curious (was RE: darwinian slip and a thought - psych-free)
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Charles M. Huffman went: I am curious about the affiliation of: Rick Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am curious about your reason for having cc'd this to TIPS instead of simply asking Rick. --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: darwinian slip and a thought - psych-free
re Judaic theology what does that have to do with the teaching of psychology? Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida
Re: darwinian slip and a thought - psych-free
At 11:21 AM -0400 4/11/01, Michael Sylvester wrote: re Judaic theology what does that have to do with the teaching of psychology? Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida Read the statement at the end of my post on the topic. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
RE: darwinian slip and a thought - psych-free
Michael Sylvester wrote: re Judaic theology what does that have to do with the teaching of psychology? About as much as discussions of "Eurocentricity," i.e., nothing at all, actually, but it makes for interesting discussions. Rick -- Rick Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
RE: darwinian slip and a thought - psych-free
I am curious about the affiliation of: Rick Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. + Charles M. Huffman, Ph.D. Chair, Psychology Dept. Cumberland College, Box 7990 Williamsburg, KY 40769 +
Re: Darwinian slip and a thought - psych-light
"Pollak, Edward" wrote: Other scholars (including the Rambam (Maimonides) have argued that many of the mitzvot were included to keep the People from adopting customs of the Canaanites. Thus, if boiling meat in milk was a pagan custom or part of a pagan ritual it would be forbidden. Similarly, the prohibition against rounding the corners of the beard was suggested as a practice of pagan priests. Anthropologists such as Marvin Harris have given interesting explanations of some of the dietary prohibitions. But many of the mitzvot seem to have been designed to keep the People sanctified (sensu "set apart") Of course, the key to this sentence is "seem to have been designed". The Torah remains silent concerning the rational for Kashrut and a variety of other Mitzvot. Scholars and others have speculated as to a rational for these Mitzvot for millennium but it all remains speculation (I'm assuming that no one has gone back up on the mountain to talk to any flaming bushes lately). It is important to note that some of these rationales for various Mitzvot have been reinterpreted by non-Jews and have been used as a basis for anti-Semitism for almost two thousand years. This is particularly true of the misinterpretations regarding "chosenness" and "set apart". These misinterpretations coupled with differences in custom and tradition have served to reinforce in-group/out-group characterizations, stereotyping, and prejudice. Warm regards, Linda -- Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. Book Review Editor, H-Genocide Associate Professor - Psychology Coordinator - Holocaust Genocide Studies, Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights Webster University 470 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Main Webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Darwinian slip and a thought
At 8:22 PM -0400 4/6/01, Pollak, Edward wrote: Linda wrote While a number of the Mizvot seem to have no logic behind them, the prohibition against the above is speculated as follows - It would be too cruel for the mother to endure having their young killed in front of them (something else you are not to do) and then to have them play a role in their young's death. There are a number of Mitzvot concerning animals which are based in kindness Other scholars (including the Rambam (Maimonides) have argued that many of the mitzvot were included to keep the People from adopting customs of the Canaanites. Thus, if boiling meat in milk was a pagan custom or part of a pagan ritual it would be forbidden. Similarly, the prohibition against rounding the corners of the beard was suggested as a practice of pagan priests. Anthropologists such as Marvin Harris have given interesting explanations of some of the dietary prohibitions. But many of the mitzvot seem to have been designed to keep the People sanctified (sensu "set apart") Ed Or as my favorite Rabbi pointed out: "Companion" literally means "with bread" -- those with whom you eat. Dietary laws would have the effect of causing members of the group to eat together, those promoting group cohesion. * PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Department507-389-6217 * * "The University formerly known as Mankato State" * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
From: "Rick Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: darwinian slip and a thought In some cases, for the sake of brevity (and because I agree with you or concede your point), I have snipped... Not too long ago there was a "consensus" in our culture that women were weaker and less capable than men and that African Americans were inferior to Caucasians. While those views have changed in recent years, I think it's an exaggeration to say there once was a consensus of one group being inferior to another. I'll have to disagree with that. I've snipped the rest because you make very good points, especially from the historical perspective. My point was really I don't think we've ever had total agreement on the status of blacks, women, or whatever, but that's not the same thing as consensus. I was thinking of consensus not as general agreement but total agreement. Unfortunately, in our modern society there are an increasing number of people who _don't_ agree that racism and sexism are wrong or harmful to our culture. In the sixties when many of us were out protesting against these injustices we assumed that all that was necessary was to demonstrate that these views were erroneous and people would change them. Do you really think there is an increasing number? Do you have any research to support this claim? