Expelled

[Jenksismyhero]

Science isn't a democratic debate.

 

If taxpayers want social study teachers to teach the world is flat and have math teachers teach 1+2=4, they shouldn't tell the dislikers to go to home school.

 

A more serious example, how about a town filled with Neo-Nazis who don't want history teachers to teach about the Holocaust because they feel it didn't happen.

 

Doing away with public funding education is beyond ridiculous as well.

 

Your comparisons are not comparable in the slightest. I don't think the issue of creation is "settled." At the end of the day we're still talking about theory here, not something you can actually prove (i.e. taking pictures of the earth in space, walking through concentration camps, etc. And math is a man made construct, so...).

 

And I totally disagree with your last statement. If only this country let private schools pop-up like Wal-mart (heavily regulated of course), this country's educational system would sky-rocket instead of being pulled down by inept bureaucracy.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

If only this country let private schools pop-up like Wal-mart (heavily regulated of course), this country's educational system would sky-rocket instead of being pulled down by inept bureaucracy.

Such a system would further worsen the difference in education between rich and poor. That would undoubtedly cause a large widening on the income gap, and we'd start to see a diminution of the American Dream and the chance at success. Poor would stay poor, rich would stay rich. That system you suggest would help only the very well-off.

 

[StrangeSox]

Your comparisons are not comparable in the slightest. I don't think the issue of creation is "settled." At the end of the day we're still talking about theory here, not something you can actually prove (i.e. taking pictures of the earth in space, walking through concentration camps, etc. And math is a man made construct, so...).

 

You CAN prove evolution. It has held up after countless new discoveries. It is the foundation of modern biology. DNA and genetic information, something not known about when evolution was first realized, fit right in with it. Again, that's the difference between science and ID/ creationism. ID/ creationism cannot be observed, tested, or measured in any way and so it violates the basic definitions of science.

 

Our education system is not based on (nor should it ever be) the majority's will. As Crimson pointed out, how many average Americans really know anything about evolution aside from what they might remember from their HS biology class? How many really know and understand what ID is and what the basic foundations of science are?

 

Such a system would further worsen the difference in education between rich and poor. That would undoubtedly cause a large widening on the income gap, and we'd start to see a diminution of the American Dream and the chance at success. Poor would stay poor, rich would stay rich. That system you suggest would help only the very well-off.

 

This is getting farther off topic, but what about school vouchers? That way, those who couldn't afford private schools on their own still get public support and the system still invites competition. With the way schools are funded by property taxes now, doesn't our current system give the wealthy much better schools anyway?

 

In many areas, private schools spend less per-child than their public counterparts with better results.

Edited April 16, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

This is getting farther off topic, but what about school vouchers? That way, those who couldn't afford private schools on their own still get public support and the system still invites competition. With the way schools are funded by property taxes now, doesn't our current system give the wealthy much better schools anyway?

 

In many areas, private schools spend less per-child than their public counterparts with better results.

Yeah we've gotten a bit off topic, so I'll be brief. I am not opposed to a voucher type system, but not if the rest of the system stays as is. That would result in two things - rich people getting a break on their kids' private school tuition, and poor people still going to the same crappy schools. It accomplishes nothing. The level of education coming from public schools needs to be raised for ALL schools. A school like a New Trier should not be the exception - it should be the model. Then, if people want to electively spend money and time to further educate their child, feel free.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

You CAN prove evolution. It has held up after countless new discoveries. It is the foundation of modern biology. DNA and genetic information, something not known about when evolution was first realized, fit right in with it.rue

 

That's all true except for the part about provng evolution. Scientists aren't in the buisness of "proving" anything, and that is why they speak in terms of confidence levels when they report their findings.

 

That said, the neodarwinian theory of evolution through randon mutation and natural selection of acquired traits over time continues to be supported by growing mountains of supporting evidence. With every new tool that allows a look at phylogenetic relatedness of species at the molecular level, the already overwhelming case for evolution gets stronger. So much so that there really is no "controversy" as far as 99+% of the biological academic community is concerned. The only real controversy is that caused by non-scientists with zero real understanding of what the theory actually says who are all fired up about letting you know that they "didn't come from no damn monkey". And, of course the theory never says they did, but they are either unable to grasp thst or else simply refuse to do so.

 

[santo=dorf]

I wasn't trying to compare the validity of the theory of evolution to simple math or history from a time period where we still have survivors from this era. My point was how silly it is to have tax paying citizens decide what to teach in school. Quite often I see a creationist say "This is a democratic society, put it to vote. They're taking away our rights as citizens" but it isn't comparable at all.

 

Also if the theory of evolution can't be "settled or proved," despite the millions of pieces of evidence to support it, ID isn't even worth mentioning at a PA meeting. Don't teach either if it's such a big deal. Make the kids take another math class.

