Posted on 07/07/2006 2:39:21 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
A Seattle-based research group that advocates intelligent design said today it will campaign to educate Kansans that the science standards approved by the State Board of Education are sound.
“Kansas citizens need to have accurate information about what the science standards do,” said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture for Discovery Institute.
West said the group will start an information campaign over the Internet immediately and possibly start a radio campaign. He declined to say how much the center would spend.
The decision puts the Discovery Institute in the center of hotly-contested State Board of Education school board races.
The board’s 6-4 decision to approve science standards that question evolution has been a major issue in the five board places that are up for grabs this year. The science standards are used as guidelines to what students learn in Kansas public schools.
Mainstream scientists have said the standards criticize evolution in a way that could introduce intelligent design in science classrooms. Intelligent design posits there was a master force that designed life.
Excellent. I wish our debate opponents would read your post.
(As a lawyer, she might happen to feel that whoever makes the best closing argument "wins"TM... not realizing that "confidence comes from consilience" notwithstanding, science just doesn't work like that :-) Cheers!
With all due respect, and contrary to what you see on TV, no attorney waits until closing to make their "dramatic" wrap up. Juries usually have their mind made up after voir dire and opening statements, but some witnesses (the victims and those very close to them) can have a huge effect! BUT, you don't wait and rely on your closing argument; it's way too late for that!!!!!
Good enough to get me out of 'brown ops' for a couple of weeks?
See how it goes? As a scientist, I relied on populist impressions of the MSM as to how the "law" works ;-)
Seriously, though, my main point was that the legal arena works more by persuasion rather than exclusively by proof. There was a case mentioned (a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far awayTM) in Physics Today where a high-powered firm reconstructed a traffic accident programming in Newton's laws of motion and other rigorous scientific / engineering stuff, to demonstrate conclusively that their clients were innocent. The opposing counsel did not attack the possibility of bugs in the program (which I would have done) but airily told the jury, "The laws of physics are obeyed in the laboratory but not in rural New Jersey." He won the case, too.
After a performance like that, I'm not too find of lawyers attempting to pontificate on science. Even if the lawyer in question is a Goddess.
Cheers!
I'll pass along your request, but don't count on it. We're short-handed due to recent promotions.
You are absolutely correct in this regard. Locally, I can predict the result of a claim based on the attorneys hired rather than the facts. Many atty's wimp out at the thought of a tough trial. Others see money-making opportunities.
So, what must be remembered about attorneys? It's all about them making money for themselves! On their contingence fee a agreements, they get 50% to 40%, and they wouldn't give up 1% of their fee to the victim that they demanded millions for.
%$#*^@&!!!
&^(*%@!!!
#%&^(!!!
It's hard to *do* self-fulfilling predictions when they involve contravention of established physical law.
That's why I chose the examples I did. :-)
Skeptics claim this *proves* them false, adherents call them miracles.
Is it not possible that the 'interpretation' of events (that *is* all we really get outside of physical evidence) is a result of the same dynamic as the production of events to match a prediction?
I beg your pardon, I'm not sure what you're asking...could you rephrase that?
Cheers!
I'm surprised you would choose *that* episode for the psychosomatic route of explaining miracles.
Given for example the episode on the Emmaus road, where Jesus appeared post-resurrection to the disciples, and they did not recognize him; or the speech by "doubting Thomas" ("unless I put my in the hole in his side, or touch the nail holes, I will not believe"), it seems kind of silly to say that the resurrection was an example of people "merely seeing what they wanted or expected to see".
For resurrection in general, though, recall that the Jewish leaders (during the time leading up to the crucifixion) were also discussing killing Lazarus (whom Jesus raised from dead), simply because having him walking around was raising a scandal, and bringing the reputation of this "king of the jews" onto the Roman radar. Much better to hush it all up again...
My question was, does the internalized belief in a Biblical miracle produce an interpretation of an event consonant with that belief rather than with the physical event. If so, how do we determine the 'truth' of the event given the distance we are from the event?
Too late at night for a cogent answer to this. The answer (to my mind) is related to the famous ECREE (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) of skeptic's fame.
But with a twist.
Allow me to quote C.S. Lewis--not because I consider him disposative, but because he covered the topic much more succinctly than I can...I may be mixing up a couple of his quotes, I pulled them from another website.
“All men alike, on questions which interest them, escape from the region of belief into that of knowledge when they can, and if they succeed in knowing, they no longer say they believe. Each group proceeds by applying their own techniques to the questions: “The mathematician’s proof … is by reasoning, the scientist’s by experiment, the historian’s by documents, the judge’s by concurring sworn testimony. But all these men, as men, on questions outside their own disciplines, have numerous beliefs to which they do not normally apply the methods of their own disciplines. Authority, reason, experience; on these three, mixed in varying proportions all our knowledge depends.”
