Charles Huffman wrote:
> I am curious about the affiliation of:
Glad to help.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, MI 49241
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you le
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]
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
+
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]
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] *
* Psyc
re Judaic theology
what does that have to do with the teaching of psychology?
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
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
"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. Simi
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
Hi Y'all,
Paul did a great job with his discussion of Judaic theology what I would
probably refer to as Judaic law.
Paul Brandon wrote:
> I'm not aware of any such category as "ceremonial laws" in Judaism.
There are laws which are specifically for the Kohanim (Priests) in
regards to runni
I'd rather hoped that someone more knowledgeable in Judaic theology would
deal with this, but here goes:
> There are other offenses you omitted, such as adultery. I'm not a
> biblical scholar, but let me say a few things. For one, homosexuality is
> not only condemned in the Old but also th
I missed the fist part on Mother Theresa. I'm not an expert on her "charity"
work, but I do know one thing about her and her "work." She was not a social
worker, and to judge her by traditional social work standards is missing
the point. (When she was alive) if you showed up on her doorstep askin
Title: RE: darwinian slip and a thought
Try this link for more back and forth on Mother Teresa:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/march.html
> 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
Jim wrote:
> > 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
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Rick Adams wrote:
>
> 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 th
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 knowi
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 validit
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
> 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
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 tha
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 te
> 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
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,
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
> 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.
&g
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
> >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
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
argum
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
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
>intentiona
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 creat
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