Edited April 16, 2008 by santo=dorf

[Mplssoxfan]

I think only ID should be taught in schools, along with the Ptolemaic solar system.

 

Bring back the slide rule, too!

 

 

 

[santo=dorf]

I also like how creationists point out how scientists may have changed their minds on an original thought (ie, did more research and came to another conclusion, typical in the scientific method) and use that as a basis to dimiss the entire scientific theory of evolution.

 

Pluto was just voted out of the solar system. Those damn scientists just can't get it right. I bet we should just forget everything we learned about the universe and go back to thinking the sun revolves around the Earth like the bible implies.

[Balta1701]

[FlaSoxxJim]

Hey Soxy,

 

You never chimed in with your own thoughts on the fields of behavioral evolution. What say you – smash or trash??

[Soxy]

Hey Soxy,

 

You never chimed in with your own thoughts on the fields of behavioral evolution. What say you – smash or trash??

I'm a bit torn on it. On the one hand, it seems rather indisputably true that there are behavioral outputs that make a lot more sense if put in evolutionary perspective than basic learning theory. (Like a finding that animals are unable to learn associations between some sets of stimuli, but not others.) Of course, some basic theories of learning can also account for this data--but the mechanisms that they use to account for them isn't necessarily theoretically interesting. Also, I think that the points raised by Chomsky about language acquisition also are really important, valid, and have laid the ground work for modern theories of psycholinguistics. SOME of the more social evolutionary theories are also pretty interesting--I particularly like Buss' theory about love and jealousy.

 

On the other hand, a lot of the explanations offered by EvoPsy seems really post-hoc to me (although I suppose this just goes back the general adaptationism critique that can be leveled against them or the unfalsifiable one). I also think that focusing on the neural and biological correlates of speech, auditory/visual perception/ memory is interesting--but I think it isn't necessarily as interesting as studying pure behavioral stuff. And sometimes focusing on something like a language acquisition center in the brain can take away from really interesting other phenomena. So, I guess it's more about how diversified the field is--I think EvoPsy is an important aspect of experimental psychology and other sub-disciplines should take their theories into consideration. But I don't necessarily think it is the most interesting question in Psychology (because, admittedly, we're waaaaaaaaaaay behind the hard sciences theoretically).

 

Oh, and I should argue that I think that a lot of the EvoPsy explanation for mental illness and suicide is pretty piss poor and not convincing to me at all.

[Controlled Chaos]

I'm a bit torn on it. On the one hand, it seems rather indisputably true that there are behavioral outputs that make a lot more sense if put in evolutionary perspective than basic learning theory. (Like a finding that animals are unable to learn associations between some sets of stimuli, but not others.) Of course, some basic theories of learning can also account for this data--but the mechanisms that they use to account for them isn't necessarily theoretically interesting. Also, I think that the points raised by Chomsky about language acquisition also are really important, valid, and have laid the ground work for modern theories of psycholinguistics. SOME of the more social evolutionary theories are also pretty interesting--I particularly like Buss' theory about love and jealousy.

 

On the other hand, a lot of the explanations offered by EvoPsy seems really post-hoc to me (although I suppose this just goes back the general adaptationism critique that can be leveled against them or the unfalsifiable one). I also think that focusing on the neural and biological correlates of speech, auditory/visual perception/ memory is interesting--but I think it isn't necessarily as interesting as studying pure behavioral stuff. And sometimes focusing on something like a language acquisition center in the brain can take away from really interesting other phenomena. So, I guess it's more about how diversified the field is--I think EvoPsy is an important aspect of experimental psychology and other sub-disciplines should take their theories into consideration. But I don't necessarily think it is the most interesting question in Psychology (because, admittedly, we're waaaaaaaaaaay behind the hard sciences theoretically).

 

Oh, and I should argue that I think that a lot of the EvoPsy explanation for mental illness and suicide is pretty piss poor and not convincing to me at all.

 

DAM...I feel like Will Ferrell in Old School, when he woke up after blacking out during the debate.

 

Impressive Soxy.

[vandy125]

Wow, interesting to see the discussion. Has anyone actually seen the movie, or is everyone just going to dismiss it outright? That seems to be a big point in the movie from what I have read about it. All of the ideas are preformed with defenses built around them even amongst people with "open" minds.

 

I'm sure that someone will say, I don't need to see it, I already know what kind of crap is going to come out. I have a feeling that some who are saying that also were offended when they heard someone else say the same thing about a Michael Moore film or even Al Gore's film. Those people had obviously closed their minds.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Wow, interesting to see the discussion. Has anyone actually seen the movie, or is everyone just going to dismiss it outright? That seems to be a big point in the movie from what I have read about it. All of the ideas are preformed with defenses built around them even amongst people with "open" minds.

