Anti-Science

[The Supreme Canuck]

The BA coined a new term to describe pseudo-scientists in the BABlog in this entry (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=63). He calls them anti-scientists. The reasons are described in the entry. I like this new term. I'll be using it from now on, and I think we all should make an effort to do so. It's more to the point, and is far less ambiguous.

Might as well call it like it is, right?

[beskeptical]

My comments may be a bit political but I think we need to distinguish between those that are anti-science and those that don't know the difference between evidence supports vs no evidence.

I think there are some extreme religious folks that view science as a threat to their beliefs. This group truly is anti-science. They would be the ones trying to equate science with religion and claiming their religious beliefs are supported by science.]

The other group just doesn't get it when it comes to what is supported by evidence and what isn't. This is the group we need to be doing a better job teaching in their early school years.

I also think we need to be campaigning a bit more in the media. I urge everyone to write more letters to editors of all news sources and post more in blogs and forums whenever you see bad science.[/list]

[Metricyard]

I read The BA's blog the other day. Good read as always.

And I do like the term Anti-scientist, but wonder if a more politically correct term would be better, say, for instance "Scientifically Impaired" ?

It does have a nice ring to it.

:D

[frogesque]

I'd go wary down that route. Anti has connotations - especially in a religious context. Should I feel the need I'm comfortable that I can find my own terms to describe a stance as the occasion presents itself.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Let me clarify: I'd be absolutely comfortable calling Nancy Lieder or Bart Sibrel an anti-scientist, but I'd call a high school student who doesn't know any better someone who needs to be taught. Only those who actively and purposefully reject scientific thought and reason should be labelled anti-scientists. The point is to make sure that ordinary people are not taken in.

Added:


I also think we need to be campaigning a bit more in the media. I urge everyone to write more letters to editors of all news sources and post more in blogs and forums whenever you see bad science.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've been thinking of sending my local paper a request for a weekly (or hopefully daily) science and tech section. They already have a weekly tech section, why not just add in the science?

[Maksutov]

I nominate Nancy Lieder for Anti Science. I also nominate Bart Sibrel for Uncle Science (what he had to have said when Buzz was about to continue the whuppin"). Finally I nominate the rest, such as Sitchin, Kaysing, Rene, Neville and Alex (the list goes on), based on what kind of language they probably use every time one of their pet claims gets debunked, as the various Cussins of Anti and Uncle Science.

All in the family. Cue the Vic Mizzy (http://www.vicmizzy.com/home.html) theme music. 8)

[Gillianren]

you know, I read that blog, and it reminded me of how I got here in the first place. I first encountered the book (there's a book attached to this website, you know), and was so delighted with it that I sought out the website. I was then so delighted with the website that I sought out the board. I gather this is not the usual way of it?

in short, Phil is such an excellent writer that I actually joined a scientific board even though I'm definitely not a scientist. proving once again that there actually is some crossover between liberal arts people and science.

[mwill]

I like the term anti-science. It will fit into my vernacualr wonderfully, considering how steaming mad I get when I hear about things like the moon hoax and UFO's and crop circles. Ugh, I'm getting mad already. :evil: But I agree that pseudo-scientist is definatly too weak of a term. That makes it sound like they actually do some science.

As far as the media: Angry-letter writing to producers of bad science would be a hobby of mine if it weren't so hard to get in contact with anybody. I wanted to point something out to the History Channel once but there is no possible way to contact them. There little comment box is broken and there's no email addresses. I tried to contact my local fox news station once after running a time-lapse video supposedy showing meteors at sunset, (They were obviously airplanes reflecting sunlight), but I never got a hold of anyone.


And I do like the term Anti-scientist, but wonder if a more politically correct term would be better, say, for instance "Scientifically Impaired" ?

:D
[/i]

[Melusine]

The other group just doesn't get it when it comes to what is supported by evidence and what isn't. This is the group we need to be doing a better job teaching in their early school years.

I also think we need to be campaigning a bit more in the media. I urge everyone to write more letters to editors of all news sources and post more in blogs and forums whenever you see bad science.[/list]
Great idea, or great reminder, BestSkeptical. I don't know that the pen is always mightier than the sword, but it's better than doing nothing!

I like the term anti-science, too, as an idiomatic expression that can include both religious and non-religious people (as noted, there are religious people on BABB who are not anti-science); it's basically synonomous with anti-critical thinking...though that's such a long phrase. Since science and critical thinking have to go hand in hand to be reasonable, then it's a good term:

Anti-science = ID'ers
Anti-science = Flat-earthers
Anti-science = astrologers
Anti-science = UFO conspiracists
Anti-science = moon hoax believers
Anti-science = Christian Scientists*

*I say that last one, because a friend of mine died of breast cancer and she was raised as a Christian Scientist, and thus believed in the power of prayer to heal, and she ignored the lump for way too long. She did, in fact, renounce that aspect of Christian Science and went through all sorts of surgeries and new methods once the tumor had spread to her brain, but alas it was ultimately too late. She knew the lump was there, but she ignored it until she was feeling so sick, and as a newscaster on TV, she had to do something. Some of her last feelings (she was sending me chapters for a book that was to be published) were about prayer not being enough to cure a tumor (or medical problems in general), and how angry/betrayed she felt for letting it go too long, but she had not been raised in the habit of going to doctors every time she had a cough. Science could have healed her.

[Maksutov]

Melusine,

That's so sad it's beyond description, especially in 2005 CE.

I've known that kind of sadness too. It's never forgotten.

[Melusine]

Melusine,

That's so sad it's beyond description, especially in 2005 CE.

I've known that kind of sadness too. It's never forgotten.
I'm sorry Maksutov, I wasn't trying to make anyone sad, and I'm sorry for triggering that memory, I was just illustrating the "craziness" of an anti-science religion as an example, and how it can screw up people's heads (she died in 1998, btw, but still). Again, I don't have a social problem with people who believe in fate or some unknown power behind all of creation--it's not something we'll ever know for sure--my concern is that history has shown that religions or say, belief in witches (i.e. Salem Witch Trials) has been a set-back on human scientific advancement, and we could sure use all the advancement we can get. :D

I'm concerned with the arguments about global warming, because it's already evident that mankind has had or can have a profound effect on the environment. How much the planet can take is debatable.

[N C More]

The aspect that I find very interesting (in a bit of a perverse sense) is when ouvertly anti-science folks actually latch onto something scientific to base their anti-scientific claims upon! The moon hoax guys, the Geocentrists, various conspiracy theorists, religious extremists all frequently attempt to use certain aspects of science to support their positions but then quickly turn around and "nay say" when science finds their beliefs to be unsupported! It's like, science is valid only when it supports what they already believe is the truth. Very weird, IMO.

[mannisue]

I nominate Nancy Lieder for Anti Science. I also nominate Bart Sibrel for Uncle Science (what he had to have said when Buzz was about to continue the whuppin"). Finally I nominate the rest, such as Sitchin, Kaysing, Rene, Neville and Alex (the list goes on), based on what kind of language they probably use every time one of their pet claims gets debunked, as the various Cussins of Anti and Uncle Science.

All in the family. Cue the Vic Mizzy (http://www.vicmizzy.com/home.html) theme music. 8)

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

dum dum dum dum (snap! snap!)
they're creepy and they're kooky,
mysterious and spooky,
they're altogether ooky,
They're Nancy's family!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[A Thousand Pardons]

The BA coined a new term to describe pseudo-scientists in the BABlog in this entry (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=63). He calls them anti-scientists. The reasons are described in the entry. I like this new term. I'll be using it from now on, and I think we all should make an effort to do so. It's more to the point, and is far less ambiguous. ght?
John Maddox, editor of Nature, wrote about anitscience in 1994. I think anti-science, as such, is important to science. Link (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/nature.htm): "Advocates of science must also invite criticism, as criticism of the basic tenets of science is the only way in which science can progress. Must this criticism come only from the true believers? That would produce an ultimately sterile philosophy. Science, in the mirror of anti-science, has its blemishes magnified, and that is good for science."

[Gillianren]

on the subject of anti-medicine . . . .

my mother, despite the arthritis in her knees, does the Avon Walk for the Cure every year. the first time she did it, she sent a letter to everyone in the family and all the friends of the family to ask them to sponsor her.

my uncle, who's born again, was in town visiting my grandmother, who died of Parkinson's a few months ago (this would have been 1998 or so), and came to visit. he said, "now, Mary, you know that Carla (wife #2) and I have been born again, right?"

and my Irish Catholic mother said, "uh huh," because it's marginally more polite than, "yeah, whatever."

"well, now, that means we believe in the power of prayer. like we wanted a computer, and we both prayed, and the church remembered that they owed Carla some money, and we could afford one."

my mother said, "uh huh" again. this time, what she didn't say was, "and why did they owe Carla money? oh, that's right . . . she worked for it!"

