Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Fervent]

In a US public high school??? Dream on. If I were running the schools it would be the logical treatises of Aristotle.

Who said I would wait til high school? That's middle school learnin.

 

[Fervent]

I'm afraid that he and I (and you) don't have a choice in the matter.

Fatalism is so passe

 

[BCP1928]

Who said I would wait til high school? That's middle school learnin.

And you would be arguing about it with people who are against it--the very same people you are arguing with here and for exactly the same reason.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yeah, my appeal to reason isn't so much to try to bring people to faith through reasoning, as ultimately I believe it has to come from personal experience, but such arguments serve the faithful by providing reassurance.

Have you read about the conversion of C.S. Lewis? Closest thing I've found to an intellectual route to God.

He had been reading some Christian books over and over again (books by Donne, Browne, Spenser, Milton, Johnson and Chesterton) when he decided to go to town on the bus (Lewis never learned how to drive!). He got on the bus an atheist. As he rode along, “he reconsidered Hegel’s philosophy of the absolute and festooned it with Berkley’s notion of the spirit. What resulted was a philosophical construct he called God.” When his stop came, he got off the bus believing that God did indeed exist.

C.S. Lewis — His Conversion

Lewis is known as the foremost defender of the Christian faith in this century.

christinprophecy.org

 

[Fervent]

And you would be arguing about it with people who are against it--the very same people you are arguing with here and for exactly the same reason.

I'm sure, people in positions of privilege rarely give up those privileges without a fight.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm sure, people in positions of privilege rarely give up those privileges without a fight.

For middle schoolers there would be nothing so good as the classical Trivium. Even Hillsdale College is pushing it, though they don't realize how dangerous it is for them and their movement.

 

[Fervent]

For middle schoolers there would be nothing so good as the classical Trivium. Even Hillsdale College is pushing it, though they don't realize how dangerous it is for them and their movement.

I was joking when I said middle school, their reasoning faculties tend not to be developed enough to grasp the kinds of issues involved. I thought that would be obvious, but tone is easily lost in text.

 

[BCP1928]

I was joking when I said middle school, their reasoning faculties tend not to be developed enough to grasp the kinds of issues involved. I thought that would be obvious, but tone is easily lost in text.

I wasn't. My teaching experience with that age group suggests that would be the right time. When it was actually used in schools, elements of it were introduced as early as age 7, fully articulated with their growing literacy and numeracy skills,

 

[Fervent]

I wasn't. My teaching experience with that age group suggests that would be the right time. When it was actually used in schools, elements of it were introduced as early as age 7, fully articulated with their growing literacy and numeracy skills,

Laying elementary foundations like logical/dialectic is one thing, but delving into the strange territory I suggested of mereology, ontology, and full blown epistemics(with my preference being a presentation built around the various ways of addressing Munchaussen's Trilemma) is a whole different animal. Though I'm not sure where you're teaching at, but in the US education system we seem to struggle achieving a basic reading level among a plurality of students which is a more serious matter than their deductive/inductive/abductive abilities.

 

[BCP1928]

Laying elementary foundations like logical/dialectic is one thing, but delving into the strange territory I suggested of mereology, ontology, and full blown epistemics(with my preference being a presentation built around the various ways of addressing Munchaussen's Trilemma) is a whole different animal.

And without the foundation of the Trivium to build on it would be difficult for them to understand it anyway. Your talking college level now.

Though I'm not sure where you're teaching at, but in the US education system we seem to struggle achieving a basic reading level among a plurality of students which is a more serious matter than their deductive/inductive/abductive abilities.

Actually it's not--what are they learning to read for anyway, if not to acquire knowledge and think critically about it? The Trivium is not curriculum content, it's a teaching method.

 

[Fervent]

And without the foundation of the Trivium to build on it would be difficult for them to understand it anyway. Your talking college level now.

Perhaps with mereology and ontology, but understanding how we know what we know(or at least how we justify our beliefs about knowledge) is territory that at the very least can be broached at the high school level. Gettier problems and other epistemic issues may not be warranted in such a course, but primary solutions to Munchaussen's Trilemma would likely be illuminating.