 

I'm sure that someone will say, I don't need to see it, I already know what kind of crap is going to come out. I have a feeling that some who are saying that also were offended when they heard someone else say the same thing about a Michael Moore film or even Al Gore's film. Those people had obviously closed their minds.

 

The content of the movie is already well-known. It has been reviewed extensively.

[vandy125]

The content of the movie is already well-known. It has been reviewed extensively.

Now, wasn't that exactly what I was talking about? Have you seen it? I have not (didn't see the other ones I talked about either. I am one close-minded bastage). I'm wondering if we have any first-handed accounts of it and what you thought.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Now, wasn't that exactly what I was talking about? Have you seen it? I have not (didn't see the other ones I talked about either. I am one close-minded bastage). I'm wondering if we have any first-handed accounts of it and what you thought.

 

Are you saying that it is impossible to judge a movie without seeing it? Or that the many people who have seen it are not reporting on it accurately?

[vandy125]

Are you saying that it is impossible to judge a movie without seeing it? Or that the many people who have seen it are not reporting on it accurately?

 

That is going to an extreme there. Anyone can judge a movie without seeing it. But, it does follow that those who have seen it will have a more accurate report on it than someone who has just "read" about it. I am in the later category and would therefore not be able to give a very accurate report on it.

 

I'm seeing a good amount of discussion and was wondering if someone has seen it because, yes, I would value their opinions about it more. The same seemed to be thought with those other films. Your opinion was more valued if you had actually seen the movies and you were seen as more open-minded.

[FlaSoxxJim]

That is going to an extreme there. Anyone can judge a movie without seeing it. But, it does follow that those who have seen it will have a more accurate report on it than someone who has just "read" about it. I am in the later category and would therefore not be able to give a very accurate report on it.

 

I'm seeing a good amount of discussion and was wondering if someone has seen it because, yes, I would value their opinions about it more. The same seemed to be thought with those other films. Your opinion was more valued if you had actually seen the movies and you were seen as more open-minded.

 

The comparison between people closed to the idea of seeing this film versus, for example, Gore's film, only works if you are willing to fully equate the reasons behind the close-mindedness. That is, you have to be willing to hold the positions of the climate-change naysayers and ID naysayers as equally valid. Maybe me and the National Science Foundation, AAAS, etc., are just a bunch of close-minded curmudgeons, but if ID has zero scientific merit then a movie pushing ID isn't going to change that.

 

I might see it just so I can say I did, but I'll likely wait to see it on cable or DVD. I so rarely get to the theater anymore, and unless I went as part of a group of scientist-curmudgeons I doubt I'd go alone.

Edited April 20, 2008 by FlaSoxxJim

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm a bit torn on it. On the one hand, it seems rather indisputably true that there are behavioral outputs that make a lot more sense if put in evolutionary perspective than basic learning theory. (Like a finding that animals are unable to learn associations between some sets of stimuli, but not others.) Of course, some basic theories of learning can also account for this data--but the mechanisms that they use to account for them isn't necessarily theoretically interesting. Also, I think that the points raised by Chomsky about language acquisition also are really important, valid, and have laid the ground work for modern theories of psycholinguistics. SOME of the more social evolutionary theories are also pretty interesting--I particularly like Buss' theory about love and jealousy.

 

On the other hand, a lot of the explanations offered by EvoPsy seems really post-hoc to me (although I suppose this just goes back the general adaptationism critique that can be leveled against them or the unfalsifiable one). I also think that focusing on the neural and biological correlates of speech, auditory/visual perception/ memory is interesting--but I think it isn't necessarily as interesting as studying pure behavioral stuff. And sometimes focusing on something like a language acquisition center in the brain can take away from really interesting other phenomena. So, I guess it's more about how diversified the field is--I think EvoPsy is an important aspect of experimental psychology and other sub-disciplines should take their theories into consideration. But I don't necessarily think it is the most interesting question in Psychology (because, admittedly, we're waaaaaaaaaaay behind the hard sciences theoretically).

 

Oh, and I should argue that I think that a lot of the EvoPsy explanation for mental illness and suicide is pretty piss poor and not convincing to me at all.

 

 

That's a really good summation, Soxy. I'm not a big fan of his, but I read something by Deepak Chopra a while back that pretty much mirrors your critique and pretty well done. And while EvoPsy may be particularly guilty of it (and it sounds like it is based on your opinions), I think most evolutionary biology investigations struggle here and there to avoid the post-hoc pitfall — that they are working back from a conclusion that already exists and that has the potential makings of bad science.

[vandy125]

The comparison between people closed to the idea of seeing this film versus, for example, Gore's film, only works if you are willing to fully equate the reasons behind the close-mindedness. That is, you have to be willing to hold the positions of the climate-change naysayers and ID naysayers as equally valid. Maybe me and the National Science Foundation, AAAS, etc., are just a bunch of close-minded curmudgeons, but if ID has zero scientific merit then a movie pushing ID isn't going to change that.