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it -- I'm just not certain I see this trend. Naive, weren't we? Some of us still are :) For example, research suggests that most people believe spanking is okay, so based on consensus, I could probably talk about "why spanking can be effective" and not have too many people getting upset about it. But that doesn't mean that particular viewpoint is correct, or the only viewpoint that belongs in the classroom. You should try teaching that spanking isn't the best form of child-rearing in my community. In yesterday's lecture, we discussed "what role should spanking play in discipline?" And a few weeks ago, we had a parents' panel, and we had parents very much divided on the issue. Like most people, I'm biased, but tried really hard to present spanking as a potentially efffective form of discipline AND spanking as a link in the chain of abuse. On the other hand, I'm curious what you mean about "overcoming the influence of religious indoctrination." Can you give some examples? Of indoctrination or of overcoming those influences? Examples of indoctrination include such concepts as "Homosexuality is evil (or unnatural, or inspired by Satan, etc.)," "Sex outside of (or before, etc.) marriage is evil and wrong," etc. Well, that person is entitled to believe what they want. By religious indoctrination you seem to suggest that they've been brainwashed into believing an incorrect idea. Is your goal to present the idea that "Hey, not everyone agrees with you?" or "Hey, you're religion has made you an intolerant fool?" Examples of overcoming religious indoctrination or intolerance would include one of my favorite questions for a class dealing with the drug war: "If there is a Christ and he were alive today, would he build more treatment centers or more prisons?" Ooh..good one. Yesterday my minister asked me "How would you respond to someone who claims to be a Christian, and wants to smoke marijuana, and sees nothing wrong with it?" I also ask if it makes any rational sense to anyone that (according to polls) the majority of the people who support the Pro-life movement also support capital punishment! I don't support capital punishment at all, but I try to understand those who do. One major distinction they make between pro-life (or as the critics who see the incongruity of their position, "pro-birth") and pro-capital punishment is that babies are innocent and criminals are not. I think there is a little more division on this one in the religious community. How this come out in the classroom? How does it present a conflict? Try pointing out the advantages for our society of: 1. Teaching kids _honestly_, factually, and in a non-judgmental manner about human sexuality and drugs. No thanks :) I don't envy this teaching assignment. Maybe that stuff needs to be taught in the home. 2. Legalizing drugs for consenting adults (on the Amsterdam model or on that of California Judge Jim Grey) and thus removing the major cause of property and violent crimes in the US today. What drugs are we talking about here? I go back and forth. I'm all for reducing crime, but I don't think any of us want to remove a law simply because of so many problems created by people disobeying it. Plus, whenever you increase society's access to a substance, don't you increase the likelihood of abuse and dependence? I'm not an expert in this, but my health e
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, jim clark wrote: Hi On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Mike Scoles wrote: 2) Do you know of anyone who teaches science as completely accurate and fool-proof. If so, they obviously know little about what they are teaching. I certainly don't wish to be identified as someone who "obviously know little about what they are teaching," but I think we need to be very cautious here about not undermining the rightful validity of scientific approaches to understanding. Just a couple of observations. (1) No matter what the blemishes of science there is _no_ better way of trying to answer questions and develop understanding of natural phenomena, including human behaviour and experience. One danger in saying that science is not fool-proof, especially to people who believe or hope (usually they _know_) that there are fool-proof approaches to knowledge, is that they may then think that we are agreeing that science is a second-rate approach to knowledge. (2) One needs to distinguish clearly between the process of science and the current state of knowledge in any domain. I would argue that the process of science is "fool-proof" not in the sense of being without error, but in the sense of allowing even "fools" who follow its principles to ultimately arrive at the correct answer. It often seems to me that people, including academics, who think that they can intuit or otherwise arrive at correct answers to complex problems without the slow, methodical methods of science are simply too smart for their own good. Perhaps this is part of the appeal of the "grand" but ill-founded frameworks (e.g., Freud, Marx, ...) in the social sciences, as well as some of the fascination with things like parapsychology and the supernatural. (3) Science does in fact approach completely accurate explanations for phenomena. Our understanding of the physical and biological world is vastly superior to what it was a few centuries ago. It does an injustice to the achievements of science to put too much emphasis on the unanswered (at present) questions, especially when people would never even be able to appreciate the unanswered questions without the tremendous progress of science. As psychology all too slowly (with numerous regressions) adopts whole-heartedly the principles and methods of science, the same kinds of achievements are being realized in psychology. Although psychology seems determined at times to leave itself behind and pass the scientific torch over to neuroscience and like disciplines. That is probably enough evidence of my incompetence for the present, but I would add the following since Jim Guinee started this thread with respect to science and religion. I believe that too many scientists are too polite with respect to non-scientist critics, including the many religious critics, by trying to maintain an unsupportable arms-length (football-field-length?) distance between the claims of science and those of religion. I also believe that there would be considerable room for debate as to whether scientists or religious spokes-people are more tolerant of or silent about the other. A google search on science and religion turned up _many_ sites (over 1,000,000), but the large majority adopt a religious orientation, pointing out the essential role of religion. For a notable exception, try www.godless.org. At http://www.godless.org/sci/herosci.html the site's authors suggest some arguments why scientists are reticent to face religion head-on. The privileged (i.e., protected) status of religion was also the topic in the article that we discussed here a month or so ago. Best wishes Jim But Science is unable to understand musical compositions,artistic creations and other affairs of the heart and internal sensibilities. This emphasis on scientic approaches is quintessentially Eurocentric and fails to account for the other ways of knowing. Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
