[X] My Assistant

[The Messenger]

There *are* two sides to the question (well, a top and a bottom, anyway!).

Bob Shaw

The reason for not teaching the controversy is simple: It is fair and ethical to attack scientific theories - this is part of the critical analysis concept. But put the shoe on the other foot, and start critically analyzing dogma, and all hell breaks loose - children run home crying to their parents because the whole class laughed when they started telling the class how the world sits on the back of a giant turtle.

Many tenents of religion are also considered scientific facts, or consistent with scientific theories, such as what constitutes good parenting. We separate matters of faith from matters of science because of a single criteria: There is not proof. Critical analysis of religion is best addressed in the the philosophy classroom.

[Bob Shaw]

The reason for not teaching the controversy is simple: It is fair and ethical to attack scientific theories - this is part of the critical analysis concept. But put the shoe on the other foot, and start critically analyzing dogma, and all hell breaks loose - children run home crying to their parents because the whole class laughed when they started telling the class how the world sits on the back of a giant turtle.

Many tenents of religion are also considered scientific facts, or consistent with scientific theories, such as what constitutes good parenting. We separate matters of faith from matters of science because of a single criteria: There is not proof. Critical analysis of religion is best addressed in the the philosophy classroom.

Excuse me? Oh, come on. As rational scientific beings, we all know that the world *doesn't* sit on the back of a turtle.

You know as well as I do that the world *sits* on the backs of Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon, and Jerakeen, and that *they* stand on the back of Great A'Tuin!

You could be stoned for this, you know - or worse, if the Gods get off their bottoms...

...Pah! Can't get the staff!

Bob Shaw

[dvandorn]

And when asked what the great turtle stood upon, the child said it stood upon another turtle. And when asked what THAT turtle stood upon, the child replied, why, another turtle, of course. When a further question began to form, the child interrupted and said "I see where you're going with this, and it's no use. It's turtles all the way down!"

-the other Doug

[edstrick]

Capcom to Astronaut: "Are you a turtle?"

[dvandorn]

You bet your sweet [recorded off live loop] I am!

-the other Doug

[Bob Shaw]

No asses, just elephantses...

Bob Shaw

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[ljk4-1]

There *are* two sides to the question (well, a top and a bottom, anyway!).

Bob Shaw

You mean THESE guys?

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskop...arthsociety.htm

[ljk4-1]

'Darwin Day' Comes to Cornell

http://www.cornellsun.com/news/2006/02/06/...l-1599978.shtml


And as for Earth on the back of a giant turtle...

http://www.jonlomberg.com/oa_turtle.html

[Bob Shaw]

And as for Earth on the back of a giant turtle...

http://www.jonlomberg.com/oa_turtle.html

Heresy! Where are the sacred elephants? And why is the world *round*? (choke)

The Young Unreformed Cultists of Bel-Sheggaroth may wish to have a brief word with you...

Bob Shaw

PS Aaaaiiii!

[Bob Shaw]

And *nobody* draw any cartoons, OK?

Bob Shaw

[dvandorn]

Who needs cartoons, when I can link to sites like this?



-the other Doug

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

People who (sincerely) think that the world lies on the back of a turtle are in general people of endangered native cultures, and telling them "the truth" often just triggers their moral degradation.

That such peoples think that the world lies on a turtle back is certainly a problem, but much lesser than destroying all our native cultures and letting these people become derelicts, tramps and alcoholics, as it often happens when native people lose their traditionnal cultural beacons without being able to learn ours.

So mocking at these people is certainly not the solution. It is a kind of arrogance "we know and you don't know". That we are scientifically true don't lesser the arrogance, it rather makes it more painful for the victims. By the way we may have more important things to learn from them, such as respecting our world, wherever it lies on a turtle back or not.

I think better ways are possible, such as learning science to everybody, while still respecting their traditionnal culture and foundation stories. After all, we still all have in mind the image of Atlas bearing the world, this don't forbid us to make science, and this don't make cultists of us.

