Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 10:46am PT
|
Yes Mark, good post. Grade B+.
Curious if you agree...
(1) Encouraging a science education is not proselytizing (at least not in any pejorative sense the folks of the Silent Generation and the baby boomers knew all too well of/from religious communities).
(2) Your statement, 'I don't know truth and you don't either' can be easily abused. And it is, for strategic purposes, by partisan groups. So phrasing is important - right phrasing is best practices.
Scientific truth: Ag is better conductor of electricity than Al. Historical truth: Japan, not Egypt, bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Empirical truth: In rockclimbing, rappeling is dangerous.
...
I thought we were getting a Like button.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 10:54am PT
|
(1) Encouraging a science education is not proselytizing (at least not in any pejorative sense the folks of the Silent Generation and the baby boomers knew all too well in religious communities).
It is proselytizing if it's promoted at the expense of a humanities education, which is, unfortunately, increasingly the case.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 10:56am PT
|
but that's a strawman as no one does this
insofar as there's criticism of the academic humanities, esp in conservative or far left liberal arts colleges in particular, it's directed at their anti-science attitudes, nowadays, in some venues, running unbridled (denying gender/sex, calling it a social construct, etc).
There's no reason science and the humanities in academic venues can't work together synergistically. Imo, this day is coming. But it's going to require the humanities to evolve (from v.o to v.1). Which will be a good thing.
...
Now if Science simply grows (a result of the Info/IT age) while the humanities (in partic, v.0) don't grow, then note this is a dynamic that has nothing to do with either competing with one another or proselytizing.
It's just that, by its nature and present circumstances, it's what Science does.
Now it's understandable if a humanities professor, from the venue of his academic setting, sees the Sciences in his school getting attn or funding relative to his colleges or depts. But note this would hardly be science's fault.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 11:17am PT
|
It is proselytizing if it's promoted at the expense of a humanities education, which is, unfortunately, increasingly the case.
I've studied science but I've never been encouraged to study science at the expense of studying something else, whether that be humanities or anything. That would be unfortunate.
If your comment makes sense then it follows that promoting humanities at the expense of science education is also unfortunate and sad. And that promoting has been happening in state legislatures, school boards, churches. Of course science and humanities are not mutually exclusive. But apparently your straw man thinks they are.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 01:11pm PT
|
insofar as there's criticism of the academic humanities, esp in conservative or far left liberal arts colleges in particular, it's directed at their anti-science attitudes, nowadays, in some venues, running unbridled (denying gender/sex, calling it a social construct, etc).
There's no reason science and the humanities in academic venues can't work together synergistically. Imo, this day is coming. But it's going to require the humanities to evolve (from v.o to v.1). Which will be a good thing.
.
But it's going to require the humanities to evolve (from v.o to v.1). Which will be a good thing.
The above is a tendentious declaration characterizing the inferiority of the humanities in relation to science. An idea that has no real merit and stands as an act of proselytizing (convincing others of the correct nature of your own faith for the purpose of conversion.)
STEM is now everywhere in education most often at the expense of the humanities and that's a shame. The erosion of the humanities is from both sides of the political spectrum, both sides seeking a justification through practicality of some sort and turning art and literature into social sciences as a means of validation. There is no such attack on science except from the self disqualifying religious right whose opinion counts for very little in the academic world
You people need to look up what a straw man argument is or maybe take a class in rhetoric.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 02:48pm PT
|
It is proselytizing if it's promoted at the expense of a humanities education, which is, unfortunately, increasingly the case.
Your argument is a straw man argument because Fructose is not promoting science at the expense of the humanities. And he made that very clear.
A simple explanation from wiki: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Science is not in opposition to the humanities, even if the two compete for funding. Science doesn't oppose the academic study of religion it simply opposes faith without evidence.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 03:08pm PT
|
Your argument is a straw man argument because Fructose is not promoting science at the expense of the humanities.
Actually he is, as he has throughout this and other threads so I would continue to research what a straw man argument is if I were you. In so far as you continue to use a straw man argument as a straw man argument. A dicey thing to do.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 03:17pm PT
|
Actually, sempervirens is the strawman as he's blind as bat.