Hi On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Michael Sylvester wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, jim clark wrote: I certainly don't wish to be identified as someone who "obviously know little about what they are teaching," but I think we need to be very cautious here about not undermining the rightful validity of scientific approaches to understanding. Just a couple of observations. But Science is unable to understand musical compositions,artistic creations and other affairs of the heart and internal sensibilities. This emphasis on scientic approaches is quintessentially Eurocentric and fails to account for the other ways of knowing. 1. Scientifically-minded psychologists do indeed study and attempt to understand music and art appreciation, affairs of the heart, and the like. And surely internal sensibilities are a major focus of psychological research. So I am not sure what science you are referring to here, unless you do not include psychology as a science. 2. Words like "know" and "understand" are ambiguous. They can refer to the scientific sense of having an explanation for something, understanding the processes behind, and the like. But they can also refer to the empathic sense of appreciating how someone is feeling. Good literature, art, music, and similar endeavors can instill in people experiences that they think are like what people in such circumstances would experience. But such feelings may or may not be helpful in furthering our scientific understanding. The feelings that the artist decided to communicate may not in fact be an accurate reflection of what people experience in such situations; scientific study would be necessary to determine that. Or the feelings may be misleading about the actual determinants of how people are behaving (i.e., correlation instead of causation); again science would provide an answer. To conflate scientific and literary or artistic understandings, and indiscriminatly label them both alternative "ways of knowing" does a disservice to science and perhaps even to the arts if it is expected to provide more than is possible given its non-scientific methods. Would artists want their work evaluated by such criteria as validity, for example? 3. Rather than treating science as Western hegemony, at least some people from other cultures appreciate that science is liberating for all peoples. For a good example of this, read M. Nanda's "The epistemic charity of the social constructivist critics of science and why the third world should refuse the offer" in M. Koertge (1998), _A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science_. New York: Oxford University Press. I am constantly amazed at how quickly some people will glorify achievements of other cultures and then trash perhaps the grandest achievement of our culture. Of course, this grand achievement was possible in large part because of our willingness to incorporate useful ideas from myriad different cultures and groups, which makes the labelling of science as Eurocentric, sexist, classist, or whatever, ironic in multiple ways. Best wishes Jim James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology(204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
RE: darwinian slip and a thought
Michael Sylvester wrote: But Science is unable to understand musical compositions,artistic creations and other affairs of the heart and internal sensibilities. This emphasis on scientic approaches is quintessentially Eurocentric and fails to account for the other ways of knowing. Science _does_ understand these topics--but from a different perspective. Let's look at each of your examples: Musical compositions: All forms of music may be expressed mathematically, in fact most savants with talents in one of these fields are also talented in the other. No one would claim that science is capable of either expressing or interpreting emotional reactions in the manner of music--but that isn't it's purpose. The purpose of science is to seek explanations and to attempt to understand our world, not to creatively interpret it. Artistic creations: Art as a form of expression can be comprehensively explained in scientific terms (both in terms of artistic medium and in terms of the ways in which art affects the viewer). Again it is NOT the role of science to interpret the world artistically, only to _explain_ it. Affairs of the heart and internal sensibilities. I'm not quite sure what you are implying here. Science (in the forms of psychology and other social sciences) certainly examines all of these topics in as much depth as is possible, given our current (and growing) state of knowledge. If you are implying that the scientist should interpret the world from an emotional or creative perspective, then you are asking that science not BE science, but that it be another art instead. Not only would that be completely inappropriate, but it would allow science to dictate the _values_ that a society must live by! Ok, those are answers to your questions--now how about answering a couple yourself. Specifically: 1. As you clearly feel Western science should not be treated as the best way of attaining knowledge, what would you replace it with? You keep emphasizing "other ways of knowing." Identify them, and demonstrate for us in what ways they ARE better than Western science. 2. If, as you claim, the Western "Eurocentric" approach is inappropriate--perhaps you can explain why the third world--where it isn't emphasized--turns to the West for knowledge and answers instead of to the traditional systems of their own cultures. If "Eurocentric" scientific thought is not the best way of knowing and learning, why are cultures in which it is not emphasized not content with their own stage of development and comfortable telling the West to "take a hike." 3. If you truly feel as you do about Western science, how can you justify accepting a salary for _teaching_ it to youths? I'm really curious, Michael. For years you have slammed "Eurocentricism" while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of a "Eurocentric" society and career. I'd be very interested to know how you balance those two concepts yourself. Treat this as an attempt to understand "Internal sensibilities" from a "Eurocentric" perspective. Rick -- Rick Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
