp. Quite likely the wording made more sense to me than it did to others.


Oh I see. No, you wrote it correctly, it was me who misread it.

Sorry for the confusion.


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm sure you realize that the scientific community is composed of human beings, and that all human beings are fallible. Those fallible human beings are the ones gathering information and drawing conclusions. They make mistakes, even when they are absolutely certain of their conclusions. Sometimes those human beings even manipulate data or jump to conclusions intentionally.


I don't deny this fact, and it would be an issue in science if scientific hypothesis didn't revolve around any number of other researchers with no relation conducting different experiments and reporting the same findings.

That's the best thing about the Scientific Method, it's not up to one person's opinion, claims, or conclusions; it requires the criticism from external sources to confirm or reject the validity of the original hypothesis.


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Ghost147
To filter out some of that human error, scientists are supposed to be able to distinguish empirical evidence from hypotheticals. Science cannot grow based on what we think we know. The failure to demand empirical evidence is the focus of my criticism toward the modern scientific community.


What scientific claims are based on hypothetical occurrences?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist
I understood you, but that may or may not be an anomaly on my part.
I am frequently confused.
My disdain for religion extends to extremist views only, no matter whose they are...funnily enough, its only the abrahamic religions that do this.
I care not for what you believe, but if you strive to impress it upon me in any way shape or form, without my asking you, or I feel you are trying to do so to someone else without the faculties to resist, I'll show you the meaning of crusade.
That goes for science as well.
I don't need to be lead by the nose, I can read and comprehend what it is I'm reading.
I'll make my own decision in its validity.
Bible is a good story...but that's all it is.
With a tiny bit of history chucked in...
Sort of a historical based fiction, if you will..
I don't base my behaviour on that any more than I would any other novel I've read, because that would be retarded.

edit on 19-10-2015 by VictorBloodworth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I at least try not to assume such things. However, it would be disingenuous to state I can correctly assume the mind state of others.

Lets call it an adaptation of the scientific method, if you like. Simpler to understand than current curriculums, at worst.

Of course, with such little information given.. assumptions were most certainly made somewhere.


Perhaps our concepts of implementation vary. It'll never happen anyway.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam


So, I'd like to see the youngins encouraged to explore the world around them through the scientific method.

This is what I was referring to.


assumptions were most certainly made somewhere.

Yes, indeed. I assumed that when you said 'the scientific method', you meant the scientific method.


Lets call it an adaptation of the scientific method, if you like.

Ok, let's.

What's that?

Is it less scientific than the scientific method?

Is it going to remove children's inborn credulity?

Is that desirable, do you think?


edit on 20/10/15 by Astyanax because: it's a fine line.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Is it less scientific than the scientific method?


First, I will hope there is a part of you that is genuinely curious. Even if I don't actually believe that is the case.

If you define "scientific" as a process, then yes, it is equally scientific. If you define it as a body of knowledge, then no, it isn't as scientific (innately). I see it as a bit of both, leaning towards the former.

The idea would be to train an operational framework for processing new, and old, information before that information is introduced. So, its purpose wouldn't necessarily be to add to the scientific body of knowledge. The idea is to train how to learn, and in my opinion, the scientific method is the best we currently have. There would likely be deviations in practice between a first grade student and a cutting edge physics experiment.

I can actually go into detail, but lets be honest, there is a good chance its a total waste of time. I generally reply during downtime in between lab work, but that time has started to dwindle greatly. I think I made a thread on it at some point though.


Is it going to remove children's inborn credulity?

Is that desirable, do you think?



I do not feel that would be desirable, but like so many things, it would depend on the individual child. Asking such a question insinuates that such a removal doesn't already happen, as well. I'm not sure that's accurate either.

The goal would be to train children to explore their beliefs themselves, and be equipped with the tools/skills to properly do so, rather than be trained to appeal to authority, "or else." In essence, they wouldn't be told what to believe, only how to explore it in the same way our species uses to expand the fringe of our knowledge.