(Modern cultists are another story, and in peculiar they don't really need to be preserved).

[ljk4-1]

Teaching Evolution

http://www.cornellsun.com/news/2006/02/13/...n-1610163.shtml


C.U. Screens New I.D. Documentary, Sparks Debate

http://www.cornellsun.com/news/2006/02/13/...e-1610184.shtml

[Stephen]

So mocking at these people is certainly not the solution. It is a kind of arrogance "we know and you don't know". That we are scientifically true don't lesser the arrogance, it rather makes it more painful for the victims. By the way we may have more important things to learn from them, such as respecting our world, wherever it lies on a turtle back or not.

Um, that argument could easily be used against science by the Intelligent Design crowd. (Not to mention Richard Hoagland's supporters!) If we are to be required to "respect" the world views of those who believe that the world resides on turtle backs why not the world views of those who believe that the world was made by an intelligent designer in 7 days or the world views of those who believe that there is a "face" on Mars made by intelligent aliens?

And how far does this "respect" extend? If the world-is-on-a-turtle-back believers request/expect/demand that their children be taught in schools that the world resides on a turtle back (so as to preserve their cultural heritage etc etc) do we oblige them?

======
Stephen

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Um, that argument could easily be used against science by the Intelligent Design crowd. (Not to mention Richard Hoagland's supporters!) If we are to be required to "respect" the world views of those who believe that the world resides on turtle backs why not the world views of those who believe that the world was made by an intelligent designer in 7 days or the world views of those who believe that there is a "face" on Mars made by intelligent aliens?

And how far does this "respect" extend? If the world-is-on-a-turtle-back believers request/expect/demand that their children be taught in schools that the world resides on a turtle back (so as to preserve their cultural heritage etc etc) do we oblige them?

======
Stephen

Interesting question, Stephen.

And a real concern.

When I was saying "respecting" I was meaning not to mock, not to humiliate, not to say "they are primitive" or "they can't do without our intelligence" as it was so often practicized with the justification of colonialism. But is keeping people in ignorance still respecting them?

This is a very difficult question, as there is no simple way to set the limit.


Two anecdotes, to indicate the difficulty of this problem.
-In amazonian or Papua jungles, there are still some tribes who never had contacts with our civilization. Today the trend of ethnologists and ecologists is to left them as such, as nearby alway this contact resulted to he fast degradation of these societies, and even to their disappearance. Yes, but I feel a bit sad when I think that these guies are deprived of all the good in our civilization, that they will never see Mars images on this forum, that they will miss so much marvelous infos...
-In France there was some children judges confronted to difficuld behaviours of african teenagers. They invited all the family in their cabinet, to perform a traditional tribal council. So these judges discovered that those chidren were kind of story tellers in their traditionnal societies, and thus they enjoyed a high social statute of adult or cultural leader, which was denied to them in the ordinary school. So the judges were able to explain our laws while respecting their culture, and settle the problems in a spectacular way.

These anecdotes tell us that, if there is no universal theory about the interaction of "civilized peoples" with "traditionnal societies", there are lot of pragmatic ways to live together, to the unique condition of abandonning our pride of thinking we are better than them.

Are we really better? In science, perhaps. But in other domains?

But, as you say, this approach of accepting "other cultures" can easily be taken over by people like the ID folks. The fault of the ID proponents is not ID itself, but their way to enforce it as if it was "THE TRUTH".

Again there is no simple solution to this, we must just keep vigilant, about new attacks and novel forms of attack.

Let us remember that the attacks against science are not the only actions of fundamentalist christian activists. They also love to do "information about cults" to denigrate any other form of spirituality than their own dogmatic beliefs. When they denigrate the new Age, they are doing the same business than when they attack science. Just the next department. Remember that the inquisition is not finished, it just changed name. They abandoned stakes (but could light them again if we let them do) but did not abandoned their vicious methods of misinformation, mind control and public humiliation.