Tenn. Science Bill Allowing Creationism In Schools Passes State Senate

[Razgovory]

Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology.  It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's.   It lasted longer in the fringe world.  It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out.  Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry.  It did pave the way for modern Chemistry.  So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense.  I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics.  At least not in the West for several centuries.

Phrenology is pseudoscience, and was pseudoscience at the time. Like creationism it did science backwards by identifying features they falsely thought were associated with certain races and ethnicities and declaring that these features were associated with desireable mental traits and skills.

Regardless, when an idea is debunked is irrelevant. There are still phrenologists out there and they are just as ridiculous as astrologers.

People don't think that astrology, magic and phrenology are decent comparisons for creationism is because they erroniouslly think that creationism has any scientific backing. There is no case for any of these pseudosciences, only creationism has religious dogma backing it and consequently hasn't died.

When an idea is debunked is not irrelevant.   We don't consider the steady state model of the universe Pseudoscience because it is now debunked.  It was a the mainstream model for a long period of time. It's simply wrong.  I believe phrenology was the first system of trying to tie parts of the brain to different aspects of personality.  We do recognize that certain parts of the brain do affect different parts personality (amongst other things).  Though I can understand why you might be uncomfortable with it.  It is often associated with scientific racism.

[Viking]

The problem here is that there are people who time to time manage to get creationist majorities elected to these school boards and state curriculum boards (Dover, Pa, Kansas and Texas most recently).

And we will roll them back when they get booted out.  Unless we are going to re-write the Constitutions of those states or something.

Challenge Accepted

If he pulls it off I'll blame you.

[Valmy]

If he pulls it off I'll blame you.

Why am I dictator of America or something?  What I think makes no difference.

[Berkut]

What point are you trying to make here Valmy?

That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?

That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.

Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.

[Valmy]

What point are you trying to make here Valmy?

That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?

That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.

Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.

My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.

[Viking]

Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology.  It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's.   It lasted longer in the fringe world.  It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out.  Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry.  It did pave the way for modern Chemistry.  So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense.  I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics.  At least not in the West for several centuries.

Phrenology is pseudoscience, and was pseudoscience at the time. Like creationism it did science backwards by identifying features they falsely thought were associated with certain races and ethnicities and declaring that these features were associated with desireable mental traits and skills.

Regardless, when an idea is debunked is irrelevant. There are still phrenologists out there and they are just as ridiculous as astrologers.

People don't think that astrology, magic and phrenology are decent comparisons for creationism is because they erroniouslly think that creationism has any scientific backing. There is no case for any of these pseudosciences, only creationism has religious dogma backing it and consequently hasn't died.

When an idea is debunked is not irrelevant.   We don't consider the steady state model of the universe Pseudoscience because it is now debunked.  It was a the mainstream model for a long period of time. It's simply wrong.  I believe phrenology was the first system of trying to tie parts of the brain to different aspects of personality.  We do recognize that certain parts of the brain do affect different parts personality (amongst other things).  Though I can understand why you might be uncomfortable with it.  It is often associated with scientific racism.

I realize that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. At what point do I claim that debunking makes something a pseudoscience? Phrenology was non-science trying to look like science; that is why it was pseudoscience. It was always non-science trying to look like science.

Hoyles SS Universe was (and in one sensse still is) science. Hubble's Red-Shift conclusively falsified Hoyles SS hypothesis. Ultimately Hoyles SS Universe Hypothesis did provide substantial parts of what is now known as The Big Bang Hypothesis. The most important contribution Hoyle made was the Solar Reactors. The initial Big Bang Hypothesis did not explain the prevalence of elements heavier than Helium in the ammounts they were found. The only place where we know these heavier elements could have been formed was in the cores of stars and the SS Universe lives on in the Big Bang Hypothesis with the first round of collapsed and exploding stars. We are on the second iteration of stars in this universe, that is why Iron exists at all and why Carl Sagan said that we were all star dust.

Phrenology on the other hand has no contribution to modern neurology or even modern anatomy.

[Viking]

If he pulls it off I'll blame you.

Why am I dictator of America or something?  What I think makes no difference.

You are a convenient target. As an American and a Texan you have had ample opportunities to vote out idiots like Bush and Perry. It's much easier to blame you than to actually address and solve the true causes of the problem.

[Viking]

What point are you trying to make here Valmy?

That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?

That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.

Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.

My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.

But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.

[Berkut]

What point are you trying to make here Valmy?

That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?

That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.

Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.

My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.

Great, it's good to know that it doesn't impact science teaching "much" in your anecdotal experience.

I would rather it not impact science teaching at all, myself.

[Valmy]

Great, it's good to know that it doesn't impact science teaching "much" in your anecdotal experience.

I would rather it not impact science teaching at all, myself.

Unfortunately we live in the real world with real political considerations.

[Valmy]

But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.

Well the Republicans have discovered this as a wedge issue so it is more visible BUT one of the constants of school boards is that it has always attracted religious wackos (also leftwing wackos.  Normal people do not care about schools it seems).

[CountDeMoney]

But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.

Actually, it was the 80s and 90s the religious nutbags started targeting local school board elections as the place to start.  And they've been rolling ever since.

[PDH]

If he pulls it off I'll blame you.

Why am I dictator of America or something?  What I think makes no difference.

This is on your head, Valmy.

[Razgovory]

Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology.  It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's.   It lasted longer in the fringe world.  It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out.  Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry.  It did pave the way for modern Chemistry.  So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense.  I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics.  At least not in the West for several centuries.

Phrenology is pseudoscience, and was pseudoscience at the time. Like creationism it did science backwards by identifying features they falsely thought were associated with certain races and ethnicities and declaring that these features were associated with desireable mental traits and skills.

Regardless, when an idea is debunked is irrelevant. There are still phrenologists out there and they are just as ridiculous as astrologers.

People don't think that astrology, magic and phrenology are decent comparisons for creationism is because they erroniouslly think that creationism has any scientific backing. There is no case for any of these pseudosciences, only creationism has religious dogma backing it and consequently hasn't died.

When an idea is debunked is not irrelevant.   We don't consider the steady state model of the universe Pseudoscience because it is now debunked.  It was a the mainstream model for a long period of time. It's simply wrong.  I believe phrenology was the first system of trying to tie parts of the brain to different aspects of personality.  We do recognize that certain parts of the brain do affect different parts personality (amongst other things).  Though I can understand why you might be uncomfortable with it.  It is often associated with scientific racism.

I realize that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. At what point do I claim that debunking makes something a pseudoscience? Phrenology was non-science trying to look like science; that is why it was pseudoscience. It was always non-science trying to look like science.

Hoyles SS Universe was (and in one sensse still is) science. Hubble's Red-Shift conclusively falsified Hoyles SS hypothesis. Ultimately Hoyles SS Universe Hypothesis did provide substantial parts of what is now known as The Big Bang Hypothesis. The most important contribution Hoyle made was the Solar Reactors. The initial Big Bang Hypothesis did not explain the prevalence of elements heavier than Helium in the ammounts they were found. The only place where we know these heavier elements could have been formed was in the cores of stars and the SS Universe lives on in the Big Bang Hypothesis with the first round of collapsed and exploding stars. We are on the second iteration of stars in this universe, that is why Iron exists at all and why Carl Sagan said that we were all star dust.

Phrenology on the other hand has no contribution to modern neurology or even modern anatomy.

So you would put Phrenology in the same category as memes?

[Razgovory]

What point are you trying to make here Valmy?

That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?

That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.

Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.

My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.

But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.

You have no fucking clue do you?