From: "Rick Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: darwinian slip and a thought Jim wrote: THat's a really good point, but don't you think sexism and racism are in a different category, mostly because there seems to be a consensus in our culture that sexist and racist ideologies are harmful? Not too long ago there was a "consensus" in our culture that women were weaker and less capable than men and that African Americans were inferior to Caucasians. While those views have changed in recent years, I think it's an exaggeration to say there once was a consensus of one group being inferior to another. Of course, I knew you would bring this up, and rightfully so. I realized after my post that even today there isn't necessarily a consensus on racism being bad or some other ism. We assume that everyone agrees, both they don't necessarily... I guess I meant that these topics seem "safer" because you're more likely to arrive at a consensus than with something else (e.g., abortion, gay rights). Religion, on the other hand, rarely yields a consensus, even within a particular religious community (e.g., capital punishment comes to mind). Does a consensus make something valid? Good question, good point. I once heard a speaker say "Since when is consensus ever a criterion for truth?" Simply because a consensus exists doesn't make that consensus either accurate or valid for us to base academic decisions on. True. It may change how we deliver the material, though... For example, research suggests that most people believe spanking is okay, so based on consensus, I could probably talk about "why spanking can be effective" and not have too many people getting upset about it. But that doesn't mean that particular viewpoint is correct, or the only viewpoint that belongs in the classroom. For the record, I rarely find anything in the classroom to be dogmatic about, and I try to stay away from discussions I feel overly passionate about, unless it really needs to be covered. I guess that's an advantage of teaching in a low-consensus field -- you can throw out some different points of views and let the students chew on them. I teach in both psychology and sociology (as well as occasional political science courses), so I tend to deal with a number of rather controversial topics (abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, homosexuality, the drug war, racism sexism, adolescent sexuality, etc.) on a day-to-day basis. The single greatest handicap I have in teaching students to think critically in those classes is overcoming the influence of religious indoctrination (I live in a _very_ conservative, very fundamentalist, area) so that the students can see _both_ sides of the issues instead of just one. I don't envy your teaching assignment. I'm far too timid to tackle such a wide array of controversial subjects. And I do mean tackle -- I think you have to get into the stuff very deeply, not just ask "What do you think about this?" On the other hand, I'm curious what you mean about "overcoming the influence of religious indoctrination." Can you give some examples? How this come out in the classroom? How does it present a conflict? I really am curious -- I'd like to know how someone who teaches what you teach handles such an issue. Maybe you're right -- maybe there are just some things that just can't be integrated into the classroom. The problem with integrating any aspects of religion (or at least Western religion) into the classroom is that, unlike any other topic, the instructor is NOT permitted to honestly voice an opinion contrary to the popular view. That depends on how you voice your opinion, and what subject is being discussed. I think a religious institution has a right to make decisions on what it believes to be part of the acceptable academic curriculum, and if you don't agree with it, I think you have to be quiet or teach elsewhere. I don't mean that you cannot disagree, but I think when you have too many disagreements, it's probably best to be part of a different team. It irks me that sometimes some people talk about religious educators as only being concerned with telling people what to think, not how. There surely is some truth to that, but on the other hand, what is the point of having any kind of doctrine or theology if you can't teach it I had a friend who was looking for a teaching position last year and he got highly offended when a religious university asked him about his religious orientation. His comment was "That's none of their business." He didn't like it when I said, "Sure it is. If the school sets forth a curriculum that has certain beliefs, why would they want to hire teachers who would come in and turn those beliefs upside down." On the other hand (how many is that now?), I reali
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
From: "Rick Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: darwinian slip and a thought Jim wrote: Although, the reflexive response of "why this is not good science" immediately steers the discussion in a negative direction. Do you apply that same criteria to discussions of "why sexism is wrong" or "why is racism not a good practice?" When we come to topics such as that, no one particularly cares if we take a negative direction with them--why should the very dishonest and flawed "science" present in creationist claims be treated any differently? THat's a really good point, but don't you think sexism and racism are in a different category, mostly because there seems to be a consensus in our culture that sexist and racist ideologies are harmful? Religion, on the other hand, rarely yields a consensus, even within a particular religious community (e.g., capital punishment comes to mind). For the record, I rarely find anything in the classroom to be dogmatic about, and I try to stay away from discussions I feel overly passionate about, unless it really needs to be covered. I guess that's an advantage of teaching in a low-consensus field -- you can throw out some different points of views and let the students chew on them. The very insistence of "religious folk" that their personal beliefs be taught in schools is reason ENOUGH to "take some more whacks" at them. How nice Creationism is a religious belief, not in even the remotest manner a scientific theory--the insistence that our students be taught such a subject and that it be treated with the same deference as a sound and well researched scientific concept is offensive to ANY teacher who cares about scientific accuracy in the classroom. I never said it should necessarily be treated with the same deference as a sound and well researched scientific concept. I certainly understand your objections. Maybe you're right -- maybe there are just some things that just can't be integrated into the classroom. On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are free to ignore, even trample over religious beliefs, even to the point where they begin to teach science as something completely accurate and fool-proof. Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! It comes bundled with the software." **