Actually it's not--what are they learning to read for anyway, if not to acquire knowledge and think critically about it? The Trivium is not curriculum content, it's a teaching method.

I am aware, but the underlying issues of achieving a basic reading ability remains an issue even for a change in pedagogy. First they must be able to comprehend what they are reading before they can question it effectively or understand the ins and outs of different reasoning approaches.

 

[BCP1928]

Perhaps with mereology and ontology, but understanding how we know what we know(or at least how we justify our beliefs about knowledge) is territory that at the very least can be broached at the high school level. Gettier problems and other epistemic issues may not be warranted in such a course, but primary solutions to Munchaussen's Trilemma would likely be illuminating.

I am aware, but the underlying issues of achieving a basic reading ability remains an issue even for a change in pedagogy. First they must be able to comprehend what they are reading before they can question it effectively or understand the ins and outs of different reasoning approaches.

Then solve the reading problem. Solving it is not a mystery, but they will not be able to consider the Munchausen dillema until they know logic.

 

[Fervent]

Then solve the reading problem. Solving it is not a mystery, but they will not be able to consider the Munchausen dillema until they know logic.

Solving it would likely require solving social inequality and other underlying factors, not simply an educational solution. And logic is just one aspect/approach to Munchaussen's Trilemma and isn't even the dominant current justification paradigm as it tends to fall more on the dogmatic side while modern solutions tend to embrace infinite regress. That is to say logic deals with deductive approaches, while modern solutions involve inductive and abductive approaches. Appreciating epistemic problems like Munchaussen's Trilemma don't require much by the way of complicated proofs or sophisticated analysis, though some do such as Hume's fork.

 

[BCP1928]

Solving it would likely require solving social inequality and other underlying factors, not simply an educational solution.

No, just dealing with them honestly would be enough.

And logic is just one aspect/approach to Munchaussen's Trilemma and isn't even the dominant current justification paradigm as it tends to fall more on the dogmatic side while modern solutions tend to embrace infinite regress. That is to say logic deals with deductive approaches, while modern solutions involve inductive and abductive approaches. Appreciating epistemic problems like Munchaussen's Trilemma don't require much by the way of complicated proofs or sophisticated analysis, though some do such as Hume's fork.

Why is that an important problem for students to solve?

 

[Fervent]

No, just dealing with them honestly would be enough.

Can't really argue there, but my point stands that the issue is largely sociological not simply eduational.

Why is that an important problem for students to solve?

It's not about them solving it, but understanding how various schools of thought have treated it. It is one of the primary unsolved problems in epistemics, and understanding what the various approaches would serve to foster an academic humility as it highlights the extent to which human knowledge is uncertain and lead to a better practical understanding of theories of truth. In principle, it would serve to expose dominant paradigms that are generally accepted without criticism and provide them the tools to more effectively form convictions of their own rather than being indoctrinated by subtle cultural influences.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The DI imprint puts out books that aren't ID related, and don't masquerade as science. There's certainly a credibility issue with them, but not every book they publish suffers from the confirmation bias issues that plague ID. Blanket attacks on them are more ad hominem than anything else.

Why the polemics? In brief -- DI earned it and DI author Klinghoffer is no exception.

1. DI is an organization with negative credibility. Not only do they press false nonsense about science, but their original pitch -- that they were examining alternative views of "origins" left behind by "mainstream science" in a scientific fashion turned out to be a lie. Not only was ID just old fashioned "creation science" with a fresh coat of "secular" whitewash, but the main driver of the institute was to erode "materialist metaphysics" from education so that it could be replaced by some sort of theologically derived methodology. To reach their goals they have to implement some sort of theocracy, which I cannot abide.

2. Klinghoffer is a recognizable affiliate of DI, not some 'innocent outside" author.

3. Klinghoffer's DIP book was put forward as an even better book to demonstrate the "problems with Darwinism". The book presents itself as addressing a scientific topic, an area where DI fails miserably.

