|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| PRagic wrote: |
This thread is a perfect example of how undergrads and undermotivated grad students give profs very big headaches.
Really interested in the topic? Really? Put together a reading list of 100-150 papers and books on the topic (and subtopics) and read them. Then structure a 30-50 page literature review that synthesizes what you have read.
Get back to us later on when you have some insight. Everything so far could be covered at a table in a substandard bar in 15 minutes. |
So there's no room for debate on older topics? If an argument has been argued once, it must never be argued again without reference and research? Nothing we're debating here has been resolved into a definite yes or no answer. If we're all behind the times on the current debate, why don't you, in your almighty doctoral wisdom, tell us why? Or leave us alone in our ignorance and go back to your upscale bar and sip your cosmo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a speculative philosophical discussion in which views of science, religion, and spirituality are thrown into the mix by eminent Dave's forum posters ...
After reading his Wikipedia article, I decided that "clever Muslim writer" would be a more apt characterization of Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_Yahya
However, the meat of his argument on the relevant point in discussion is contained in the quote from Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig -
A quantum mechanical vacuum spawning material particles is far from the ordinary idea of a "vacuum" (meaning nothing). Rather, a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of nothing. 1
Arguably, philosophical perspective is of key importance on any issue of origins, and this relates to my point about material science being placed on too high a pedestal in relation to other intellectual approaches to truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PRagic wrote: |
This thread is a perfect example of how undergrads and undermotivated grad students give profs very big headaches.
Really interested in the topic? Really? Put together a reading list of 100-150 papers and books on the topic (and subtopics) and read them. Then structure a 30-50 page literature review that synthesizes what you have read.
Get back to us later on when you have some insight. Everything so far could be covered at a table in a substandard bar in 15 minutes. |
I said, knock it down if you can, punk. You are quite arrogant, and show nothing but complete sentences to back yo' ass up.
Come up with a valid argument, and I'll respect that. Anything else, and well kick it out the door.
You don't get respect by default. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="mindmetoo"]
| Omkara wrote: |
| For example, it is a better theory to say that There are zebras than to say that there exists X number of zebras in the world. We allow the first proposition to represent the class; but the class is naught but a fiction, though it does us much good to use the category. |
I'm struggling to grasp what you're saying or even trying to argue for. The best science we have should be taught in science class. |
I'm pointing out that representative category is more efficient, simpler, even necessary. It would expend undue energy to represent every last zebra in most every conceivable argument about the evolution of the species, for example. X number is an unnecessary element.
We necessarily suppress the infinite variety of reality for theoretical utility.
Yes, the best science we have should be taught in the class. But what defines the best science? Social utility? Or only verifiable proposition production? If the former, multiple intelligences may be a better "scientific" theory than the latter.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| In theory, we as well do our best not to multiply category beyond necessity, for reasons of utility. |
Also for the reasons that if you want to do science, you need to follow this rule. You're free to posit there's a whole number between 2 and 3 but if you want to do math, you work within the rules of math. |
The rules of math are of a different category. They are analytic truths, which tell us nothing about the world of themselves.
Postulating that there are multiple intelligences can be investigated. It is a matter of what we will accept as sufficient evidence. What we will accept as sufficient evidence is contingent upon what we see as the goal of making such a proposition.
| Quote: |
| We tend to think of monotheism as some grand evolution in human thinking but other than merely claiming it, I don't see why it is necessarily the case. Polytheistic societies can just as easily develop high art and science. |
Exactly. This is the irony I've been exploring. It's a side of the argument that is too often overlooked, with interesting implications.
| Quote: |
| There is no evidence we need to invent something else. |
Again, to what end do we practice science. When we include Final Causes in our social theory of science, we may find that there is need for "something else." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gazz
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Omkara do you smell your own farts to try and determine which elements they contain?
Get on with your job and fuc*ing teach! 
Last edited by gazz on Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| RTeacher Wrote: [...]developing love of God is more important than having the correct conception of God - so even less intelligent, sentimental people can perfect their lives. |
This is at the heart of an issue with which I am struggling. I think that you may be right here, that there may be a real and demonstrable social need for a god or gods.