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
Jim Guinee wrote: On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are free to ignore, even trample over religious beliefs, even to the point where they begin to teach science as something completely accurate and fool-proof. There are two confused points here, but I have questions about both: 1) What do you mean by "trample over." 2) Do you know of anyone who teaches science as completely accurate and fool-proof. If so, they obviously know little about what they are teaching. -- * http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/scoles/index.html * Mike Scoles *[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Department of Psychology *voice: (501) 450-5418 * * University of Central Arkansas*fax: (501) 450-5424 * * Conway, AR72035-0001 * * *
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
At 8:56 AM -0600 3/27/01, Jim Guinee wrote: Maybe you're right -- maybe there are just some things that just can't be integrated into the classroom. At least, in _the same_ classroom at the sec ondary school level. On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are free to ignore, even trample over religious beliefs, even to the point where they begin to teach science as something completely accurate and fool-proof. This, of course, would be objectionable as incompetent _science_ instruction! * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
Jim Guinee wrote: On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are free to ignore, even trample over religious beliefs, even to the point where they begin to teach science as something completely accurate and fool-proof. There are two confused points here, but I have questions about both: 1) What do you mean by "trample over." Show disrespect. Treat a religious person like he's an idiot. For example, I attended a seminar on couples counseling some time ago where the speaker went on some tangent about the bible and it being "a bunch of crazy shit." I'm not saying that's a common problem -- I'm just suggesting that there are religious people foaming at the mouth over the evolution debate, and there are science people foaming on the other side of the fence. If an instructor finds no value in including religion in the classroom, I can understand that. I'd rather have it omitted than abused. 2) Do you know of anyone who teaches science as completely accurate and fool-proof. If so, they obviously know little about what they are teaching. No, that was an obvious overstatement. But I have met science instructors who seem absolutely convinced of something, even though some of the facts rest on theoretical assumptions. Yet, despite there being some gray area they regard the entire set of material as completely true. Worse, if you disagree, you're just stupid. But I realize that this behavior can be said of anyone talking about anything at any time. Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! It comes bundled with the software." **
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
Hi On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Mike Scoles wrote: 2) Do you know of anyone who teaches science as completely accurate and fool-proof. If so, they obviously know little about what they are teaching. I certainly don't wish to be identified as someone who "obviously know little about what they are teaching," but I think we need to be very cautious here about not undermining the rightful validity of scientific approaches to understanding. Just a couple of observations. (1) No matter what the blemishes of science there is _no_ better way of trying to answer questions and develop understanding of natural phenomena, including human behaviour and experience. One danger in saying that science is not fool-proof, especially to people who believe or hope (usually they _know_) that there are fool-proof approaches to knowledge, is that they may then think that we are agreeing that science is a second-rate approach to knowledge. (2) One needs to distinguish clearly between the process of science and the current state of knowledge in any domain. I would argue that the process of science is "fool-proof" not in the sense of being without error, but in the sense of allowing even "fools" who follow its principles to ultimately arrive at the correct answer. It often seems to me that people, including academics, who think that they can intuit or otherwise arrive at correct answers to complex problems without the slow, methodical methods of science are simply too smart for their own good. Perhaps this is part of the appeal of the "grand" but ill-founded frameworks (e.g., Freud, Marx, ...) in the social sciences, as well as some of the fascination with things like parapsychology and the supernatural. (3) Science does in fact approach completely accurate explanations for phenomena. Our understanding of the physical and biological world is vastly superior to what it was a few centuries ago. It does an injustice to the achievements of science to put too much emphasis on the unanswered (at present) questions, especially when people would never even be able to appreciate the unanswered questions without the tremendous progress of science. As psychology all too slowly (with numerous regressions) adopts whole-heartedly the principles and methods of science, the same kinds of achievements are being realized in psychology. Although psychology seems determined at times to leave itself behind and pass the scientific torch over to neuroscience and like disciplines. That is probably enough evidence of my incompetence for the present, but I would add the following since Jim Guinee started this thread with respect to science and religion. I believe that too many scientists are too polite with respect to non-scientist critics, including the many religious critics, by trying to maintain an unsupportable arms-length (football-field-length?) distance between the claims of science and those of religion. I also believe that there would be considerable room for debate as to whether scientists or religious spokes-people are more tolerant of or silent about the other. A google search on science and religion turned up _many_ sites (over 1,000,000), but the large majority adopt a religious orientation, pointing out the essential role of religion. For a notable exception, try www.godless.org. At http://www.godless.org/sci/herosci.html the site's authors suggest some arguments why scientists are reticent to face religion head-on. The privileged (i.e., protected) status of religion was also the topic in the article that we discussed here a month or so ago. Best wishes Jim James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology(204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
