Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Apr 2005 02:33:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1610 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> Basically, I think at some point they'd
> have no choice but to cave, or simply emphatically deny you and accuse your
> evidence as inaccurate rather than inconclusive.
The latter option is the one that they invariably choose, and sometimes they add
that the veracity of the bible is not subordinate to a conflicting reality.
Alas.
> > When attempting to determine if Helga loves you, don't you formulate certain
> > behaviors that Helga would have to demonstrate in order to "qualify" as
> > loving you?
>
> So what's the distinction between the George & Martha bit and the me & Helga
> bit? Isn't the most I can determine about whether or not Helga loves me that she
> professes it to be so? Just like in the G&M example, it's falsifiable. If we
> found a letter from Martha to her sister wherein she said "Oh my crap. I hate
> this George guy. I wish he never got me pregnant at 15 so I had to marry him."
> I'd say that's empirical evidence to suggest that she DIDN'T love George, just
> as letters signed "Love, Martha" would be evidence to support that she DID.
The difference with Helga is that (barring some odd preferences on your part)
she's alive, and her behavior can be observed along with her own testimony,
rather than her testimony alone (or the testimony of others). If Helga's
behavior is consistent with your expectation of how a loved one would act, then
you may conclude that she doesn't love you, regardless of her testimony. So
ultimately you can draw conclusions about her professed love[1] as well as her
demonstrated love (or the lack of either).
[1] Initially I wrote "profession of love," but since I just sort of suggested
that you and Helga are into necrophilia, it seemed untoward to suggest that
she's a prostitute, too.
But at any rate I see what you're saying, and I agree that Helga/DaveE and
Martha/George not totally dissimilar, though they do have certain fundamental
differences.
> Effectively, my argument is that it's *sorta* empirical. Not science by any
> means, but empirical nonetheless.
I'm glad you made that distinction--I failed to do so in my previous post, but I
should have.
> My experiences as a human have shown me common
> behaviors from people who "love" one another, and situation X seems to show that
> person Y loves person Z. Hence, it's empirical because it's based on firsthand
> evidence, but NOT empirical because it's not even a bona fide definable concept.
Honestly, I'm not sure how rigidly or precisely the concept needs to be defined,
but that's more of a tangential point than what we're really discussing, I
guess.
> I'm still sort of wondering where creationism belongs, though. I
> sort of want to put it beside evolution because, like I said above, I want kids
> to have to choose, not have the choice already made for them. However, like you
> said (and I'd agree) I don't think it really *belongs* in science class. I
> dunno. But regardless, I think I'm convincing myself that both *should* be
> taught.
I'm going to stick to my guns and say that creationism belongs nowhere near a
science class, but I'll propose a possible option. See how this grabs you:
Teach the scientific method and the methods of critical thought. Then expose
the students to (whatever brand of) creationism and evolution in equally
objective terms. Students could be encouraged to examine each theory and decide
which better corresponds to the methods of science and critical thinking. If
the students are honestly equipped to make the choice, I'm confident that the
majority would accept evolution as the far more likely explanation.
One other point--to include the instruction (rather than the mere mention) of
creationism in the classroom amounts to State endorsement of religion. This has
been borne out by SCOTUS precedent, though I don't have the casename in front of
me.
On the whole, this has been a very pleasant debate. Even that totally unhinged
8-wide zealot (and closet clone-brand-fan) John Neal has seemed to enjoy
himself. Bravo to all of us for not descending into the bitter shouting matches
that used to stink up OT.Debate.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