"and it's the same with sickness. if you get sick, you pray. if you don't get better, it's not the Lord's will."

now, by this point, my mother is doing a slow burn (our family's good at those), because she, too, had a friend with breast cancer--I'm pretty sure that is past tense at this point--and that was why she was doing it in the first place. "I see," my mother said, and having by now given up on code, she continued, "I would have rather you just said no."

she told me this story, and threw in "God helps those who help themselves," which is a legitimate point. however, I've a different view.

how do you know that penicillin, chemotherapy, etc., aren't the answer to your prayers? this is not an age of direct miracles, though remission is a kind of miracle, too. besides, I'm sure if you took a woman from 400 years ago who was in labor and gave her Demerol, she'd think that was a miracle. (actually, I'm writing a book with a character who comes forward in time from about 1553, and she sure thinks smallpox vaccination is a miracle.)

now, this is getting pretty religious, and I'm sorry, Phil. I guess my point is that it's entirely possible to reconcile science and religion, in this case using medicine, and that, since they don't have to be in conflict, it's more a problem with the person than the institution. (except for organized religions that forbid modern medicine, which is child abuse and actually illegal to make your children obey in some states.)

[The Supreme Canuck]

<Snip>

which is child abuse and actually illegal to make your children obey in some states.)

That comes up every now and then in Canada. The government simply makes the child a state ward, treats them, and then gives the kid back to the parents.

[Glom]

Ahh! A thread about the IPCC. Whoops! #-o

[Metricyard]

on the subject of anti-medicine . . . .
Snip...

Without even metioning religion, I just can't see how so many people will shun and disrust modern medicine, but gladly shove "suppliments" with all kinds of shady claims down there throat.

Now I know there is nothing taking a vitamin supplement, but sometimes, I look at some of the bottles and wonder exactly what in the world is in these things.

Let's take the latest fade, silver. Why is so popular? Yah, it works great cleaning operating rooms. I'm sure Lysol does a good job too, but Im not about to strart spraying it down my throat as a mouthmash.

It's always a good idea to qestion doctors of course, but why won't people question "Natural Medicine"?

[mannisue]

on the subject of anti-medicine . . . .

how do you know that penicillin, chemotherapy, etc., aren't the answer to your prayers?

With this, gillianren, I have to agree wholeheartedly. There was a woman in the town that I live, that, a few years ago, suffered an agonizing death from cervical and ovarian cancer: she would not go to the doctor, in that she thouroughly believed in homeopathic remedies (none of her children were immunized because of this mode of thinking.) To me, this a dangerous and irresponsible way of life.

I believe that in light of the much publicized, media-hyped "conspiracy theories" against the health of the general population (keep them sick, population control, etc. :roll:,) staunch fundamentalist religious practice and other scariness that overruns our society, that there are too many people that suffer needlessly. While, too, there are also a large group of people who take medications without warrant, such as antibiotics and painkillers, we need to find a happy medium. I hate to break it to "believers," but modern medical advances, in my opinion, are the answer to many, many prayers. 8)

[zebo-the-fat]

I do like the term Anti-scientist, but wonder if a more politically correct term would be better, say, for instance "Scientifically Impaired" ?

How about "Hard of thinking"?
:D

[Halcyon Dayz]

How about "Hard of thinking"? :D

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Maksutov]

The BA coined a new term to describe pseudo-scientists in the BABlog in this entry (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=63). He calls them anti-scientists. The reasons are described in the entry. I like this new term. I'll be using it from now on, and I think we all should make an effort to do so. It's more to the point, and is far less ambiguous. ght?
John Maddox, editor of Nature, wrote about anitscience in 1994. I think anti-science, as such, is important to science. Link (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/nature.htm): "Advocates of science must also invite criticism, as criticism of the basic tenets of science is the only way in which science can progress. Must this criticism come only from the true believers? That would produce an ultimately sterile philosophy. Science, in the mirror of anti-science, has its blemishes magnified, and that is good for science."
First, Mentock's mixing in of religious and philosophical terminology is inappropriate to such a discussion. Not matter how hard practitioners of those two fields (especially the former) attempt to dilute science through claims of equivalence, they're wrong. There's no room in science for "true believers" or "philosophers".

Re "antiscience" his point is ill-founded. The object of science isn't the production of a "philosophy" (thus the remark about "That would produce an ultimately sterile philosophy." is not applicable), it's about producing reliable data about nature. The scientific method has built into it mechanisms for self-criticism, such as the testing any hypothesis will be subject to in order to assure that it produces reliable results. As the BA wrote, "Science uses evidence, is testable, and if it fails the test, the idea is modified or dropped." This process has been going on for hundreds of years now, and the various fields of science are more alive now than any time in the past, and definitely not "sterile".

Another thing that destroys his argument is the significant difference between scientific criticism and the wild speculations of the antiscientists. This is similar to the difference between having your calculus assignment graded by a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics and by someone who can't add 1 + 1.

Note: The section in quotes in the ATP post above isn't by John Maddox (folks reading the post who don't go to the link may get the impression it is), but by a Richard Mentock, of Durham, NC. Mentock, NC, ATP, NC...coincidence?

BTW, what's "anitscience"? A field for the antiscience nit pickers? :wink: :D

[Maksutov]

I do like the term Anti-scientist, but wonder if a more politically correct term would be better, say, for instance "Scientifically Impaired" ?

How about "Hard of thinking"?
:D
I think that is outstanding! =D> =D> =D>

[A Thousand Pardons]

First, Mentock's mixing in of religious and philosophical terminology is inappropriate to such a discussion.
Maddox started it. :)

Not matter how hard practitioners of those two fields (especially the former) attempt to dilute science through claims of equivalence, they're wrong. There's no room in science for "true believers" or "philosophers".
I did not say they were equivalent. Just ask soupdragon. :)

Of course there is room in science for philosophers. Mach's work was often as much philosophical as not. And Einstein's remarkable results proceded from that philosophy, shaped by his own philosophy. Philosophy does not dilute science, it augments it.


Another thing that destroys his argument is the significant difference between scientific criticism and the wild speculations of the antiscientists. This is similar to the difference between having your calculus assignment graded by a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics and by someone who can't add 1 + 1.
Unfortunately, it's a continuum. There is no sharp and well-defined dividing line like that. There may be a significant difference between one endpoint and the other, but in between, the difference is subtle.

Folks all along the continuum try to insist that their foes are on the wrong side of that dividing line, while their foes do the same thing, instead of addressing the issues. That's the key.


coincidence?
Nope.


BTW, what's "anitscience"? A field for the antiscience nit pickers? :wink: :D
"Not matter" :)

[Maksutov]

First, Mentock's mixing in of religious and philosophical terminology is inappropriate to such a discussion.
Maddox started it. :)

Not matter how hard practitioners of those two fields (especially the former) attempt to dilute science through claims of equivalence, they're wrong. There's no room in science for "true believers" or "philosophers".
I did not say they were equivalent. Just ask soupdragon. :)

Of course there is room in science for philosophers. Mach's work was often as much philosophical as not. And Einstein's remarkable results proceded from that philosophy, shaped by his own philosophy. Philosophy does not dilute science, it augments it.


Another thing that destroys his argument is the significant difference between scientific criticism and the wild speculations of the antiscientists. This is similar to the difference between having your calculus assignment graded by a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics and by someone who can't add 1 + 1.
Unfortunately, it's a continuum. There is no sharp and well-defined dividing line like that. There may be a significant difference between one endpoint and the other, but in between, the difference is subtle.

Folks all along the continuum try to insist that their foes are on the wrong side of that dividing line, while their foes do the same thing, instead of addressing the issues. That's the key.


coincidence?
Nope.


BTW, what's "anitscience"? A field for the antiscience nit pickers? :wink: :D
"Not matter" :)
So Nancy Lieder, Richard Hoagland, and Richard Feynman are part of the same continuum? Right! :lol:

Wrong! That "continuum" statement throws the content of your post into such a light that there's really nothing left to comment on.

Except for, I left "Not matter" in there to give you something to do that you apparently consider useful. Why do you think I ended my reply with the phrase "nit pickers"? :D Your correction is the one part of your post that stands to reason. The rest? Too close to metaphysics for comfort.


WORF
Sir, I'm getting very strange reports from all decks --

PICARD
Such as?

WORF
Such as the ship's training division ordering all officers to attend a lecture on metaphysics.

PICARD
Metaphysics?

DATA
Confirmed, sir. And there is a rather peculiar limerick being delivered by someone in the shuttlecraft bay. I am not sure I understand it...
(quoting)
There was a young lady from Venus...

[David Carroll]

While compiling our list of antiscientists let's not forget those embarrassments to the progressive movement, the anarcho/socialist/enviro/animal rights crowd who use biotech and biomedical research as the whipping boys for their causes against animal "abusers" and "evil" corporations.

[beskeptical]

While compiling our list of antiscientists let's not forget those embarrassments to the progressive movement, the anarcho/socialist/enviro/animal rights crowd who use biotech and bimedical research as the whipping boys for their causes against animal "abusers" and "evil" corporations.Hear hear!! But I can't say as much as I'd like to without getting political.

I am getting very annoyed at the bizaro crowd hijacking the left wing political movement just as the evangelical extremists are hijacking the right. I see I'm not the only one to notice.

Air America, (Progressive talk radio), has had numerous nonsense programs on like the mercury in your fillings causes Alzheimer's because some chemistry professor believes it. :roll:

They have ad after ad for homeopathy and other not evidence based medicine. One that lately has been annoying me is the one claiming, "You don't get a headache from a Tylenol deficiency". Aarrrgghh!!! No and Tylenol doesn't treat a deficiency. It teaches bad logic and bad medicine all in one. Definitely anti-science.

So I guess my first comment was off. I do think these guys are anti-science, just in a different style than the anti-science religious movement that is more direct about their disdain for science.