RE: darwinian slip and a thought
Jim wrote: THat's a really good point, but don't you think sexism and racism are in a different category, mostly because there seems to be a consensus in our culture that sexist and racist ideologies are harmful? Not too long ago there was a "consensus" in our culture that women were weaker and less capable than men and that African Americans were inferior to Caucasians. Religion, on the other hand, rarely yields a consensus, even within a particular religious community (e.g., capital punishment comes to mind). Does a consensus make something valid? There is a "consensus" in America (according to polls) that psychic phenomenon are frequently manifest, that Christianity is the only "true" religion, and that the average welfare recipient is an inner city black woman with a poor education, several illegitimate children and a desire to remain on welfare for the rest of her life (the actual "average" recipient, btw, is a rural white woman in her twenties with 2 _legitimate_ children, who was recently divorced, abandoned, or widowed and who will spend 2.1 years of her entire life on welfare--long enough for her children to reach school age so she can work). Simply because a consensus exists doesn't make that consensus either accurate or valid for us to base academic decisions on. For the record, I rarely find anything in the classroom to be dogmatic about, and I try to stay away from discussions I feel overly passionate about, unless it really needs to be covered. I guess that's an advantage of teaching in a low-consensus field -- you can throw out some different points of views and let the students chew on them. I teach in both psychology and sociology (as well as occasional political science courses), so I tend to deal with a number of rather controversial topics (abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, homosexuality, the drug war, racism sexism, adolescent sexuality, etc.) on a day-to-day basis. The single greatest handicap I have in teaching students to think critically in those classes is overcoming the influence of religious indoctrination (I live in a _very_ conservative, very fundamentalist, area) so that the students can see _both_ sides of the issues instead of just one. Maybe you're right -- maybe there are just some things that just can't be integrated into the classroom. The problem with integrating any aspects of religion (or at least Western religion) into the classroom is that, unlike any other topic, the instructor is NOT permitted to honestly voice an opinion contrary to the popular view. If, for example, I were to treat the conservative religious views on homosexuality as being pure bigotry (which they clearly are), I would rather rapidly have complaints lodged against me with the administration. Were I to do _precisely_ the same thing regarding racist views on African Americans I would be considered a good instructor. That difference isn't based on the nature of the prejudice being addressed--only on the religious basis of the prejudice. Given that kind of difference, it becomes impossible to honestly address issues in a classroom if religious issues are included. On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are free to ignore, even trample over religious beliefs, even to the point where they begin to teach science as something completely accurate and fool-proof. You'll note that your concern is strictly one sided. Why should public academic institutions become involved in supporting or teaching the principles of religion--do the Sunday schools teach evolution? Religion has no role in the academic classroom (religiously funded schools excepted, of course). The cost of such institutions is borne partially or totally by the public and the public has no obligation at all to pay for religious training. If it is reasonable to include the Christian version of creationism in a school and treat it as a serious subject, then it is just as reasonable to include Native American versions, African versions, Hindu versions and the creation myths of every major culture to an equal extent. Of course that would take so much time (and be so confusing for the students) that nothing would be accomplished--but the alternative of selecting only ONE of these myths to treat with respect is patently discriminatory and unfair to practitioners of the other religions. To me, it's a lot more rational to simply keep the classroom for _scientific_ topics and the church for religious ones (areas such as theology, humanities, and history excepted, of course). People are entitled to whatever religious beliefs give them comfort or provide a basis for their world view. But they are NOT entitled to impose those beliefs on others--or require others to be taught about them if they don't choose to be. Teaching creationism does precisely that, and therefore is completely unacceptable in a society that is not a
RE: Darwinian slip and a thought
I have been thinking about Stephen's suggestion and Jim's response. At the college level, I think that we certainly should allow, perhaps encourage, students to consider the arguments offered on behalf of "creation science." At a minimum it would be a good lesson in critical thinking. This argument could be the basis for an interesting and challenging college symposium. However, the Arkansas law was aimed at changing middle school and high school texts. We already have very real problems with the teaching of science at those levels. According to a story that I read in the current issue of Science News that many U.S. middle school science teachers have only a minimal training in the sciences. As a result they do not recognize the many errors that are present in the textbooks that they use. This is a real problem because those teachers rely on those same books for their own knowledge base. (This is a real problem in my home school district where we have a teacher in good standing at a local middle school who insisted that