The Democrat Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

And you wouldn't judge that type of answer to be a politically loaded one? I would.

Its not for the instructor to answer - that's my point.

 

[Balta1701]

Its not for the instructor to answer - that's my point.

So you're a professor teaching a class, a student asks a question that directly challenges the basis for the class, and the professor isn't able to answer it in a way that says why the professor believes what he is asking is correct?

 

I think this illustrates the catch-22 here. If you don't answer, you've undermined your own class because you're unwilling to defend it. If you do answer, you're suddenly instilling politics into things. Works the same way for Climate Change. And probably a number of other subjects we could come to if we wanted.

[NorthSideSox72]

So you're a professor teaching a class, a student asks a question that directly challenges the basis for the class, and the professor isn't able to answer it in a way that says why the professor believes what he is asking is correct?

 

I think this illustrates the catch-22 here. If you don't answer, you've undermined your own class because you're unwilling to defend it. If you do answer, you're suddenly instilling politics into things. Works the same way for Climate Change. And probably a number of other subjects we could come to if we wanted.

You seem to see only options A or B here - defend a belief or say nothing. The real answer should be to respond with evidence, scientific data, an utterance of where that evidence points and why. That isn't defending a belief, that is providing data. That is not instilling politics, and doesn't need to be.

 

[bmags]

I had a presidential class too. I thought it was a little overly favorable to Wilson, but I don't know what you take from that. It seems poliSci professors think much more highly of him (perhaps his background)

 

And also he had a huge hard on for James K Polk, but I chalked that up for being a big They Might Be Giants fan.

[Balta1701]

You seem to see only options A or B here - defend a belief or say nothing. The real answer should be to respond with evidence, scientific data, an utterance of where that evidence points and why. That isn't defending a belief, that is providing data. That is not instilling politics, and doesn't need to be.

I'm arguing that when I hear that, providing data to counter a person's political belief...you're making a political argument and that's how I hear it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm arguing that when I hear that, providing data to counter a person's political belief...you're making a political argument and that's how I hear it.

I guess I don't see it that way. If you want to take a political slant from providing history, data, scientific information, methodology, etc. - then you seemingly would think anything was political.

 

[bmags]

Maybe I'm timid, though I doubt it, but I also think those questions are out of place for the class.

 

Elaboration: When I take a science class, I do not go into it looking to prove my beliefs, I go into it for knowledge on how to do the science and how to understand their topics/jobs.

 

A better way to explain this, This 6,000 year belief is based on religion. The biologists work is not based off of religion, but based on the work they've done. I think the importance of the class is to ask questions pertaining to that work. And I think it's shortsighted to say you can't still find you're beliefs on that 6,000 even moreso by knowing how the science works.

 

And more elaboration: I took religious studies courses on the torrah and also a christianity course. When in the torrah class, I didn't feel it germane to the class to ask "Why do the jews reject the son of god when there is clear evidence that he was the prophet?" The class is about the teachings of the torah and the societies it represented. My questions stuck to them. In the Christianity class, I did not ask for proof to counter my growing atheism. I learned what there was to learn, and I found it a fulfilling class.

 

It's just as important to learn the topic at hand without forcing the topic to extrapolate to your own hypotheses. That can be done at professor hours. But I find it a bit disrespectful to ask the teacher to debate something off topic.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm arguing that when I hear that, providing data to counter a person's political belief...you're making a political argument and that's how I hear it.

 

Which is why it seems that people on the "left" often feel like the reasoning behind a "right" person's belief is "preaching,", but when the roles are switched it's providing proof of the only possible answer.

 

I agree with Northside. A GOOD professor provides facts, theories, and the logic/reasoning behind those theories. THe student should be able to form his/her own conclusion from that. My biggest issue in college was that nearly every professor assumed that every theory was unalterable fact. It's called a theory for a reason.

[BigSqwert]

When the bible is a big portion of your facts then I understand why that would come off as preachy.

[Jenksismyhero]

When the bible is a big portion of your facts then I understand why that would come off as preachy.