[A Thousand Pardons]

So Nancy Lieder, Richard Hoagland, and Richard Feynman are part of the same continuum? Right!
A continuum goes from one extreme to another, and even beyond.


Wrong! That "continuum" statement throws the content of your post into such a light that there's really nothing left to comment on.

I didn't mention Lieder or Feynman. But they probably would be close to the extremes, about as far aprat as you can get. That's no implication on Feynman, no more than just using the names in the same sentence.

There are people who are lesser scientists than Feynman, and people who are lesser whatevers than Lieder. And it's not even linear. There are seemingly perfectly rational people who suddenly get bent out of shape, to various degrees. It happens. It's a continuum, it's not a matter of discrete types. It's not a matter of one side versus the other side. I wish it were.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]Air America, (Progressive talk radio), has had numerous nonsense programs on like the mercury in your fillings causes Alzheimer's because some chemistry professor believes it. :roll:

They have ad after ad for homeopathy and other not evidence based medicine. One that lately has been annoying me is the one claiming, "You don't get a headache from a Tylenol deficiency". Aarrrgghh!!! No and Tylenol doesn't treat a deficiency. It teaches bad logic and bad medicine all in one. Definitely anti-science.[Snip!]
I live in one of the metropolitan areas that does not have an Air America affiliate, so i haven't heard this. Problem is, if that's all they can get to pay the bills ... :(

I'll have to tune in to Rush Limbaugh for a bit of "Hate Radio" and see what nostrums they're advertising there. I mainly remember Garlique, but I'm sure there are others. I generally don't listen much to Rush anymore, he stopped being entertaining a good 7 or 8 years ago. I only tune in once in a while to see what is knotting the undergarments of reactionary America. Oh how I long for Imus in the Morning! :D

[Grey]

...no more than just using the names in the same sentence.
This is completely off-topic, but I'm reminded of a time years ago, when a friend made a statement about Madonna and Bach in the same sentence. I no longer recall what the statement was, but I remember that he carefully exhaled and then inhaled in the middle of the sentence, between saying their names, just to make sure that he wasn't mentioning them in the same breath. :D

[Maksutov]

So Nancy Lieder, Richard Hoagland, and Richard Feynman are part of the same continuum? Right!
A continuum goes from one extreme to another, and even beyond.


Wrong! That "continuum" statement throws the content of your post into such a light that there's really nothing left to comment on.

I didn't mention Lieder or Feynman. But they probably would be close to the extremes, about as far aprat as you can get. That's no implication on Feynman, no more than just using the names in the same sentence.

There are people who are lesser scientists than Feynman, and people who are lesser whatevers than Lieder. And it's not even linear. There are seemingly perfectly rational people who suddenly get bent out of shape, to various degrees. It happens. It's a continuum, it's not a matter of discrete types. It's not a matter of one side versus the other side. I wish it were.
Bunk.

Pure, unadulterated, antiscientific bunk.

[A Thousand Pardons]

antiscientific
When ya' call me that, smile! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004766/trivia)

[Nowhere Man]

The BA coined a new term to describe pseudo-scientists in the BABlog in this entry (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=63).
I was looking through Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World this weekend at Duckon, and there is a chapter titled "Antiscience." I think Sagan's use is more along the lines of "Those who are opposed to science."

I say "I think" because I was flipping through the book, and it appears to be a catalog of the charlatans, pseudo- and anti-science types, and just plain stupid people that the world contains. I fear that if I actually read the book, I'd probably slit my wrists, it's so depressing.

Fred

[Jpax2003]

Are we going to start referring to scientists as anti-religous? I think the BA made a good point in his blog about the nature of framing on both sides of a contentious issue. Yet, when I see the several posts in this thread that immediately jumped into religious criticism I wonder if such a term may not be inaccurate for some who are otherwise pro-science.

[Melusine]

Are we going to start referring to scientists as anti-religous? I think the BA made a good point in his blog about the nature of framing on both sides of a contentious issue. Yet, when I see the several posts in this thread that immediately jumped into religious criticism I wonder if such a term may not be inaccurate for some who are otherwise pro-science.
I don't really see that in any of the posts in this thread. I know in mine I specifically mentioned that there are religious peope on this board who are pro-science or are not anti-science. Christian Science, however, does believe that prayer heals and they don't use medical science, which is at their disposal, thus my friend's death. Nowhere does anyone say all religious people are anti-science, though some are. Just as some pro-science people are anti-religious. But this is about science, not religion, and those folks, as Beskeptical mentioned who use religion over science are criticized by both religious and non-religious people. Can you live well and long without religion? Yes. Can you live well and long without science? No. That's not being anti-religious, that's being practical. :)

[A Thousand Pardons]

Can you live well and long without science? No.
What about Pythagoras? (This is not an attempt to start the "is math a science?" thread)

[Melusine]

The BA coined a new term to describe pseudo-scientists in the BABlog in this entry (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=63).
I was looking through Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World this weekend at Duckon, and there is a chapter titled "Antiscience." I think Sagan's use is more along the lines of "Those who are opposed to science."

I say "I think" because I was flipping through the book, and it appears to be a catalog of the charlatans, pseudo- and anti-science types, and just plain stupid people that the world contains. I fear that if I actually read the book, I'd probably slit my wrists, it's so depressing.

Fred
Thanks so much, Nowhere Man, you reminded me that I bought The Demon-Haunted World in a flurry of book-buying, and I haven't read it yet, so I was just reading that chapter you mention. That chapter should be required high school reading (if not the whole book, I haven't read it all yet); he said exactly what I think, but a 100x better. I think I'm going to run around quoting him all day.

I got something slightly different than what I red-bolded above: he speaks of bad science or constraints on science as equally as how science was a threat to certain groups; he talks about geneticists Hermann Muller and Trofim Lysenko, and the Soviet State's suppression of classical genetics. He discusses that accusations of racism against Darwin, even if it were true, wouldn't change the "truth or falsity of natural selection," just as the fact that Einstein and Gandhi were "imperfect husbands and fathers," or Thomas Jefferson a slave-owner, and that doesn't detract from the truth of what they said. He always comes back to evidence and testing, and the fact that mathematics isn't subject to prejudice, bias, ideology, race, etc...2 + 2= 4, and its truth convinces atheists and theists alike.

I like his quoting Ethan Allen:

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
I love that Sagan readily admits scientists' mistakes, his own not withstanding, but that it leads to uncovering truths. If Sagan were alive today, he'd probably be blasting the recent omissions of evidence in certain EPA and government reports. Now that's depressing.

Thanks again, I'm going to finish reading this today. :D

[Melusine]

Can you live well and long without science? No.
What about Pythagoras? (This is not an attempt to start the "is math a science?" thread)
I'm not sure what your question is. I can go live in the Appalachians and devoid myself of science, build shelters out of intuition and creativity (not using geometry) or live in a cave, and just wing it, but I doubt I will live "long and well," in fact, I'd probably get some sort of disease, maybe struck by lightning in my shabby shelter, die of a snake bite or what have you. If I get cancer, forget it. My life expectancy has a good chance of being shorter. :)

[Dan The Mediocre]

Can you live well and long without science? No.
What about Pythagoras? (This is not an attempt to start the "is math a science?" thread)
I'm not sure what your question is. I can go live in the Appalachians and devoid myself of science, build shelters out of intuition and creativity (not using geometry) or live in a cave, and just wing it, but I doubt I will live "long and well," in fact, I'd probably get some sort of disease, maybe struck by lightning in my shabby shelter, die of a snake bite or what have you. If I get cancer, forget it. My life expectancy has a good chance of being shorter. :)

What if you have trouble taking water to your shelter? You'd end up trying various methods of transportation for the water until you find one that works.

And that, to you, would be a scientific advancement.

[A Thousand Pardons]

I'm not sure what your question is.I'm just saying that the answer to your question seems to be yes, not no. These sort of issues are tough to isolate, because there is so much social interaction. I used Pythagorus as the counter-example because he probably lived before science.

[Melusine]

I'm not sure what your question is.I'm just saying that the answer to your question seems to be yes, not no. These sort of issues are tough to isolate, because there is so much social interaction. I used Pythagorus as the counter-example because he probably lived before science.
:o Huh? You don't think civilizations were using science before Pythagorus? What about the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Chinese, the Mayans, the Babylonians?? They were before Pythagorus. I just do not get what you're saying here. Imhotep, the earliest known physician, existed in 2725 BC. Pythagorus actually lived to a decent age, but that was not the norm. :-? :) ???

edit add ???

[Melusine]

Can you live well and long without science? No.
What about Pythagoras? (This is not an attempt to start the "is math a science?" thread)
I'm not sure what your question is. I can go live in the Appalachians and devoid myself of science, build shelters out of intuition and creativity (not using geometry) or live in a cave, and just wing it, but I doubt I will live "long and well," in fact, I'd probably get some sort of disease, maybe struck by lightning in my shabby shelter, die of a snake bite or what have you. If I get cancer, forget it. My life expectancy has a good chance of being shorter. :)

What if you have trouble taking water to your shelter? You'd end up trying various methods of transportation for the water until you find one that works.