amphibians be called fish because they spend part of their lives in the water.) We have in this confluence of factors some explanation for why people reach college with such a flawed understanding of science. I would not want to add to that problem by giving credence to "creation science" by including it in a middle or high school textbook. With that minimal support the schools in this area would all take a field trip to the Falwell's Creation Science Museum and become convinced that the evidence presented there was just as powerful as the evidence presented in more widely recognized research. Some of our teachers would also take the opportunity to teach their own religious dogma in place of evolution. just some thoughts Dennis Dennis M. Goff Dept. of Psychology Randolph-Macon Woman's College Lynchburg VA And while we're on the topic, a thought, although I expect (with trepidation) I'm going to hear from Jim Clark about it. We're rightly outraged by the attempt by the religious right to censor Darwin. But we have no problem with censoring creationism from textbooks, on the grounds that it's not science. True, it's not, but why not let it in anyway? The best response to an untenable position is reason, not censorship. Why not allot the creationists one page to take their best shot at evolution, and one page for the rebuttal. This will give them an opportunity to make their case, even if not equal time. Better to have it out in the open where the wrong- headedness can be addressed. Otherwise students may just get it elsewhere, and we won't have the chance to point out why it isn't science. To labour the point, wouldn't it be more educational to point out what's wrong with "creation science" or "intelligent design" rather than to just suppress it? -Stephen Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's Universitye-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at: http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
Re: darwinian slip and a thought
Ah, yes. Evolution is the evil work of the devil. Was that intentional? And while we're on the topic, a thought, although I expect (with trepidation) I'm going to hear from Jim Clark about it. We're rightly outraged by the attempt by the religious right to censor Darwin. But we have no problem with censoring creationism from textbooks, on the grounds that it's not science. True, it's not, but why not let it in anyway? Because it confuses the issue. We try to teach students what science is, and then present an example of nonscience labeled as science. I'd have no problem with a biology text that included Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever, and then analyzed it, pointing out why it is _not_ good science. However, I doubt that this would be acceptable to its proponents. You're probably right. Although, the reflexive response of "why this is not good science" immediately steers the discussion in a negative direction. Wouldn't it be more fruitful to ask questions such as "why is X incapable of being scientifically demonstrated?" or "do we have any scientific evidence for such a claim?" (e.g., great glood) The best response to an untenable position is reason, not censorship. Why not allot the creationists one page to take their best shot at evolution, and one page for the rebuttal. This will give them an opportunity to make their case, even if not equal time. Better to have it out in the open where the wrong- headedness can be addressed. Otherwise students may just get it elsewhere, and we won't have the chance to point out why it isn't science. To labour the point, wouldn't it be more educational to point out what's wrong with "creation science" or "intelligent design" rather than to just suppress it? Ideally -- true. However, I suspect that the reality would be giving some high school science teachers carte blanche to teach religion under the guise of science. I agree, but it would also open the door for others to take some more whacks at religious folk. Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! It comes bundled with the software." **
RE: darwinian slip and a thought
Jim wrote: Although, the reflexive response of "why this is not good science" immediately steers the discussion in a negative direction. Do you apply that same criteria to discussions of "why sexism is wrong" or "why is racism not a good practice?" When we come to topics such as that, no one particularly cares if we take a negative direction with them--why should the very dishonest and flawed "science" present in creationist claims be treated any differently? Wouldn't it be more fruitful to ask questions such as "why is X incapable of being scientifically demonstrated?" or "do we have any scientific evidence for such a claim?" (e.g., great glood) Do you apply that reasoning to presenting the views of bigots or "pseudo-scientists," or do you present them as examples of obviously flawed reasoning? I agree, but it would also open the door for others to take some more whacks at religious folk. The very insistence of "religious folk" that their personal beliefs be taught in schools is reason ENOUGH to "take some more whacks" at them. Creationism is a religious belief, not in even the remotest manner a scientific theory--the insistence that our students be taught such a subject and that it be treated with the same deference as a sound and well researched scientific concept is offensive to ANY teacher who cares about scientific accuracy in the classroom. When church Sunday Schools are required by law to teach evolution impartially I'll listen to arguments that creationism should be treated differently in the public institutions. Until then, it has no place outside of the religion that created it's mythos. Rick -- Rick Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
Re: Darwinian slip and a thought