I would say that many scientists are closed-minded to ID as a philosophy, not as a scientific method. I really think that the ID philosophy can add a lot to the wonder of what the sciences are discovering. It is amazing to me as a person who believes in an ID all of the amazing little complexities that we have not only discovered, but are still discovering. I do not think that you need to say that evolution is wrong and needs to be thrown out, nor do I think that any of the scientific discoveries need to be thrown out. It really adds to the wonder of what science is showing us and is my personal belief. It also allows for some discrimination of all of the data that we see. Are we measuring, reading, and gaining all of our understanding with a preformed view that everything has to be natural (therefore leading us to certain conclusions), or are we open to saying that this is the best, natural explanation we can give and there are places that it honestly falls short right now? I don't think that there is an open look at where the natural explanation so far falls short, where it needs to improve.

 

This is probably one of the best things that ID has done for science, it has pointed to some holes, which has lead to scientific exploration and even more discoveries (filling some of those holes in knowledge).

 

Here is what I think about the close-mindedness. People will believe what they want to believe, and it is the exact same thing about both films. Many people do not want to change their lives or their beliefs that all is good with the world and that we are not messing it up at all. So, they are completely close-minded to Al Gore's film. In the same way, there are many who do not want to change their lives or their beliefs that there is no external control, influence, or design to what we have around us. So, they are also completely close-minded to this type of a film and to a completely open look at where naturalism has not yet told us everything.

[CrimsonWeltall]

This is probably one of the best things that ID has done for science, it has pointed to some holes, which has lead to scientific exploration and even more discoveries (filling some of those holes in knowledge).

 

Can you give an example?

 

I would say that many scientists are closed-minded to ID as a philosophy, not as a scientific method.

So, they are also completely close-minded to this type of a film and to a completely open look at where naturalism has not yet told us everything.

 

This may be true, but it is not the point of the movie. Expelled is about the idea that ID is a valid scientific theory and that supporters of that theory are routinely discriminated against in the scientific/academic community for no good reason.

[vandy125]

Can you give an example?

 

Sure, just off the top of my head, how about Michael Behe's book called Darwin's Black Box. In there he talked about several examples of what he considered to be things that were irreducibly complex. By that, it is meant that there are parts of organisms that are too complex, where their parts are too intertwined for that part to have come about due to natural selection. If you take any of the parts away, the rest of the parts are useless. Anyhow, his critiques and critiques like his have led to some good research being done on how that would be possible in the examples that he talked about. Sure, some of those things may have been discovered with time, but it, IMO, pushed that area of research.

 

I'm not sure if something has been found for all of his examples, but IIRC, some of them have. So, some of our knowledge has been filled by that push.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Sure, just off the top of my head, how about Michael Behe's book called Darwin's Black Box. In there he talked about several examples of what he considered to be things that were irreducibly complex. By that, it is meant that there are parts of organisms that are too complex, where their parts are too intertwined for that part to have come about due to natural selection. If you take any of the parts away, the rest of the parts are useless. Anyhow, his critiques and critiques like his have led to some good research being done on how that would be possible in the examples that he talked about. Sure, some of those things may have been discovered with time, but it, IMO, pushed that area of research.

 

I'm not sure if something has been found for all of his examples, but IIRC, some of them have. So, some of our knowledge has been filled by that push.

 

The majority of the scientific community has pretty much dismissed Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, just as it has rejected Dembski's argument of specified complexity. They are the cornerstones of ID, but they are largely considered as either pseudoscience (IC) or mathematically unsound (SC).

 

Modern biologists disregard macromutation as a major evolutionary force, instead believing that even very tightly integrated and complex structures like the textbook examples of the vertebrate eye, viper envenomation apparatus, etc., evolved through accumulated small changes. Behe's IC argument is arguing a position that evoultionary biologists moved away from 30 years or so ago.

[vandy125]

The majority of the scientific community has pretty much dismissed Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, just as it has rejected Dembski's argument of specified complexity. They are the cornerstones of ID, but they are largely considered as either pseudoscience (IC) or mathematically unsound (SC).

 

Modern biologists disregard macromutation as a major evolutionary force, instead believing that even very tightly integrated and complex structures like the textbook examples of the vertebrate eye, viper envenomation apparatus, etc., evolved through accumulated small changes. Behe's IC argument is arguing a position that evoultionary biologists moved away from 30 years or so ago.

Eh, I'm not too surprised. I wouldn't know about your claim of it being 30 years or so ago considering some of the examples that I have seen, but it did make my point a bit about pushing the sciences to back up its claims. I know that you are more read up about this kind of thing. Just like any argument causes you to really back up your thoughts and positions, so does this. And, that is the point in looking at other people's views and trying to see things through their eyes.

[Balta1701]

Yoko sues Expelled filmmakers over unauthorized use of "Imagine".