And that, to you, would be a scientific advancement.
Exactly. I was answering to Jpax's post about his saying that some of us were barking at religion too readily, and that we may sound "anti-religious." I was stressing that Christian Scientists do not use medical science available to them based on their beliefs. Can we live without religion? Yes. Can we live well, and long without science? No. Science is the practical means of living in the world; Better/more science = better/more longer life is possible. :)

[A Thousand Pardons]

You don't think civilizations were using science before Pythagorus?
I was just using the timeline Sagan mentions in Cosmos.

But Science is not the same thing as "using science or logic" though, anymore than Religion is the same thing as "having religious or philosophical thoughts". Otherwise, I'd think you'd have to say that you couldn't live without the other either--it's just as impossible to avoid.

Pythagorus actually lived to a decent age, but that was not the norm.
Life expectancy is an average. Before modern medicine, many infants died. If someone managed to live beyound early childhood, they had a good chance of living a long life. The biblical three score and ten is 70 years. That's not too much less than the life expectancy now. I would consider anyone who has lived 70 years to have lived long. "Well" is subjective.

[Melusine]

A Thousand Pardons, I know it's pedantic to pull out the dictionary, but it saves so much time. I'm still not sure exactly what your point is--maybe I'm over-caffeinated. :P

I dont need this to live long and well. If I get cancer, this is not going to help me:


Religion:1 : the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands especially as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers, and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers <ministers of religion>
2 : the state of a religious <retire into religion> <the nun died in her thirtieth year of religion>
3 a : one of the systems of faith and worship : a religious faith <monotheistic religions> <tolerant of all religions> <for bidding discrimination because of race, color, or religion> b : the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances, and social practices found within a given cultural context <the religion of this primitive people>
4 : the profession or practice of religious beliefs : religious observances <the kernel of his practical religion was that it was respectable, and beneficial to one's business, to be seen going to services -- Sinclair Lewis>
5 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, FIDELITY
6 a : a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own, humanity's, or all nature's destiny <only man appears to...continued

I do need this to live long and well. If I get cancer, this may very well help me:


Science:
1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute <I speak from science and the voice is fate -- Alexander Pope> b : knowledge possessed or attained through study or practice <science crown my age -- Thomas Gray>
2 a : a branch or department of systematized knowledge that is or can be made a specific object of study <the basic tool sciences of reading, writing, and ciphering> <learned in the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <skilled in the science of evading work> <little interested in cards and such like science>: as (1) obsolete : a trained skill (as in an occupation) (2) : FENCING (3) : BOXING c : studies mainly in the works of ancient and modern philosophers formerly taught as a group or field of specialization (as at Oxford University) d : any of the individual subjects taught at an educational institution in one of the departments of natural science <required to take two sciences to complete a minor> <students majoring in a science> -- compare HUMANITY 3c
3 a : accumulated and accepted knowledge that has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws : knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth : comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge; especially : knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method b : such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a branch of study that is concerned with observation and classification of facts and especially with the establishment or strictly with the quantitative formulation of verifiable general laws chiefly by induction and hypotheses <mathematical science>
5 : a system based or purporting to be based upon scientific principles : a method (as of arrangement, functioning) reconciling practical or utilitarian ends with scientific laws <husbandry is a science> <a student of culinary science>

[A Thousand Pardons]

I dont need this to live long and well. If I get cancer, this is not going to help me:
A lot of people disagree. That's their perogative.

I do need this to live long and well.
I was just pointing out that there are instances where it doesn't seem to be necessary.

[Melusine]

I dont need this to live long and well. If I get cancer, this is not going to help me:
A lot of people disagree. That's their perogative.
Sure, it's a prerogative, everything is a prerogative, anyone can believe whatever they want, but there is no evidence that a cancerous tumor will be healed by anything other than what science has taught us. My friend, who was raised as a Christian Scientist, didn't give up on CS totally, but completely renounced that aspect of CS--the prayer healing stuff. Essentially, it killed her...all the prayer in the world wouldn't stop the brain tumors that ultimately were her death knell.

Sagan mentions psychogenic illnesses, and if the shaman's healing works, then let's compare those statistics to placebos; we should be able to gather those statisitcs (I am paraphrasing him). Do we have those statistics? Do we have any proof that prayer heals cancer? It didn't work for my friend, so... That is not to say that people out there don't feel that they need religion to live long and well, but theoretically, people don't in any physical sense. It does not take faith in any religion or religious belief to be healed from cancer. If so, I'd be dead by now (I didn't have cancer, but pre-cancerous cells that were eradicated by surgery).


I do need this to live long and well [science].

ATP: I was just pointing out that there are instances where it doesn't seem to be necessary.
"Doesn't seem to be necessary," though, isn't what I was saying. I mean, it's possible that from the time a person is born, that they never get a vaccine, never go to the dentist, never go to the doctor, never get a tetanus shot, etc, etc, and manage to live a long, healthy life. That would have not worked for me--my wisdom teeth caused enough headaches alone to make my life miserable! What if you get appendicitis? I'm still not sure what you're point is...I mean, when is science knowledge not necessary in staying healthy and living long? Unless you're born incredibly lucky or with super-duper genes, I just don't see it happening. I'm perplexed as to what you're getting at exactly.
:-? :)

[A Thousand Pardons]

I dont need this to live long and well. If I get cancer, this is not going to help me:
A lot of people disagree. That's their perogative.
Sure, it's a prerogative, everything is a prerogative, anyone can believe whatever they want, but there is no evidence that a cancerous tumor will be healed by anything other than what science has taught us.
That's not what I meant. I meant that a lot of people think they need it to live long and well.


"Doesn't seem to be necessary," though, isn't what I was saying.
I know. That was me. :)

I mean, it's possible that from the time a person is born, that they never get a vaccine, never go to the dentist, never go to the doctor, never get a tetanus shot, etc, etc, and manage to live a long, healthy life.
I gave one example, but really, back then, there were millions of examples. Modern examples would be difficult, of course, since it touches so many lives in so many ways.


I mean, when is science knowledge not necessary in staying healthy and living long? Unless you're born incredibly lucky or with super-duper genes, I just don't see it happening. I'm perplexed as to what you're getting at exactly.
I'm saying it's helpful, even very helpful, but obviously not necessary.

[Melusine]

I mean, when is science knowledge not necessary in staying healthy and living long? Unless you're born incredibly lucky or with super-duper genes, I just don't see it happening. I'm perplexed as to what you're getting at exactly.
ATP: I'm saying it's helpful, even very helpful, but obviously not necessary.
A Thousand Pardons, do you know of anyone in this day and age who has successfully avoided using science to have a long and well life? Because I don't know anyone who has made it too far without needing a doctor, and I'd like to know more about why you have taken this position of yours in this thread. I'm really curious. You say science is helpful, but not necessary...well, only if you want to die! How many people died eating poisonous mushrooms before they figured out which ones were OK? How many died trying to guess what to about appendicitis? Science would only be "not necessary" if you want to have a roulette wheel of life. I think we want to live long and comfortably, thus our brains have evolved from neanderthalic gruntings to the ability to provide some longetivity. We already know that the chances of living past 40 (or even surviving childbirth) in the 1600's were pretty slim. So, to live a long life, yeah, science is necessary. Sure, it's not necessary if you want to possibly die coming right out of the starting gate. :o


Sir William Osler tells us that Imhotep was the:

"..first figure of a physician to stand out clearly from the mists of antiquity." Imhotep diagnosed and treated over 200 diseases, 15 diseases of the abdomen, 11 of the bladder, 10 of the rectum, 29 of the eyes, and 18 of the skin, hair, nails and tongue. Imhotep treated tuberculosis, gallstones, appendicitis, gout and arthritis. He also performed surgery and practiced some dentistry. Imhotep extracted medicine from plants. He also knew the position and function of the vital organs and circulation of the blood system. The Encyclopedia Britannica says, "The evidence afforded by Egyptian and Greek texts support the view that Imhotep's reputation was very respected in early times. His prestige increased with the lapse of centuries and his temples in Greek times were the centers of medical teachings."
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/imhotep.htm

[The Supreme Canuck]

I think that ATP (and correct me if I'm wrong) is making a distinction between organized Science (with a capital "S") and scientific/logical thought. Just as there is a difference between organized Religion (with a capital "R") and religious/philosophical thought. Both Science and Religion are unnecessary for a long, "good" life, but both scientific/logical and religious/philosophical thought processes are inseparable components of the human condition. It's just the way that the mind works. We work things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and form beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical thought).

[A Thousand Pardons]

I'd like to know more about why you have taken this position of yours in this thread. I'm really curious.
I was just giving my informed opinion.

I think that ATP (and correct me if I'm wrong)
Sounds good to me. Thanks TSC

[Melusine]

I think that ATP (and correct me if I'm wrong) is making a distinction between organized Science (with a capital "S") and scientific/logical thought. Just as there is a difference between organized Religion (with a capital "R") and religious/philosophical thought. Both Science and Religion are unnecessary for a long, "good" life, but both scientific/logical and religious/philosophical thought processes are inseparable components of the human condition. It's just the way that the mind works. We work things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and form beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical thought).
Thanks for your trying to decipher what ATP is saying, but he was answering to my post and my statement that I made that religion can not provide a long and well life or cure a cancer, but science may very well cure it. Religious/philosophical thought processes may be a part of the human condition--they are in fact, but they are not necessary to physically live, which is what I said. If that were so, if religion was necessary to physically live a long, healthy life, I would be dead. Only science has cured my cancer (or what could have burgeoned into full-fledged cancer). It was really just a simple statement, that ATP has turned into some nebulous area I did not intend. I believed I was being very straightforward. Someone can believe they need religion to live, but if they don't, science will still keep them alive, hopefully, if all things go well.

