Posted on 03/23/2005 10:48:58 PM PST by Quick1
TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.
The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.
The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.
While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”
The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.
According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.
Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.
“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.
(Excerpt) Read more at alligator.org ...
ID is a version of creationism. Its central premise is that the evidence we see cannot be explained by natural causes. Since this is the opposite of the sssumptions of science, you should expect to be ignored unless you come up with some killer evidence.
So far, the only evidence for ID is that biology can't explain everything. Since science doesn't claim to explain everything, this is not an argument.
Tells me that I'm probably one of the few in this thread who has ever sat in a university classroom, and had to put up with it...
In fact, seeing some of the savants (...snicker...) in this thread, I'm convinced of it.
Nevertheless, something has to be done about the leftist domination of the humanities and social sciences. If the academic bill of rights is not the solution, what's the alternative?
Ideological propaganda is one thing. The science of evolution and natural selection is something else entirely.
One is just hot air is should not be in an institution of learning. The other is a well established fact and should be.
Since this is the opposite of the sssumptions of science, you should expect to be ignored unless you come up with some killer evidence.
Right there is where MY criticism comes in. That little word that scientists often do but never admit to often enough: Assume.
You don't go into study something scientifically with an assumption. That's bass ackwards. You study it, and go where it leads you.
You're the one unwilling to listen here, however. You see, I was TRYING to point out a way for you to reach more people using logic and information.
What you give me in return is lecture. No wonder so many people are turning towards the Light, and not what you have to say. You're saying it as an elite know-it-all.
I gave you a way to solve that. You gave me lectures. Remember that. God will test you on it later.
Nor are you seeing it now.
Hint for the reading-impaired: Disagreeing with a particular proposed method of addressing that problem -- one which would likely be used to disrupt legitimate academic subjects as well as leftist propaganda -- is hardly the same thing as "pimping for leftist professors "rights" to browbeat their students with ideological propaganda at the expense of their grades if they don't regurgitate the politically "correct" answer".
Tells me that I'm probably one of the few in this thread who has ever sat in a university classroom, and had to put up with it...
Tells *me* you didn't learn much about critical thinking or reading comprehension in that university.
In fact, seeing some of the savants (...snicker...) in this thread, I'm convinced of it.
Yet another error on your part, then.
>>Since this is the opposite of the sssumptions of science,
>>you should expect to be ignored unless you come up with some
>>killer evidence.
>Right there is where MY criticism comes in. That little word
>that scientists often do but never admit to often enough:
>Assume.
It is not the assumptions of science, it is the nature of science. Science requires that any theory must posses the property of potential falsifiability. Without this property it is not possible to refute or improve theories based on observation and experimentation and progress via the scientific method.
The various theories of evolution are scientific since they enable one to make predictions (not necessarily accurate) which can be tested. The theory of ID is not scientific since it doesn't enable one to make predictions and therefore does not posses the property of potentially falsifiability.
Science is a consistent system of gaining knowledge about the world as it can be percieved and measured via our human faculties (and aided by various instruments.) However, just because something is not within the scope of science doesn't mean that it is false. Many scientist subscribe to this notion and many religious people think this is a principle of science. In fact, the notion that a theory is false just because it is non-scientific is in itself non-scientific in the formal sense that it is non-falsifiable statement. Science can say nothing, one way or the other, about a theory that does not enable one to make predictions about measurable observables; those things are in the purview of intuition, mystical insight and religious revelation - facilities no less critical to our human nature than the rational thinking that drives science.
The various theories of evolution are scientific since they enable one to make predictions (not necessarily accurate) which can be tested. The theory of ID is not scientific since it doesn't enable one to make predictions and therefore does not posses the property of potentially falsifiability.
So what makes "science" "science" is the fact that it doesn't search for "truth"
No wonder I prefer philosophy. I'd much rather KNOW than simply always say "hey this is cool, I wish it meant something."
Oh well.
That makes it my arrogance versus your willful lack of conclusions. A matter of preference then.
> That makes it my arrogance versus your willful lack of conclusions. A matter of preference then.
"Yeah, but using *science* I can make a really big "laser" to fry to a crisp impractical philosophers; using philosophy you can't do squat"
I believe the word you were looking for was "technology."
You can know how it works all day long on an island without other people who make the parts for you and you would never get it made.
I know what principles the laser works on. I also don't consider the laser to be "subjective" unlike the untestable "evolution"
Why does "something" have to be done. These things are like pendelum swings. They happen with or without laws. Laws regulating speech will be enforced by judges.
Think about it.
There's no pendulum. The left has had a stranglehold over universities for 30+ years, at least the humanities and social sciences.
I wonder how the anti-i (or those who doubt the reality of imaginary numbers) would use this bill. Or those who think that obviously Sin(2*x)=2*Sin(x) .
Similar things have happened (to me) in the past. Students were unhappy at their grades so they went to the (Liberal Democrat) administration. Fortunately the (Liberal Democrat) administrators decided to ignore their political disputes with me and come down on the side of mathematical correctness.
If you knew how long it's been since I thought about factoring, you'd be more gentle in posting such stuff to me. But even I can spot the proplem with that one.
An example I'd rather use would be those who, upon being told if P then Q, think that obviously -P therefore -Q.
Ah, yes, it doesn't belong because it isn't your religious belief; but, because evolution is your religious belief, that belongs. Right. Next...
Thank you. We are in complete agreement on the matter of whether questions of design or not-design are scientific. However, unless you have only learned the cartoon versions of the theory of evolution that are propounded by creationists, ID'ers and some of the more radical secular humanists, then you should know that the theory of evolution in no way addresses the question of design. Evolution is perfectly consistent both with design and with a lack of design in the living world. Evolution doesn't attempt to deal with design precisely for the reason that we have agreed to, namely that considerations of design are non-scientific, and evolution is a scientific theory.
Or just as common: If P then Q, Q therefore P.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.