Fruitloops has been proselytizing for years here that modern material science IS the only way ......
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 03:40pm PT
|
Actually he is, as he has throughout this and other threads so I would continue to research what a straw man argument is if I were you.
You can't show where my explanation of a straw man is incorrect though. So, further research on that not needed. I clearly showed it to you several times many pages back. Remember, you thought it meant making a generalization?
Instead you're re-interpreting Fructo, fine. I'm not debating other threads or comments. It's the anti-science, as Fructo calls it, that he is attacking. If humanities engage in that (e.g. denying evolution in favor of creationism) then yes science will oppose that. Call it proselytizing if you want, but it's not an attack on humanities. So on the value of the humanities we have no disagreement, so far.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 04:00pm PT
|
Werner,
blind or not, now you are missing the meaning of the straw man concept. But you're right that I have not followed Fruit's comments. I was only commenting on these recent comments from today. At least just read the simple wiki explanation and then we won't have to keep defining terms.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 04:17pm PT
|
Go do an experiment and quit playing with your strawman.
It's all you know is your weird relationship with your strawman.
Are you gay ......
:-)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 06:55pm PT
|
You can't show where my explanation of a straw man is incorrect though.
Your explanation is just fine but your use of the term is ridiculous.
So, further research on that not needed. I clearly showed it to you several times many pages back. Remember, you thought it meant making a generalization?
What? You lost me on this one. I never said or thought anything of the kind.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 06:55pm PT
|
Keep the charge, sempervirens. Don't be apologetic about being pro-science.
Anyone with a strong science background (which excludes a lot of people incl several here) who's paid attention to the relations between academic science and academic humanities understands how anti-science the latter is or has become - esp at liberal arts schools, whether private conservative or public liberal.
As you know, it's important to remember the religious age the West is only now really, truly emerging from, growing out of. So it's a given folks like you and me and others get the blowback we get. Chalking it up to growing pains - cultural or civilizational, individual too, as the case may be, as well - helps make sense of it, helps me make sense of it.
Call me a guarded optimist but imo none of the Abrahamic religions as we knew them in the 20th century, and even as we know them today, will exist 100 years from now.
Progress, funeral by funeral.
...
A few here at ST on this thread say they're pro-science. But that's not the case it seems to me.
100 years from now, it won't be "just" science. (As PaulR and others like to caricature us as believing.) It will be science and some other. Some "other" tbd (to be defined) that addresses "what matters" in addition to "what is" and "what works". But it won't be any "religion" that relies on the supernatural for its viability else reason for being. My view.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 08:30pm PT
|
There are nearly eight billion humans alive on the planet now, and that’s a big number: more than twice as many as were alive 50 years ago. -ksr
Kim Stanley Robinson is always worth a listen - or in this case a read...
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson
At least take in the opening picture to this article!
"The future is radically unknowable: it could hold anything from an age of peaceful prosperity to a horrific mass-extinction event. The sheer breadth of possibility is disorienting and even stunning."
"Income adequacy and progressive taxation keep the poorest and richest from damaging the biosphere in the ways that extreme poverty or wealth do. Peace, justice, equality and the rule of law are all necessary survival strategies."
"All this can be done. All this needs to be done if we are to make it through the emergency centuries we face and create a civilised permaculture, something we can pass along to the future generations as a good home. There is no alternative way; there is no planet B. We have only this planet, and have to fit our species into the energy flows of its biosphere. That’s our project now. That’s the meaning of life, in case you were looking for a meaning." -Kim Stanley Robinson
...
The Eremocine: the Age of Loneliness
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 08:47pm PT
|
So, further research on that not needed. I clearly showed it to you several times many pages back. Remember, you thought it meant making a generalization?
What? You lost me on this one. I never said or thought anything of the kind.
Feb. 26, 2018
You understand what a straw man argument is, right?
Let's see, is that when you make some bogus generalization against religion and use it as a point of certainty in an argument?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 09:06pm PT
|
(1) Encouraging a science education is not proselytizing (at least not in any pejorative sense the folks of the Silent Generation and the baby boomers knew all too well of/from religious communities).