I already said several times that many religious people believe in utilizing science to live; Christian Science, I wrote, is anti-science, because it suppresses logical, reasonable evidence to cure illnesses, and promotes illogical, unsupported, unevidentiary methods to cure illnesses. It just seems elementary. :o :)

BTW, I don't understand your thought process on capitalization of Science and Religion. That one's new to me. :o :)

[The Supreme Canuck]

BTW, I don't understand your thought process on capitalization of Science and Religion. That one's new to me. :o :)

Well, capital R Religion is simply organized religion. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, what have you. Religious/philosophical thought is just that: personal views on morality, the nature of reality, the nature of the mind, etc.

Capital S Science is established scientific beliefs and practises, such as the field of chemistry, the field of medicine, and all the rest. Scientific/logical thought is the process of working things through logically, such as utilizing trial and error, looking at evidence, understanding causation, and all that.

You can do without the "capitals," but the thought processes themselves are simply human nature.

[A Thousand Pardons]

If that were so, if religion was necessary to physically live a long, healthy life, I would be dead. Only science has cured my cancer (or what could have burgeoned into full-fledged cancer). It was really just a simple statement, that ATP has turned into some nebulous area I did not intend. I believed I was being very straightforward.
When you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=485578#485578) "Can you live well and long without science? No.", I assumed that you were talking in general, rather than a specific person. That was the statement that I was responding to, and disagreeing with, in the same sense as when you said "Can you live well and long without religion? Yes."

Of course, some people have just "got lucky" and lived through life without help from science. Just like some people got unlucky and died from science. Or, insert "religion", if you like. I just disagree with the absolutes.

[Maksutov]

I think that ATP (and correct me if I'm wrong) is making a distinction between organized Science (with a capital "S") and scientific/logical thought. Just as there is a difference between organized Religion (with a capital "R") and religious/philosophical thought.
All he's doing is fudging with words, as usual.


Both Science and Religion are unnecessary for a long, "good" life, but both scientific/logical and religious/philosophical thought processes are inseparable components of the human condition. It's just the way that the mind works. We work things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and form beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical thought).
Therein lies a fallacy.


but both scientific/logical and religious/philosophical thought processes are inseparable components of the human condition.
It is very simple and very productive to separate "religious/philosophical thought" into two distinct components. One component stands without any kind of supernatural involvement. The other collapses as a house of cards without it.

Religious thought is not an inseparable component of the human condition. I know that for a fact. I also know many others for whom that is not a fact.

The problem religion has with working "things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and from beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical) thought" is that religious thought is dogmatic, and if you're in error, you're a heretic and, well, check out the history of Giordano Bruno, et al.

On the other hand, working things out by scientific/logical/philosophical thought does work (the first two are best). I know based on experience. There are huge numbers of suppressed people who know that. All of the acquired data consists of knowledge, not beliefs.

Trying to impose beliefs on knowledge results in the quagmire that is evidenced by YECs, geocentists, and the content of ATP's posts in this thread.

Perhaps the Jesuits may buy that sort of thing, but real scientists don't.

Meanwhile, I think when ATP has a serious illness, I'll turn him over to Theodoric of York (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77rtheodoric.phtml).

But, if I'm seriously ill, I will stick with modern medicine.

BTW, ATP, what kind of flowers would you like me to send to your funeral? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[The Supreme Canuck]

So would it be better to say that we don't need organized science to get along (though it can certainly make life easier), we need reason and logic (you can't get away from them), and we don't need organized religion (though some may choose it)?

Added:

Oh, bit of a misquote on an important word in your above post:


<snip>
"things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and from beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical) thought"
<snip>

(Emphasis mine)

It should be "form", not "from." Changes the meaning of the sentence.

This is my original statement:


We work things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and form beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical thought).

(Edited again to add original quote.)

[A Thousand Pardons]

All he's doing is fudging with words, as usual.
Link (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=482467#482467)

It is very simple and very productive to separate "religious/philosophical thought" into two distinct components. One component stands without any kind of supernatural involvement. The other collapses as a house of cards without it.
The mind/body interface is not understood. Francis Crick spent his life trying to understand it, and did not finish. Infinity, or the boundary of the universe, is currently beyond our ken. The beginnings of time are opaque. The only explanations we have of these things involve things that are currently outside of the realm of science. There are no hypotheses to test. Whether that can be called supernatural or not, is a matter of opinion.

But I don't think there should be arguments about religion on the BABB.


Religious thought is not an inseparable component of the human condition. I know that for a fact. I also know many others for whom that is not a fact.
But that's all I was saying, that there are such people.


The problem religion has with working "things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and from beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical) thought" is that religious thought is dogmatic, and if you're in error, you're a heretic and, well, check out the history of Giordano Bruno, et al.
As there are sometimes people in the scientific camp who argue against the person, rather than the idea.


Meanwhile, I think when ATP has a serious illness, I'll turn him over to
I'll see my own physician

[Melusine]

BTW, I don't understand your thought process on capitalization of Science and Religion. That one's new to me. :o :)

Well, capital R Religion is simply organized religion. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, what have you. Religious/philosophical thought is just that: personal views on morality, the nature of reality, the nature of the mind, etc.

Capital S Science is established scientific beliefs and practises, such as the field of chemistry, the field of medicine, and all the rest. Scientific/logical thought is the process of working things through logically, such as utilizing trial and error, looking at evidence, understanding causation, and all that.

You can do without the "capitals," but the thought processes themselves are simply human nature.
Just a language nitpick: I have never read Religion capitalized in any discussion. If one says, "He believes in Religion, after all, he mentioned yesterday he is Catholic," I would never see religion capitalized and it would be referring to an organized religion--in the same sentence, no less.

The only time I see Science capitalized is if I have to take a Natural Science class; even Wikipedia keeps saying Natural science, Applied science. I've never seen someone write, "Physics is a a branch of Science that explains how things work." I wouldn't even see, "The Scientific community is opposed to heavy-handed government intervention." Those would be lower-case, because they are not two different things--community fulfills a body of science," Catholicism fullfills a religion. It's not like Nature and nature, which I can get a marked distinction. Something to think about. :)

A Thousand Pardons, no one was arguing about religion prior to your being a bit obtuse in your replies, if I may say so. People simply said that some religions, some fundamentalists, have squelched science. There is no way to discuss anti-science without bringing out these points. We lost years of scientific inquiry because of it, no less! People get sick and die because of it. If you have something you're holding back, you can at least link it, if you feel it will clarify things. I have clearly said over and over that religion and science can live together. :)


ATP: The beginnings of time are opaque. The only explanations we have of these things involve things that are currently outside of the realm of science. There are no hypotheses to test. Whether that can be called supernatural or not, is a matter of opinion.
I don't know what you're talking about exactly. Do you have some link that refers to this that I can look at? :D

[A Thousand Pardons]

People simply said that some religions, some fundamentalists, have squelched science.
I've never argued against that. I was simply responding to a broad comment you made about religion in relation to science. I provided a counter-example, I thought. I think your next post even supported my counter-example, you said it was possible.

I don't know what you're talking about exactly. Do you have some link that refers to this that I can look at?
Do you mean the problems that physics has (http://spaceinfo.jaxa.jp/note/shikumi/e/shi02_e.html) with the beginning of time, or do you mean something else?

[Maksutov]

Concerning


So would it be better to say that we don't need organized science to get along (though it can certainly make life easier), we need reason and logic (you can't get away from them), and we don't need organized religion (though some may choose it)?
The content of ATP's posts is unintelligible due to its metaphysical and elusive-by-design nature (the latter being part of a typical CYOA tactic).

The content of your posts seems to follow suit, which doesn't help, and the posts seem to conform very closely to a certain nitpicking tradition.

Case in point:


Oh, bit of a misquote on an important word in your above post:


<snip>
"things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and from beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical) thought"
<snip>

(Emphasis mine)

It should be "form", not "from." Changes the meaning of the sentence.

This is my original statement:


We work things out by trial and error (scientific/logical thought) and form beliefs about the world around us (religious/philosophical thought).

Here are the actual posts, from screen shots.

http://img145.echo.cx/img145/2708/yourpost6mf.th.jpg (http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=yourpost6mf.jpg)

followed by

http://img250.echo.cx/img250/8940/myreply6rk.th.jpg (http://img250.echo.cx/my.php?image=myreply6rk.jpg)

to which you replied

http://img250.echo.cx/img250/9104/yourreply8dv.th.jpg (http://img250.echo.cx/my.php?image=yourreply8dv.jpg)

As you can see, you were not misquoted. I'm sorry there was a typo in the recreation of that line from your original post (the original of which is there in my post for everyone to read). Actually the typo doesn't affect my point at all. If that's what you hang your hat on re a counter argument, well, you have my pity.

But when one starts dabbling in antiscience, metaphysics, and the occult, then it's understandable.

Anyway, you're a youngster, so you have time to learn. You should seek out some good mentors.

If that's not your inclination, then I leave you and ATP to continue the rituals of your metaphysical mutual admiration society.

Time to leave this thread and get back into the world of science.

Ah...