4. Klinghoffer is not a scientist of any kind. His author bio lists a "BA from Brown" but lists no area of study. For his career info it lists his writing and editing for mainstream conservative media outlets. Not a profile that suggests any scientific knowledge.

As for DIP...

on their home page, they have 6 covers of recent books highlighted.

1. Klinghoffer's book on "science"
2. A book about how Christianity is under the thrall of secular society by DI's chief of culture wars.
3. A pro-ID apologetic for Catholics written by some priest.
4. A cartoon book for children about "proofs for god".
5. An anti-euthenasia book
6. A YA novel by 2 DI fellows about 2 teen cousins, one of whom claims that "There’s no God. No afterlife. Just atoms in the void and the struggle for survival." (Sounds like the plot of "God's Not Dead")

Everyone publishing with DI Press seems perfectly aware of what DI is and what they do. Publishing with DIP seems to be a deliberate choice.

 

[Fervent]

Why the polemics? In brief -- DI earned it and DI author Klinghoffer is no exception.

1. DI is an organization with negative credibility. Not only do they press false nonsense about science, but their original pitch -- that they were examining alternative views of "origins" left behind by "mainstream science" in a scientific fashion turned out to be a lie. Not only was ID just old fashioned "creation science" with a fresh coat of "secular" whitewash, but the main driver of the institute was to erode "materialist metaphysics" from education so that it could be replaced by some sort of theologically derived methodology. To reach their goals they have to implement some sort of theocracy, which I cannot abide.

2. Klinghoffer is a recognizable affiliate of DI, not some 'innocent outside" author.

3. Klinghoffer's DIP book was put forward as an even better book to demonstrate the "problems with Darwinism". The book presents itself as addressing a scientific topic, an area where DI fails miserably.

4. Klinghoffer is not a scientist of any kind. His author bio lists a "BA from Brown" but lists no area of study. For his career info it lists his writing and editing for mainstream conservative media outlets. Not a profile that suggests any scientific knowledge.

As for DIP...

on their home page, they have 6 covers of recent books highlighted.

1. Klinghoffer's book on "science"
2. A book about how Christianity is under the thrall of secular society by DI's chief of culture wars.
3. A pro-ID apologetic for Catholics written by some priest.
4. A cartoon book for children about "proofs for god".
5. An anti-euthenasia book
6. A YA novel by 2 DI fellows about 2 teen cousins, one of whom claims that "There’s no God. No afterlife. Just atoms in the void and the struggle for survival." (Sounds like the plot of "God's Not Dead")

Everyone publishing with DI Press seems perfectly aware of what DI is and what they do. Publishing with DIP seems to be a deliberate choice.

DI certainly has credibility issues, and the information about Klinghoffer certainly speaks to being more than just an attack because of the publisher. Though I don't read a title such as "Plato's Revenge" with an emphasis on materialism as being science, though its description does seem to be trying to give that impression.

 

[Hans Blaster]

DI certainly has credibility issues, and the information about Klinghoffer certainly speaks to being more than just an attack because of the publisher. Though I don't read a title such as "Plato's Revenge" with an emphasis on materialism as being science, though its description does seem to be trying to give that impression.

The title also speaks of an "immaterial genome" which is a contradiction in terms. As best I can tell their argument is built around a poor understanding of developmental biology and bad math arguments.

 

[Fervent]

The title also speaks of an "immaterial genome" which is a contradiction in terms. As best I can tell their argument is built around a poor understanding of developmental biology and bad math arguments.

Quite possibly, but arguments about materialism vs other ontological foundations isn't science by the nature of the conversation. No matter how bad or good the arguments are.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Quite possibly, but arguments about materialism vs other ontological foundations isn't science by the nature of the conversation. No matter how bad or good the arguments are.

DI and its people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what is and is not science. (And no, I don't mean because of their ID pseudoscience.) Their core element is a center for "science and culture", which are very different things.