(2) Your statement, 'I don't know truth and you don't either' can be easily abused. And it is, for strategic purposes, by partisan groups. So phrasing is important - right phrasing is best practices.
Scientific truth: Ag is better conductor of electricity than Al. Historical truth: Japan, not Egypt, bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Empirical truth: In rockclimbing, rappeling is dangerous.
Passionately advocating is different than proselytizing. Your commonly holier than thou attitude often crosses into the realm of proselytizing. I’m a passionate advocate for science, but I find that sharing the beauty and pleasures of experiencing the scientific mindset usually inspires more than shoving it down people's throats while telling them they should be liking it. You’re most effective when you share the delight of the thing. Give people mouth-watering bites of that and they will then develop a taste and want more.
Also, play more notes and you’ll catch more people’s ears.
What I said is that I don’t know the TRUTH and you don’t either. I didn’t say that you don’t know things that are true. That Ag is a better conductor than Al, Japan bombed Pearl Habor, and rappelling is dangerous fit into things that are easily known to be true like hitting your thumb with a hammer hurts.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 09:14pm PT
|
your commonly holier than thou attitude... MarkF
holier than thou? how about smarter than thou? lol
seems a better fit if you're trying for an effective riposte
:)
seriously though, I think I'm rather pretty tame compared to a couple others here... nothwithstanding hartouni's remarks a couple months ago about ME being "uncivil" (in my posts) I think the wording was.
Perhaps the "uncivil" was my calling MikeL a post-modernist - that's the nearest I can figure - at least in the last four or five years. But as I pointed out MikeL freely admits to the label and in his world, "post-modernist" is hardly a bad word.
I mentioned hartouni, I suppose, only because we all know you're a hartouni fan, eh.
For passionate advocating, I'd suggest a review of Sagan's Demon Haunted World (the book BASE used to always bang on about) - then we could split hairs between "passionate advocating" and your "proselytizing" which by the way has its origins in religions, not science. So in my book at least, it's rather uncool to flip the script from religion to science. It feels rather alt-right and trumpian to my lights. Always has. Like some calling science aficionados fundamentalists. Weak beer, imo.
I mentioned Sagan because I thought you were something of a Sagan fan. If so, then you surely know he got a great deal of blowback from religious communities in the 80s and 90s especially. Holier than thou? I suppose some in these timelines could have interpreted him so.
Remember too, Mark, I gave your post a Grade B+, not C-. So chin up!
PS.
If memory serves, you don't think much of Richard Dawkins and his approaches/stances against religions/religious people, for eg. Maybe to your lights, he presents with this holier than thou attitude? So in the end we might just have to agree to disagree. Because Dawkins is an intellectual hero in my book.
Have a good one.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 09:42pm PT
|
Proselytize
Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another
holier than thou? how about smarter than thou? lol It’s possible. Not likely, but possible.
Dawkins has some good stuff. I liked The Magic of Reality. Especially since I’m totally enamored with the magic of reality.
My stand is still that the whole atheism thing is in the realm of religious/philosophical argumentation and isn’t really a worthy of a scientific position.
To say there is god is a religious statement; to say there is no god is a religious statement.
I totally love science and the pursuit of scientific inquiry. And, I generally find atheists as boring as theists.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 09:47pm PT
|
Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
Attempt to convert from one opinion to another? Really, as a sub-definition you have a problem with this? In debate? In politics? In intellectual discussions? In philosophizing?
You're welcome of course to your definition of "proselytizing". But yours ain't mine. Have at it.
Attempts to convert from one opinion or belief to another - esp on grounds of reason and show of evidence - is how progress is made. Really, over the sweep of history, what could be more patently obvious?!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2018 - 09:57pm PT
|
I already told you I know I’m a weirdo and I don’t care if you buy my sh#t.
At least make it interesting conversation/debate.
You’re far more interesting when you’re sharing and far less so when you’re selling.
The definition isn’t mine, I listed the primary definition from Oxford of proselytizing. It doesn’t matter the arena. You can be ridiculously dense - still haven’t made up my mind if it’s essential or purposeful. Your logic here is the same you decry others for. Can you identify the logical fallacy?
Introspection
The examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes.
Note: also from Oxford’s
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!