Bye.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Maksutov:

It seems we've had a bit of a misunderstanding, mostly on my part. I thought you had misread my statement, which would have changed its meaning. I thought you objected to making decisions on preconceived notions, rather than critical thought. This is entirely valid, and would have arisen if you had read read "from" instead of "form." I was simply trying to show you what I meant rather than have you believe something that I didn't.

Again, my fault for assuming that you misread the word (it happens to me frequently).

I see now that your argument was based on my intended meaning, and I agree that religion can be an impediment to scientific inquiry due to its structured nature.

What the statement intended to show was that this desire for scientific thought is basic to human nature and so you are stuck with it. You can't live without it. You can, however, live without organized religion and without organized, deep scientific knowledge.

Added:

The more I think about this whole thing, the more I think something went on here that I didn't understand. Maybe someone could explain it to me? And, er, what is CYOA?

[Brady Yoon]

Sometimes I think I'm living in a dream world. I ask myself why am I here. Sometimes I hit myself on the head and wonder why I even exist.

I wonder if humanity is ever destined to find out the truth about the universe's creation. I have a question for some people.

What would you do if religion was disproved as much as possible and found that science could solve all problems?

And what would you do if science was found to be how a higher power made the universe, and that we were discovering it?

Would you change your views to accommodate new evidence?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Thanks, but I meant in this thread. :)

Added:

Didn't see your edit. I'd willingly and happily accept anything that is scientifically proven. If it's a fact, it's a fact, and there is no disputing it. I'm sure most here would agree with me.

[Sam5]

Can you live well and long without religion? Yes. Can you live well and long without science? No.

During some medical mission trips to Latin America in the ‘80s, I learned something rather odd and disturbing about our health and modern science. The people in the remote villages have always lived without medical science. Consequently, the adults are Darwinianly fit. Then I realized that we modern people in the US are not Darwinianly fit. We are kept alive by medicines and modern science, consequently we are breeding ourselves into being a modern race of genetic defectives, all passing along our genetic defects to our offspring, and breeding generation after generation of physical and mental defectives. Within a hundred years, nearly all modern First World children will have to be on medications their entire lives, to try to make up for all their genetic defects. People might live long lives in the future, but they will be long sickly lives.

Whereas the non-science people in the villages of Latin America will be Darwinianly fit, without the need of medicines. Their sickly die young, mostly in childhood.

In one village I met a 103 year old man who was so fit, he still climbed trees every day to gather fruit to sell in the nearby marketplace. How many Americans can climb trees after their 50s?

[Melusine]

[quote=Melusine]People simply said that some religions, some fundamentalists, have squelched science.
I've never argued against that. I was simply responding to a broad comment you made about religion in relation to science. I provided a counter-example, I thought. I think your next post even supported my counter-example, you said it was possible.
You were arguing against my simple statement that a person can live long and well without religion, but not science. Yes, I said it's conceivably possible that a person could never go to a doctor, etc, etc, and live long, but that they would have to have a super genetic disposition, or be very lucky. Even still, how "well" that would be...you can look at some people in the world...you might not have teeth by the time you're 50, you may live with some kind of pain, be crippled, etc. I don't call that living well. In early American history, for e.g., people were lucky to live past 40, even 35, that is, if they succeeded childbirth.

Then you made the statement, "I used Pythagorus, because he probably lived before science," which is not true, but you never answered to that. Science, and medical science, existed beore Pythagorus's life; I mentioned the groups who used science, Imhotep being one physician who performed medical care. People have been helped by medical science for a long time, depending on what society they lived in, where they lived, and their desire to use it.

Then you said: Of course, some people have just "got lucky" and lived through life without help from science. Just like some people got unlucky and died from science. Or, insert "religion", if you like. I just disagree with the absolutes.

Well, people don't "die from religion," they've died because of it. A difference there. Religion itself can't kill people, it's in the head; only one's faith, as with said Christian Scientist who refuses medical science as a cure to their illness dies, because they choose to believe in that particular religion. It's their choice that killed them.

***Note I accidentally hit the submit button before I was finished. Will continue in separate post. Oops.

[Melusine]

People simply said that some religions, some fundamentalists, have squelched science.
I've never argued against that. I was simply responding to a broad comment you made about religion in relation to science. I provided a counter-example, I thought. I think your next post even supported my counter-example, you said it was possible.
You were arguing against my simple statement that a person can live long and well without religion, but not science. Yes, I said it's conceivably possible that a person could never go to a doctor, etc, etc, and live long, but that they would have to have a super genetic disposition, or be very lucky. Even still, how "well" that would be...you can look at some people in the world...you might not have teeth by the time you're 50, you may live with some kind of pain, be crippled, etc. I don't call that living well. In early American history, for e.g., people were lucky to live past 40, even 35, that is, if they succeeded childbirth.

Then you made the statement, "I used Pythagorus, because he probably lived before science," which is not true, but you never answered to that. Science, and medical science, existed beore Pythagorus's life; I mentioned the groups who used science, Imhotep being one physician who performed medical care. People have been helped by medical science for a long time, depending on what society they lived in, where they lived, and their desire to use it.

Then you said: Of course, some people have just "got lucky" and lived through life without help from science. Just like some people got unlucky and died from science. Or, insert "religion", if you like. I just disagree with the absolutes.

Well, people don't "die from religion," they've died because of it. A difference there. Religion itself can't kill people, it's in the head; only one's faith, as with said Christian Scientist who refuses medical science as a cure to their illness dies, because they choose to believe in that particular religion. It's their choice that killed them.

***Note I accidentally hit the submit button before I was finished. Will continue in separate post. Oops.[/quote]

Sorry, I did that to my post, to continue: The absolutes...do you think that if you raise a child from birth without any religious indoctrination, and only teach him anatomy, photosynthesis, physics, etc, that he wouldn't be able to live a long and well life? I'm speaking in a strict physical sense. The fact that someone may think they need it is a whole different thing, my statement was based on the premise that they don't physically need it in any psysiological way to survive. There are non-religious peope who are alive and well in the world. The Egyptians, believing in their gods and Pharoah worship, were hip to medical science, and had a pretty good civilization going for that time. One could also argue that religion amidst mankind was a stepping stone in advanced thought processes of how the world works. In the case of my deceased friend, her particular religion was not very in sync with the advancement of thought and ideas that falls under the definition of science.



I don't know what you're talking about exactly. Do you have some link that refers to this that I can look at?
Do you mean the problems that physics has (http://spaceinfo.jaxa.jp/note/shikumi/e/shi02_e.html) with the beginning of time, or do you mean something else?
Your whole statement was this:

ATP: The beginnings of time are opaque. The only explanations we have of these things involve things that are currently outside of the realm of science. There are no hypotheses to test. Whether that can be called supernatural or not, is a matter of opinion.
Let's say you were my professor speaking in a class, I would be confused as to what you're saying, because you're sort of dancing around this feeling or worry about discussing religion too much, perhaps. So, you're throwing out these obtuse statements, when I tried to just be blunt without denigrating religion, which I didn't. After all, there are some people on this board I respect very much and they believe in some higher power. Your link to that page regarding physics, doesn't tell me anything I already don't know. You say "explanations out of the realm of science," but those explanations have no evidence to back them up. In the confines of our language, that has to be supernatural!

Let me pull out Mr. Dictionary once again. Language is the system by which we communicate, after all :wink: :


Main Entry: su·per·natural Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature + -alis -al
1 a : of, belonging to, having reference to, or proceeding from an order of existence beyond the physical universe that is observable, and capable of being experienced by ordinary means : transcending nature in degree and in kind or concerned with what transcends nature <a supernatural divine order which directs history from outside and keeps man in touch with the eternal world through the Church and the sacraments -- Times Literary Supplement> <the supernatural character of the soul> b : being, having reference to, or proceeding from God or a god, demigod, spirit, or infernal being <among primitive peoples today, the supernatural scene is infinitely variegated -- J.B.Noss> <inquired ... whether the strangers were supernatural beings, or men of flesh and blood -- W.H.Prescott> <attributed to the sun and the moon supernatural powers, made gods of them and worshiped them -- College English> c : divine as opposed to human, or spiritual as opposed to material <to make students conscious of the fact that they are not merely natural men but that they have a supernatural destiny -- St. John's University Cat.> <man's supernatural life, the life of the soul above the natural life of the body -- M.W.Baldwin>
2 a : differing from the natural only in degree by being much more than is natural or normal : SUPERHUMAN, PRETERNATURAL <has come up with almost supernatural speed -- George Weller> b : EXTREME, EXCESSIVE <curs and mongrels ... endowed with supernatural powers of yelping -- Rachel Henning>
3 a : ascribed to agencies or powers above or beyond nature or based upon such an ascription : initiated, effected, continued, or supported by means that transcend the laws or observed sequences of nature <the supernatural origin of life>; especially : MIRACULOUS <possess the gift of second sight, and the power to wreak supernatural vengeance upon those who offend them -- Herman Melville> <did not mention the supernatural events ... for fear of encouraging skeptical laughter -- Robert Graves> b : attributable to or liable to be attributed to the action or presence of a ghost, spirit, or other invisible agent : EERIE, OCCULT <something supernatural, a stirring as it were of the roots of the hair -- W.B.Yeats>
- su·per·naturally \"+\ adverb
- su·per·naturalness \"+\ noun -es

Perhaps, nothing much has been said in these latest posts. I see just a lot of vague references and comments. This thread was about anti-science or as Sagan spells it, antiscience. I declared that Christian Scientists who believe that prayer heals is antiscience. I also declare that governments that omit, white out and use the scissors to documents are antiscience. Whenever one lets dogma and ideology dictate scientific discussion and debate, it's antiscience. :D

[Melusine]

[quote]Brady Yoon:
What would you do if religion was disproved as much as possible and found that science could solve all problems?
I would just keep living as I do now. As far as I'm concerned, it is disproved as much as possible. Disproved by me, meaning, my understanding of how nature works. Not all problems are solved by science, however, I mean we do have instincts. We do have intuition, which from its Latin roots, means to "look at." It's synonym is reason, because in order for one's intuition to be good, they have to be able to observe well, even if one does not use rational thought to arrive at some intuition. But if one doesn't have a good basis of observation, more than likely their intution will often be wrong.