All clear so far? Pure reason is the best (Godel notwithstanding); followed by experiment, then by writings or statements of people.
But best at what? Not necessarily at getting everying right--but at minimizing the number of mistakes, or at most quickly finding mistakes once they are made.
And thus it is that miracles are so often discredited--first, because they are abnormal, or prima facie ridiculous -- "Everyone knows people don't really rise from the dead." The default position, that any such incident is false, is confirmed both by scientific prediction, and common experience. And, playing by the normal rules of evidence, this would be sufficient.
However, the fly in the ointment comes in, in that miracles do not claim to be "the normal flow of nature"; they in fact claim explicitly, and on purpose, to be interruptions or interferences with nature, at the behest of some agent which stubbornly refuses to make itself available for inspection or systematic investigation. It doesn't help matters that most of the miracles seem to take place among people, or in locations, conducive to repeated and regular investigation. Almost like it was done on purpose.
The canonical response of the ECREE crowd is "well, you can't prove it, so shut up already." The indignation appears to be that "C'mon, couldn't you fanatics come up with a miracle that isn't afraid to show its face? So now the *real* reason you won't open up is clear: your alleged miracle is a fake which won't stand up to investigation. H'mmmph."
But there is another possibility--and one that is explained by the believer on other grounds entirely, starting from a totally different ansatz than that of the "disinterested observer."
This possibility is that the supernatural agent (say, a benevolent Deity) has other things to do than jumping through hoops in order to satisfy intellectual curiosity or pride. And in fact, the miracles are there to help foster a closer and more intimate *trust* between the people and the Deity. The entire atmosphere and spirit in which the investigator approaches things, tends to stifle them. (By analogy, imagine taking a clinical approach to a wife or girlfriend's amorous approach over a candlelight dinner. The minute you whipped out the notebook, the mood would go *POOF*. But it wouldn't be special pleading to point that out--except maybe your own pleading to not have to sleep on the couch for the next six months.)
So the short version of the wordy answer is, "It depends on trust." Whether in the Deity, or the superstitious peasants relating the story, varies from case to case.
Finally, to my mind, there are a couple of reasons this is so *offensive* to the scientific mind.
First, the idea that the universe is orderly, predictable, and, well, tidy. If you have a Deity barging around willy-nilly, what's the use of measuring anything?
Second, the affront to intellectual pride. "Look we've got a perfectly good model here, we know how to use it, and we can produce everything from antibiotics to guided missles to IPODS with it. Why don't you religious folk ever produce anything if you're so bloody clever?"
Third, back to the whole idea of minimization of errors. It is often said that religious fundamentalists fear science because it unravels the whole fabric of Biblical inerrancy.
But, it is also paradoxically true, that miracles threaten the entire framework of scientific completeness and sufficiency. ("Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive" scenarios and all that...)
Some scientists and/or intellectuals may grudgingly admit that "OK, fine. There are gaps in our experience related to miracles and/or religion that (strictly speaking) we can treat as 'indeterminate'. We know they ought not to exist, but we can't directly disprove them. And strictly speaking science cannot do anything to disprove their philosophical underpinnings, since you can't get God in a Test Tube, or even create an experiment in which He *must* show up..." ("Unfalsifiable" does not mean "FALSE". It means "just 'cause we can't prove it false, that doesn't MAKE it true.")
Their rejection of the supernatural, at that point, becomes one of taste--in the interests of intellectual integrity or fairness, if you admit *one* fairy tale, you have to admit them *all*. Witches on broomsticks, fairy godmothers, elves, and all the rest come flying at you: and once you admit the possibility of one, you have no grounds for excluding ANY of them.
But that's only true...if you accept the SCIENTIFIC method as the only possible means of knowledge. One is still free to use *horse sense*, faith, historical evidence, and the rest to sift among competing supernatural claims. Or even, you know, trust.
The problem is, scientists often insist on not "loweing their standards" by doing so: since science / empiricism retains its methodology of "falsifiability" and the other approaches to things just don't. Science *is* more reliable--but only where it is applicable.
A little while ago I mentioned C.S. Lewis' example of the judge and concurring sworn testimony. There is some analogy there. Say a judge has to deal with a case of alleged date rape. If the man denies even an attempt at sexual contact, but his semsn is found (DNA match) on her underwear, it's open and shut. BUT if the situation is not so neatly defined, and it is a classic "he said, she said" situation, then even the best judge cannot resolve the dispute using the tools at his disposal. Someone who was listening in from the next apartment (hearsay), or even folks who *personally know* the parties involved, may happen to be of more use. But by the rules of evidence, these avenues are excluded. Because they must be false? No, because they might be, and the cost of being wrong is too high to admit of their being used without some means of verifying ("falsifying") their conclusions.
