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 Judaic theology
what does that have to do with the teaching of psychology?
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
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] *
*
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]
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
+
"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.
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
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
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 wea
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
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
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.
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
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 discus
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