And what would you do if science was found to be how a higher power made the universe, and that we were discovering it?
Hey, I say bring on the evidence. If I can see this higher power, or find some way to understand the nature of a higher power, then I would adjust my thinking accordingly. So far, the idea of a higher power doesn't fit in with what I see going on in the universe--it's just speculative. The "power" can be defined in different ways; I just call it a sort of generic "the continuum of Nature."

[Fortis]

The people in the remote villages have always lived without medical science. Consequently, the adults are Darwinianly fit. Then I realized that we modern people in the US are not Darwinianly fit. We are kept alive by medicines and modern science, consequently we are breeding ourselves into being a modern race of genetic defectives, all passing along our genetic defects to our offspring, and breeding generation after generation of physical and mental defectives. Within a hundred years, nearly all modern First World children will have to be on medications their entire lives, to try to make up for all their genetic defects. People might live long lives in the future, but they will be long sickly lives.
Consider sickle cell anaemia. This is a genetic disease that is typically only prevalent in populations that also suffer the ills of malaria. Why? Because the presence of a single sickle cell gene provides a level of protection against malaria (a few sickle cells interferes with the life-cycle of plasmodium, the single cell organism responsible for malaria), and hence selection has increased its presence within the population. Of course, if you carry two copies of the gene then you also suffer from sickle cell anaemia.

"Darwinian fitness" does not select out genetic evils. It selects for the lesser of genetic evils. In the case of populations with limited access to safe and effective treatments for malaria, it lumbers these populations with sickle cell anaemia.

[A Thousand Pardons]

The content of ATP's posts is unintelligible due to its metaphysical and elusive-by-design nature (the latter being part of a typical CYOA tactic).

They probably just seem elusive because I'm suggesting a continuum, rather than an either/or situation. I don't see very many pure scientists, even here.

In early American history, for e.g., people were lucky to live past 40, even 35, that is, if they succeeded childbirth.
No, if they succeeded childbirth, it was not that unusual to live into their sixties, and even seventies. Here's a webpage (http://www.plimoth.org/learn/history/myth/Deadat40.asp) that discusses the effect that infant mortality has on life expectancy. For instance, as one example, it says that for a 21 year old in Plymouth Colony in the 17th century, the average life expectancy for men was to age 69 for men, and 62 for women. Many lived longer than that. Infant mortality was higher, there is no doubt.


Then you made the statement, "I used Pythagorus, because he probably lived before science," which is not true, but you never answered to that.
I said earlier that I was using the timeline from Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Science to him was a method, not just trial and error.


Sorry, I did that to my post, to continue: The absolutes...do you think that if you raise a child from birth without any religious indoctrination, and only teach him anatomy, photosynthesis, physics, etc, that he wouldn't be able to live a long and well life? I'm speaking in a strict physical sense. The fact that someone may think they need it is a whole different thing, my statement was based on the premise that they don't physically need it in any psysiological way to survive.
However, if you restrict your argument to just the physiological, then of course they don't need science either. Animals can get along fine without science.

Do they live "well"? Different question--that's a subjective thing, not a strictly physical sense.


Let's say you were my professor speaking in a class, I would be confused as to what you're saying, because you're sort of dancing around this feeling or worry about discussing religion too much, perhaps. So, you're throwing out these obtuse statements, when I tried to just be blunt without denigrating religion, which I didn't.
I don't mind discussing religion. But, it's a volatile subject, it seems. The discussions often degenerate into ad hominem and innuendo--probably why the BA doesn't like them on his board.

[Melusine]

In early American history, for e.g., people were lucky to live past 40, even 35, that is, if they succeeded childbirth.
No, if they succeeded childbirth, it was not that unusual to live into their sixties, and even seventies. Here's a webpage (http://www.plimoth.org/learn/history/myth/Deadat40.asp) that discusses the effect that infant mortality has on life expectancy. For instance, as one example, it says that for a 21 year old in Plymouth Colony in the 17th century, the average life expectancy for men was to age 69 for men, and 62 for women. Many lived longer than that. Infant mortality was higher, there is no doubt.
[/quote]
You might want to check other links that aren't centered on just Plymouth in the US...those figures go down for the 17th century; for women 39, for instance. And yes, infant mortality was pretty darn high.

As far as the subjectivity of living "well," and what is well--I can only go by today's standards; having all your teeth and novacaine is a good thing. Avoiding scarlet fever is a good thing--I knew someone who was basically a child all his adult life, because of that. People would be physically crippled...I mean, that's just semantics there. The fact is, prayer didn't heal the brain tumors.


Then you made the statement, "I used Pythagorus, because he probably lived before science," which is not true, but you never answered to that.

I said earlier that I was using the timeline from Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Science to him was a method, not just trial and error.

That assumes I know the timeline of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. The statement alone about Pythagorus is incorrect. Communication helps clarify things. Do you think beore Pythagorus Imhotep was just using trial and error? You don't think he had a method? Hmm...


Sorry, I did that to my post, to continue: The absolutes...do you think that if you raise a child from birth without any religious indoctrination, and only teach him anatomy, photosynthesis, physics, etc, that he wouldn't be able to live a long and well life? I'm speaking in a strict physical sense. The fact that someone may think they need it is a whole different thing, my statement was based on the premise that they don't physically need it in any psysiological way to survive.
However, if you restrict your argument to just the physiological, then of course they don't need science either. Animals can get along fine without science. [/quote]
Sure, but I won't live well. We'd live like turtles, sometimes making it to th ocean, maybe escape being eaten, or die by some disease, have a flipper torn off, maybe make it to 80. Obviously humans managed to survive without medical science. But without it, our population would really slim down. Otoh, religion is not necessary to survive. Dancing around to make water fall from the sky to nourish the crops and stave off starvation has no basis in reality. That was the point to begin with.



Let's say you were my professor speaking in a class, I would be confused as to what you're saying, because you're sort of dancing around this feeling or worry about discussing religion too much, perhaps. So, you're throwing out these obtuse statements, when I tried to just be blunt without denigrating religion, which I didn't.

I don't mind discussing religion. But, it's a volatile subject, it seems. The discussions often degenerate into ad hominem and innuendo--probably why the BA doesn't like them on his board.
Well, all I can say is that Jpax made a comment that I felt was incorrect--nobody had been jumping all over religion, then I made the statement that I need science to live long and well, not religion, then you start posting some defense of religion in obtuse ways, thereby creating an argument out of it, where none existed before. So, I'm not sure why you are deciding where to draw the line. :-k

Actually, I feel little has been said in these exchanges to advance the OP of antiscience. :-? I'm PC'ed out. :)

[A Thousand Pardons]

You might want to check other links that aren't centered on just Plymouth in the US...
I have.


As far as the subjectivity of living "well," and what is well--I can only go by today's standards; having all your teeth and novacaine is a good thing.
So, by that standard, you've pretty much proved your point.

But that's my point. Different people have different standards.


Do you think beore Pythagorus Imhotep was just using trial and error? You don't think he had a method? Hmm...
Trial and error is a method. But it's not science.


Obviously humans managed to survive without medical science.

That was pretty much my point.

Otoh, religion is not necessary to survive.
For an individual, or for human society? After all, even science is helpless in some individual instances. And how do you prove your conclusion? Scientifically?


Well, all I can say is that Jpax made a comment that I felt was incorrect--nobody had been jumping all over religion, then I made the statement that I need science to live long and well, not religion, then you start posting some defense of religion in obtuse ways, thereby creating an argument out of it, where none existed before. So, I'm not sure why you are deciding where to draw the line.
I don't think it is up to me to decide that.

[Sam5]

Fortis, thanks for the information.
====

ATP, what I have found in the Latin American villages is, I’ll bet, what we would find if we could return to early America, before the age of medicine. There are plenty of old folks in Latin America, some up into their 90s and 100s. In fact, there seems to be the same number and ratio of kids, young adults, and old adults as here in modern America. In fact I think there are more working old adults than in the US, like the 103 year old guy who climbs fruit trees for a living, who I met in Nicaragua.

What happens is they have a lot of kids (just like early Americans had). An average of about 4 to 16 per village family. The most deaths due to diseases seems to be among the youngest children. A family of 16 will usually lose 4, 5, or 6 kids before the kids reach the age of 5 or 6 years old. Some families will lose less, others will lose more. This seems to be where the most “Darwinian” activity takes place, among the young kids. The kids who survive tend to be resistant to the local prevalent diseases.