 

Versus what? A book filled with unprovable theories?

[BigSqwert]

Those theories comprise of facts while the bible includes none.

[Jenksismyhero]

Those theories comprise of facts while the bible includes none.

 

Wow, really? So the whole Bible is made up? Interesting. I guess I see zero difference between a book of ancient history, say for example A History of the Peloponnesian War, and the Bible. Both are comprised entirely of first hand accounts. Yet one is "fact," and the other is not?

 

I'm not arguing that a book that outlines the theory of genetics isn't more ...believable?... than a book which basically says "these are my words, thus they be true." But I mean come on, the line between the two isn't that clear.

[BigSqwert]

I see zero difference between a book of ancient history......and the Bible.

 

Then there's nothing else for me to say.

[Jenksismyhero]

Then there's nothing else for me to say.

 

And the right is the close-minded side, I forgot.

[BigSqwert]

And the right is the close-minded side, I forgot.

Right. I'll come back after I round up 2 of every species and build an ark.

[bmags]

it's pretty difficult for theory's to be made into laws.

 

Like I said, I find it disrespectful to walk into a class of someone who the subject is their life's study and work, and challenge them before listening to their presentation.

 

And if you can't listen to alternative presentations without crying about bias then you probably aren't cut out for college.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right. I'll come back after I round up 2 of every species and build an ark.

 

Nice. The Jon Stewart line of reasoning. Instead of debating an issue, just make a joke and you win.

[BigSqwert]

Nice. The Jon Stewart line of reasoning. Instead of debating an issue, just make a joke and you win.

Not sure why you're in the Dem thread trying to convince me that the bible is fact.

[CrimsonWeltall]

it's pretty difficult for theory's to be made into laws.

 

Like I said, I find it disrespectful to walk into a class of someone who the subject is their life's study and work, and challenge them before listening to their presentation.

 

And if you can't listen to alternative presentations without crying about bias then you probably aren't cut out for college.

 

Theories are never turned into Laws. They serve two different purposes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Not sure why you're in the Dem thread trying to convince me that the bible is fact.

 

I wasn't. I'm saying I find it funny that the "left" basically says unless you come to me with "science" you're preaching to me, without realizing that what they do is the exact same thing.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Wow, really? So the whole Bible is made up? Interesting. I guess I see zero difference between a book of ancient history, say for example A History of the Peloponnesian War, and the Bible. Both are comprised entirely of first hand accounts. Yet one is "fact," and the other is not?

 

Much of the authorship of the Bible is highly questionable, so I'm unsure how you can attribute all of it to first-hand accounts. First-hand knowledge wouldn't account for the obviously false (Creation, Noah, Exodus) events or the really poor history in other areas.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Much of the authorship of the Bible is highly questionable, so I'm unsure how you can attribute all of it to first-hand accounts. First-hand knowledge wouldn't account for the obviously false (Creation, Noah, Exodus) events or the really poor history in other areas.

 

My point remains. Both contain unverifiable facts (the beginning, for example). One is preaching, the other is teaching.

[CrimsonWeltall]

My point remains. Both contain unverifiable facts (the beginning, for example). One is preaching, the other is teaching.

 

Your point remains wrong. Religious claims are not equivalent to scientific theories.

[Jenksismyhero]

Your point remains wrong. Religious claims are not equivalent to scientific theories.

 

Really? So taking a theory like the Big Bang is so vastly different than a theory about an old bearded guy in the sky? Don't both require a belief in something that's entirely unprovable (God, or the existence of elements that just happened to be hangin' around in space).

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Really? So taking a theory like the Big Bang is so vastly different than a theory about an old bearded guy in the sky? Don't both require a belief in something that's entirely unprovable (God, or the existence of elements that just happened to be hangin' around in space).

 

Yes, they are vastly different. The Big Bang Theory was developed by through analysis of known principles and observations. It will be strengthened or weakened as we gain more knowledge. The same cannot be said of creation myths.

 

How is it unprovable (or unreasonable) that matter/energy used to exist?