Now, I DO remember that you indicated a preference for something like non-linear argumentation and stream-of-consciousness flow and all... but it feels and reads like a preference for not actually have to make arguments or defend the positions you take, which makes it tedious, tendencious and (close to) totally useless.
There are excellent critiques of scientism, modern public and higher education, the politics of polemics and the de/re-skilling of American students, perhaps you've read some. Please, next time, either be willing to make arguments/defend positions or appeal to folks who make good arguments and defend them coherently, 'cuz as it is I have a feeling most folks here are seeking to have something to engage rather than to serve as a graffiti wall for polemical but not all that coherent ramblings/rants/side notes.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, mart <media314159 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> as a side note, i have made the argument that the cure is worse than the
> disease when scientists get all upset about teaching Intelligent design in
> evolution courses. I think it can bring it up some good points, and also
> that some of the anti-ID thing is actually to indoctrinate people into some
> sort of 'scientific' worldview so that they beluieve every single thing
> scientists ('experts') say. (I was just looking at one news article on
> how ADHD is 'biological' and 'inherited'. )
>
> i think possibly science and yhumanities should be jettisoned to a large
> part (or put into either history or job skills) and something like 'natural
> philosophy' be the 'core curriculum'.
>
> the evolution / science guild promotes being 'scientific' but alot of it is
> just crap, and organized to get people to plan for careers duing forensic
> science, internet surveillance, intellectual property law, pill pushing
> (ads, knockoff drug chemistry) , etc. there is also the whole
> dawkins/shermer/harris/scienceblogs 'anti-ID' or 'war on science' industry
> which is also prety much lightweight crap.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> From: Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Signs of the times
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 3:14 AM
>
>
>
> At 10:50 PM -0400 25/9/09, RicardoStarkey at aol.com wrote:
>
> > And in case you think that I believe
> > that mocking religious people will make them see the light, you are
> mistaken.
> > I think that in the huge majority of cases, there is no cure for
> > supernatural beliefs, and the best tactic is to give believers a wide
> berth. The
> > only hope is a good education for the young, which of course they
> deserve.
>
> While it makes sense to give religious fanatics a wide berth, I don't
> think that's wise and correct in case of immediate family. I had a sister
> who joined a religious cult, one of those American Pentecostal type cults
> that go in for strict "Tithing" and zealous promotion of members work ethic
> to ensure they earn enough to keep the "Pastor" in the manner to which he
> would like to become accustomed. She was a member for years, until the
> hypocrisy of the "pastor" finally drove her to rebel.
>
> The rest of her family never found any reason to avoid her. Rather we just
> overlooked her eccentricity. I did have to endure a meal at her house once
> where the "Pastor" was invited and I had to talk to him. For some reason
> there was never any suggestion that this should be repeated. Thankfully.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "a good education for the young" being the
> only hope to save us from this racket. I certainly hope you aren't
> suggesting that the young be indoctrinated with anti-religious notions. That
> is a cure that is as bad as the disease. Indocrination is the problem, not
> the solution.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>