But I cannot yet imagine a way in which we can have our cake and eat it too.
The problem is, how can we make it such that people may develop themselves by devotion to their chosen god, yet not compromise science?
Moreover, how can we do this and yet not have religious organizations pushing social policy which is not substantiated?
This is the heart of the social problem: How can we keep freedom or religion and a separation of Church and State? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gazz wrote: |
Omkara do you smell your own farts to try and determine which elements they contain?
Get on with your job and fuc*ing teach! |
Indeed, I do. It's more interesting than teaching. But, with such a long, paid vacation, I must keep entertained. So, smelling my farts is the most interesting thing I can do at the moment.
Did you know that methane gas is a sign of life? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRagic
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have never saught respect by default. At the same time, however, I do not seek to massage the ego of a flowering academic wannabe who just wants to hear themselves babble on in an attempt to sound intelligent.
I have no 'doctoral wisdom' per say with regards to this topic. Rather, the way I approach problem solving, systematic thinking and research has been shaped by a decent doctoral program and the reseach and publication process associated with several academic papers.
There is always room for debate on older topics if either new information or research results suggest the need for a continuation of dialogue or if new insights are provided from a thorough review of existing opinion in the literature. I've seen neither on this thread so far.
The remarks by Omkara and Underwaterbob smack of the snide in-group thinking that dominated lunchroom socialist discussions in the undergrad eateries on and around campus where I went to school. I wasn't impressed then, and I'm definitely not now. Still, if that's what floats your mediocre boat, then drive on boys. Get back to us once you breach the age of 27. Maybe you'll be more well read and a bit more interesting by then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still ain't done it.
Put an argument down which has something to do with one of the propositions which has to do with the topic, and we'll chat further.
Or, we could just continue with ad hominem attacks to prove our maturity.
Just grab one proposition. That's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gazz
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I did. Did you know that smelling it directly kills brain cells?
Don't do it!
It sounds like you need as many as you can muster!
http://www.xtvi.com/all_tv_shows/
Check out this link it should keep you entertained for a while!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
IAfter reading his Wikipedia article, I decided that "clever Muslim writer" would be a more apt characterization of Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_Yahya |
What is clever about him? Other than basically getting everything about evolution wrong?
| Quote: |
| A quantum mechanical vacuum spawning material particles is far from the ordinary idea of a "vacuum" (meaning nothing). Rather, a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of nothing. 1 |
Your first premise was:
Everything must have a source.
The positive and negative pair creation has no cause. Remember Einstein's "god does not play dice with the universe". If elementary particles can originate without cause, without a source, your first premise is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Where is the evidence that cells just appeared from nothing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greedy_bones
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Location: not quite sure anymore
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Where is the evidence that cells just appeared from nothing? |
It's in the same place the evidence for Giraffes elongating their necks by stretching to reach higher leaves and then passing on this newly acquired trait to their offspring is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I can see, there is no conclusive evidence that particles are created from nothing and it's largely a matter of interpretation and definition. I doubt that there's a consensus.
Here's what one science blogger has written:
Virtual particles appearing in the vacuum are just purely imaginary (IMO), unless they come close to a black holes horizon, this is how the entropy is lowered and raised for each particle pair (without a black holes horizon the pair can never be said to exist as real and if they do happen to come across an horizon, no one can say that they never existed before, as the object will have always existed as real). The black hole is prince charming and he puts everything in its place, because of the shift in entropy the object has the greatest chance to exist as a real object without the universe knowing, but that would be exactly what the universe wanted...
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/guest-post-rick-ryals-diracs-holes-and-einsteins-constant/
Moreover, there is arguably only scant proof for the idea that giraffes elongated necks is the result of evolution.
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn71/myths.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greedy_bones wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Where is the evidence that cells just appeared from nothing? |
It's in the same place the evidence for Giraffes elongating their necks by stretching to reach higher leaves and then passing on this newly acquired trait to their offspring is. |
no.. that's not evidence! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