Lets say two children were playing; one building a fort, the other building a snowball catapult. Through an iterative process of a "snow battle," they would both be guided to improve their creations. For some, these improvements would be exceedingly simple, for others, it might be surprisingly complex and in depth analysis.

This also pertains to the idea that the scientific method has useful application outside of strict science, which has historically been a sticking point.

When it comes down to it, I have a genuine interest in improving education through a collaborative process. This board is more useful for learning about basic forms of criticism and contrarianism than actually working towards a common goal effectively. That doesn't mean I'm not open to the latter, just that I don't expect it and my posts will reflect that.

Of course, I have already claimed a belief in God, which has useful, predictable results as a gatekeeping mechanism.
Get it?



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Where did the OP go? I wanted to know what he thought of Astyanax's and I's response to his questions



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam


First, I will hope there is a part of you that is genuinely curious. Even if I don't actually believe that is the case.

And I will hope there is a part of you that has a sense of proportion, even if I, etc, etc.

Nice long post. Much too long to bother reading, of course. And completely off topic.

Consider your leg successfully pulled. No hard feelings, I hope.


edit on 20/10/15 by Astyanax because: it was a bit manipulative of me.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Well... I think it's safe to say that the OP (Isurrender73) has abandoned his thread after Astyanax and I directly responded to his questions. It's been nearly 4 days since he has shown activity here, and immediately after his questions were answered; despite being very active elsewhere on the forum and in other topics.

It's a shame we don't see individuals who have misunderstandings about scientific matters really come to a conclusion that they had been honestly mistaken, instead of just run off. If history tells us anything, there's a high chance he'll make the same claims in yet another thread.

Here's hoping that I am mistaken and he hasn't simply run away



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Creationists are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and posting in greater numbers.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Yea it is a shame the whole world does not fall for your lies and lame excuses.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Ghost147

Creationists are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and posting in greater numbers.


That makes sense since the creationist can just create more of themselves.

I would hate to have to wait on evolution for back up... Oh you need help then in a few million years it will get to you.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Yea it is a shame the whole world does not fall for your lies and lame excuses.

How about you actually refute his "lies and lame excuses". Some real effort would be nice.


That makes sense since the creationist can just create more of themselves.

You mean like creating sockpuppet accounts?

edit on 21-10-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Ghost147

Yea it is a shame the whole world does not fall for your lies and lame excuses.



Considering this thread was all about the 'lies' in science, and considering the plethora of responses that debunked the claims that they were lies, I'd say you need to rethink your slander.

Of course, if you actually have evidence to prove your words, you're more than welcome to actually have an intellectual conversation with us.


originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Ghost147

Creationists are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and posting in greater numbers.


That makes sense since the creationist can just create more of themselves.

I would hate to have to wait on evolution for back up... Oh you need help then in a few million years it will get to you.


This post makes no sense in reference to both evolution AND creation....



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

It isn't off topic at all, the end result would be roughly the same as what the OP suggests. Just, without seeing the problem as "science versus religion." I'm sure you can see why information on social penetration of this shift could be useful.

I don't mind having my leg pulled, turnabout is fairplay, right? You play your role very well.

The beauty of these conversations is rarely in the participants themselves.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

How can a theory be "anti-theistic" if it at no point mentions any sort of theism?



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't mean to be rude, but I find a common thread in these types of discussions is that people on both sides of the debate have a poor understanding of science.

I would like to start by asking you a question. Could you please describe to me in your own words each of the following scientific terms:

1) Theory
2) Hypothesis
3) Law
4) Fact

I'm not looking for wikipedia links or copy/paste from some other site. I'm looking for your own words as you understand the terms right now, before looking them up.

Understanding these terms is absolutely critical to forming a logical conclusion about what science is and how it should be taught.
edit on 22-10-2015 by XanderGray because: spelling


edit on 22-10-2015 by XanderGray because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join