The “low lifespan” that we read about in early American days, is most likely based on an average of ages based on a high infant mortality rate. For example, if you have 10 children who live to age 8 and 10 adults who live to age 100, this produces a misleading “average lifespan” number of age 54.

Many of our US people get very sick on these trips because we have no resistance to the local diseases. We are treated with medicines, mainly antibiotics so that we can survive. If we weren’t treated, we’d probably lose 20% to 30% of our medical teams to disease, especially in Nicaragua where the weather is always hot and there are lots of mosquitoes.

[A Thousand Pardons]

The “low lifespan” that we read about in early American days, is most likely based on an average of ages based on a high infant mortality rate. For example, if you have 10 children who live to age 8 and 10 adults who live to age 100, this produces a misleading “average lifespan” number of age 54.
Early lifespan figures that include infant mortality--and a lot of them do--are heavily biased by that. The converse is also true, though, sam5. A 106 year old guy who climbs fruit trees may just be a remnant of that winnowing, not a product of genetic selection. In other words, maybe the first step, not the end product. After all, he was born in the nineteenth century.

[Melusine]

[quote=Melusine]
You might want to check other links that aren't centered on just Plymouth in the US...

I have.


The Plymouth figures are higher than other settlements. Do a Google search on mortality in 1600's America. The figures are lower. But, even going by your citing, and agreeing with that, still if you're lucky to get out of the starting gate, living well was no easy feat. They did use doctors and apothecaries to the best of their abilities.


As far as the subjectivity of living "well," and what is well--I can only go by today's standards; having all your teeth and novacaine is a good thing.
So, by that standard, you've pretty much proved your point.
Again, it's really semantics here, ATP, that you're engaging in. If you think suffering from polio, tuberculosis, yellow fever, being cripple, having no teeth, is living well, then there's no point in going on about this. They were struggling then--we have extant literature about this.


But that's my point. Different people have different standards.
That's subjective talk and doesn't really apply to what I first said to begin with: I don't need religion to live long and well, I do need science. Religon is not a primary need for humans, it's a secondary need along with desires and motivations. I learned that in sociology in my 9th grade Catholic High School basic skills class. If living long and well, is NOT getting cancer at age 40, then science is necessary.



Do you think beore Pythagorus Imhotep was just using trial and error? You don't think he had a method? Hmm...

Trial and error is a method. But it's not science.

I don't know why you keep saying that. I posted the defininition of science. Inmhotep classified--he studied anatomy. There's no indication of it being trial and error. I think you ought to re-think that one. :wink:


Obviously humans managed to survive without medical science.

ATP: That was pretty much my point.
I'm talking early, early humans--our Cro-Magnons and such. That they eeked by like the 80-year old turtle is really not saying much in regards to my original statement.


Otoh, religion is not necessary to survive.

For an individual, or for human society? After all, even science is helpless in some individual instances. And how do you prove your conclusion? Scientifically?

Well, you could look at all the non-religious people in the world and compare their physical and mental health to religious people; you'd have to look at a variety of factors, especially the communal aspect and structure aspect of organized religion, etc, etc. How do you explain non-religious people living to a ripe old age? So, it can't be that one needs religion to survive. Whether a person THINKS they do or not, isn't the issue--I think a lot of things are necessary in my life that aren't--it's can they survive without it. Of course.

The sentence I made red could use something less vague.



Well, all I can say is that Jpax made a comment that I felt was incorrect--nobody had been jumping all over religion, then I made the statement that I need science to live long and well, not religion, then you start posting some defense of religion in obtuse ways, thereby creating an argument out of it, where none existed before. So, I'm not sure why you are deciding where to draw the line.

I don't think it is up to me to decide that.
Again, no one was being contentious or jumping on religion before Jpax made that comment and you came into the thread with your obtuseness in defense of something I'm not even sure why or what you're defending. You then say, you don't mind discussing religion, but the BA doesn't like it, and then proceed to go on stirring the pot. Therefore, you are drawing the line here and somehow absolving yourself of drawing a line. That's not right, ATP, and it's a bit sneaky. I was very up front in my first post about my including Christian Science as anti-science.

So, what are you really saying? Frankly, I'm finding this a bit boring to go on. :wink: Thanks anyway. :wink: :D

BTW, did you notice my prerogative? (sorry, couldn't resist :P )

[A Thousand Pardons]

But, even going by your citing, and agreeing with that, still if you're lucky to get out of the starting gate, living well was no easy feat.
It is no easy feat, IMO.


They were struggling then--we have extant literature about this.

Even Hugh Hefner has had his bad days.



But that's my point. Different people have different standards.
That's subjective talk and doesn't really apply to what I first said to begin with: I don't need religion to live long and well, I do need science.
If all you said was that it only applied to you personally, I would never have disagreed. I thought you were applying it to everybody, even going back through history. I just disagreed. It's not something either of us can prove--but that's my point.


If living long and well, is NOT getting cancer at age 40, then science is necessary.
There are a lot more people who have not got cancer than have got cancer, and up to recent times, medical science had very little to do with prevention of cancer.



And how do you prove your conclusion? Scientifically?

Well, you could look at all the non-religious people in the world and compare their physical and mental health to religious people; you'd have to look at a variety of factors, especially the communal aspect and structure aspect of organized religion, etc, etc.
So, you think that has been done? Are there results somewhere? I seem to remember some, but I don't think they supported your conclusion.

How do you explain non-religious people living to a ripe old age? So, it can't be that one needs religion to survive. Whether a person THINKS they do or not, isn't the issue--I think a lot of things are necessary in my life that aren't--it's can they survive without it. Of course.
Actually, I think my point was that science is no more necessary to life than religion. Keeping similar criteria, whatever they might be. That was the reason for my comment about Novocain (novacaine)--I'll accept Novacain as being the purview of science, not religion, but if that is a necessary criteria, then the comparison is moot, it's begging the question.

Well, all I can say is that Jpax made a comment that I felt was incorrect--nobody had been jumping all over religion, then I made the statement that I need science to live long and well, not religion, then you start posting some defense of religion in obtuse ways, thereby creating an argument out of it, where none existed before. So, I'm not sure why you are deciding where to draw the line.
I am not deciding where to draw the line. I'm still in the discussion.



I don't think it is up to me to decide that.
Again, no one was being contentious or jumping on religion before Jpax made that comment and you came into the thread with your obtuseness in defense of something I'm not even sure why or what you're defending.
Are you saying that simple disagreement is contentious?

[Jpax2003]

Melusine, why do you keep bringing my name up? Just because you and others started arguing about something after I made a post doesn't mean I'm responsible in any way. People are debating your post and its internal logic, not its applicability to my statement.

[Gillianren]

There are a lot more people who have not got cancer than have got cancer, and up to recent times, medical science had very little to do with prevention of cancer.

absolutely right. because they died of other diseases first.

quoting from http://www.digital history.com, "During the twentieth century the average lifespan increased by 30 years, from 47 to 77. Infant mortality decreased by 93 percent and heart disease deaths were cut by half."

quoting from http://www.med.harvard.edu/programs/necs/centenarians.htm, "Prior to the 20th century, average life expectancy was about 45 years of age."

qutoing from http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biology/abpi/history/history11.html, "In 1901, the average life expectancy in the United Kingdom was 47 years. By the year 2000 it had risen to 77 years. New medicines, improved air quality and better public hygiene has contributed to this 64% increase in the life-expectancy."

I'm sure I could find dozens of other sources giving similar information.

now, I'm very religious, but I've never seen that my being religious has to contradict science. heck, John Paul II was in the care of doctors at the end of his life. and when my arthritis is acting up, I find taking a pain killer far more effective than praying to my Goddess.

[hewhocaves]

so glad someone put up the correction that Sagan seems to have used the term earlier (if not first).

Demon Haunted World, along with Bakker's "The Dinosaur Heresies" and Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" are the three books that are most responsible for turining me from a credulous zombie to a thinking homo sapiens.

I agree that DHW should be required HS reading (or at least the first half should - it gets long winded and obtuse at the end). However, with "no child left behind" going on, it's less likely than ever that this will happen. I graduated with a degree in English a year ago and in NJ, at least, the job market is terrible. Looking at the people who ARE getting jobs, I'm seriously considering having my kids (when I have kids) home schooled. Mediocrity and beauracratic paperwork reign supreme. As for adding a course (I'd probably do it sophmore or junior year - freshmen aren't all at the same level developmentally when it comes to abstract logical thinking), the day was short enough beforehand. schools were already cutting out music and art for other things. now with NCLB, that has to go back in. The proposed class would work well in place of a general science course in freshman year, but school systems aren't going to drop general science. I don't even think it's allowed to drop it, federally.

Lastly, I have a friend who runs a commercial cave in the south. I was talking to him over the mem day holiday and the topic of creationism came up. He has a degree in geology (isn't that refreshing? Someone who knows what they are talking about owning a natural wonder) and often gives school cave tours himself. At the first stop (which is about 200+MYA fracture patterns) when he mentions the date, he invariably gets one of the teachers whisper in his ear "I'm sorry, but we don't teach that."
#-o

John

[sarongsong]

...I'll have to tune in to Rush Limbaugh...and see what nostrums they're advertising there. I mainly remember Garlique, but I'm sure there are others...Indeed! (http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_177194808.html)
Oh how I long for Imus in the Morning! :DHe comes on MSNBC at 3 A.M.