At 5:15 PM -0500 3/23/01, Stephen Black wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Mike Scoles wrote: Good news. The Arkansas house voted down the anti-evilution bill this morning. Ah, yes. Evolution is the evil work of the devil. Was that intentional? And while we're on the topic, a thought, although I expect (with trepidation) I'm going to hear from Jim Clark about it. We're rightly outraged by the attempt by the religious right to censor Darwin. But we have no problem with censoring creationism from textbooks, on the grounds that it's not science. True, it's not, but why not let it in anyway? Because it confuses the issue. We try to teach students what science is, and then present an example of nonscience labeled as science. I'd have no problem with a biology text that included Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever, and then analyzed it, pointing out why it is _not_ good science. However, I doubt that this would be acceptable to its proponents. The best response to an untenable position is reason, not censorship. Why not allot the creationists one page to take their best shot at evolution, and one page for the rebuttal. This will give them an opportunity to make their case, even if not equal time. Better to have it out in the open where the wrong- headedness can be addressed. Otherwise students may just get it elsewhere, and we won't have the chance to point out why it isn't science. To labour the point, wouldn't it be more educational to point out what's wrong with "creation science" or "intelligent design" rather than to just suppress it? Ideally -- true. However, I suspect that the reality would be giving some high school science teachers carte blanche to teach religion under the guise of science. * PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Department507-389-6217 * * "The University formerly known as Mankato State" * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
Re: Darwinian slip and a thought
And another thought (not particularly original) If we are going to present creation myths, why this one? Shouldn't we give some time to ALL of them, or at least those subscribed to by a portion of the North American population? This emphasises the point that the proper place for the study of creation myths is in comparative religion classes. There is little enough time in Biology to cover evolution properly, and science teachers are not necessarily trained in comparative religion. At 12:03 PM -0600 3/24/01, Paul Brandon wrote: At 5:15 PM -0500 3/23/01, Stephen Black wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Mike Scoles wrote: Good news. The Arkansas house voted down the anti-evilution bill this morning. Ah, yes. Evolution is the evil work of the devil. Was that intentional? And while we're on the topic, a thought, although I expect (with trepidation) I'm going to hear from Jim Clark about it. We're rightly outraged by the attempt by the religious right to censor Darwin. But we have no problem with censoring creationism from textbooks, on the grounds that it's not science. True, it's not, but why not let it in anyway? Because it confuses the issue. We try to teach students what science is, and then present an example of nonscience labeled as science. I'd have no problem with a biology text that included Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever, and then analyzed it, pointing out why it is _not_ good science. However, I doubt that this would be acceptable to its proponents. The best response to an untenable position is reason, not censorship. Why not allot the creationists one page to take their best shot at evolution, and one page for the rebuttal. This will give them an opportunity to make their case, even if not equal time. Better to have it out in the open where the wrong- headedness can be addressed. Otherwise students may just get it elsewhere, and we won't have the chance to point out why it isn't science. To labour the point, wouldn't it be more educational to point out what's wrong with "creation science" or "intelligent design" rather than to just suppress it? Ideally -- true. However, I suspect that the reality would be giving some high school science teachers carte blanche to teach religion under the guise of science. * PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Department507-389-6217 * * "The University formerly known as Mankato State" * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html* * PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Department507-389-6217 * * "The University formerly known as Mankato State" * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
Re: Darwinian slip and a thought
Hi On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Stephen Black wrote: And while we're on the topic, a thought, although I expect (with trepidation) I'm going to hear from Jim Clark about it. We're rightly outraged by the attempt by the religious right to censor Darwin. But we have no problem with censoring creationism from textbooks, on the grounds that it's not science. True, it's not, but why not let it in anyway? I actually agree with addressing these ideas in a school setting, but the question isn't simply what should be taught, but also who should do the teaching, in what context, and based on what principles. Shouldn't all teaching in schools be by qualified teachers, including teachers educated as scientists (although unhappily much science teaching in schools is not done by teachers with enough education in the sciences)? And shouldn't all science teaching be based on reason and scientific principles? So for me, religious claims as a part of science should be taught by scientists who are properly able to evaluate the merit of the ideas according to principles accepted in educational settings. This is especially important when claims are often false on scientific grounds. Moreover, the equal-time claim is specious. School-learning is a small part of what people learn, science-learning is an even smaller part of that, and good science-learning an even smaller fraction. Until parents, churches, and the numerous other influences on children are required to teach science, they will continue to have the advantage with respect to time (and probably authority as well). Finally, creation science is not an isolated case. There are many examples of conflict between science/reason and lay knowledge, especially if one considers the many cultures in the world. When we teach forensic psychology, should proponents of criminal behaviour as evil and sin be invited to present their case? When geologists teach about plate tectonics, do young-earth advocates get their day in the classroom? When philosophers teach the logical fallacies behind arguments for god, do believers get to make their case as well? When those of us who teach methods courses point out the value of scientific approaches over alternative epistemologies, do proponents of faith and revealed wisdom get to have a say? I think the best that we can be is respectful of alternative ways of knowing and belief structures in our teaching, but not at the expense of compromising our advocacy for the academic world-view. To do less means that we have already given in and lost to the proponents of relativism. Best wishes Jim James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology(204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