One last point: if you are interested in possible physical evidence for the resurrection, you might want to contact Freeper Swordmaker about the Shroud of Turin...It is odd, but I have seen a couple of reliable pro-evo FReepers use arguments just as shrill and contradictory as any pro-cre on a crevo thread, attempting to attack the Shroud. (Though I name no names.) I am not familiar enough with the Shroud to explicitly say "Yep. That's it" -- but I do know that Swordmaker has (to my mind) successfully refuted every garden variety and canonical skeptical counter-claim I have seen made against it.
Your mileage may vary. Have a good night.
Cheers! I agree with you on two points:
1) Yes, I'm willing to bet that there are a fair number of occurrences in which people engage in interpretations of events consonant with their own deeply-held beliefs rather than objective fact.
2) The weakness in this approach to things is that it appeals to the materialist and skeptic as well as to gullible believers. A devout is free to discount almost any particular miracle (except say those directly supported by the Creeds of his/her faith); whereas a skeptic MUST debunk and refuse all of them.
Coulter is the Al Franken of the Right.
My son-in-law could tell you something about that!Why should IDists be excused from that process? Should their work not stand on its own merits rather than be promoted through political means?
If you read my homepage and traced my posting via "find in forum," you would find that I am a one-trick pony. Basically all I talk about is the fatuous nature of journalism's reputation. If you study the issue, I would be very interested in any logical argument why I should expect journalism to be objecive.Apart, that is, from putative competition among journalists. There are a few basic rules for free, commercial, competitive journalists. One is negativity ("If it bleeds, it leads), another is unrepresentativeness ("Man Bites Dog, not 'Dog Bites Man'", and another is superficiality ("There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" - IOW, "Meet your deadline"). Those are admitted publicly, but the fourth major rule of journalism is clearly seen but never articulated.
The fourth major rule of journalism is journalism's version of Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow journalist." Break the other three, and people won't be attracted to your product and you will lose business. Break the fourth - e.g., state baldly that CBS completely jumped the shark with its fraudulent "TANG memo" scam - and you have just "picked an argument with someone who buys ink by the
carloadtrain load". Not only would your target - in this case CBS - react by questioning your objectivity, all of journalism would read you out of the fraternity.Journalism functions as a guild which suppresses competition in terms of objectivity. And as such it is entirely capable of promoting its interest with fraud. As it has done with the "McCarthyism" slander. It's impossible to mention the man's name without raising the image of unfair accusations, and yet if you actually investigate real history (using primary sources, and making due allowance for the fact that a claim of being silenced is not credible if published nationwide) you find instead a man who was far more honest than his accusers.
That's a longwinded way of saying that you should not be surprised if science is politicized; liberals politicize everything. And, knowing that, I'm suspicious of any science promoted by journalism which is opposed by conservatives. No doubt that can lead me astray - but that is the way I bet them.
I've not considered their arguments to be so specific and positive. What they say is that there is enough detail in the organization and function of cellular life to merit the suggestion that intelligent design might be responsible for the same. If one wishes to charge those who espouse this idea with wanting to introduce sectarianism into science classes, then he had best be ready to wear the shoe when accused of using evolution to establish the religion of atheists, communists, and all others who use politicize science for their own purposes.
Coulter wrote books marshalling facts and logic. You may disagree with her conclusions, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But what Rather did with Bush was to promote a crude forgery for the patent purpose of forwarding the candidacy of Kerry and torpedoing that of Mr. Bush. and, after the fact was pointed out, refuse to retract it.Where are Ann's forged documents? The comparison with Rather is absurd. Ann is a fast talker, but then when she gets air time she is always given someone who attempts to prevent her from making her case, primarily by filibustering.
Dan Rather's "objectivity" is the left wing fringe; Franken is beyond even that. But at least he doesn't claim objectivity (today. It is however well known that being a leftist activist is no liability whatever when applying for an "objective" journalist job). Ann doesn't claim to be above labels; she's a conservative. And therefore must be "balanced" by a liberal filibusterer if granted an interview. Whereas Al Franken would not automatically be subjected to a conservative interlocuter if he was interviewed as a book author.
Well it's clear you can't both be right. If Ann is as egregiously wrong as you claim, that will certainly compromise her sales in the future.
It would be cool if you would summarize what the post is about.
I got problems with wading through stuff.
I can't swim very well.
Thankfully, in my neck of the woods we are Scott free of your articulateness, and brilliance.
Thanks for playing!
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.