Interesting essay on scientific illiteracy in Congress

[rickjump1 0]

kelpdiver

***
GE came under scrutiny earlier this year after The New York Times reported the company did not pay any taxes in 2010. It has since been reported that GE had not finished its tax filing, and that the company expected to pay taxes.

At this point in time there's really no excuse for repeating this falsehood about GE paying no taxes. Looks to me they were late.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

jakee

Quote

OK, he only took "part" of the company. Like a good liberal, he will slowly wean the rest of the company to China.

Dude, you've got it wrong. this is your chance to bash Obama for secretly being a conservative and betraying his liberal support. Taking jobs to China to get the same results for lower pay? What could be more conservative than that?

Silly Englishmen, my First Sergeant once told me, "assumptions are the mother of fuck-ups". If you assume most conservatives like to see American jobs going overseas, you are dead wrong. Haven't you figured it out yet that corporations play both political parties, and in fact, give to both parties?

"This is your chance to bash Obama for secretly being a conservative and betraying his liberal support"? Yeah, sure. Looks to me he got betrayed by one of his own who would play any side for the best "deal". Born yesterday, uh?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,132]

>my First Sergeant once told me, "assumptions are the mother of fuck-ups"

Good advice. Let's see if you continue assuming!

[kelpdiver 2]

rickjump1

******
GE came under scrutiny earlier this year after The New York Times reported the company did not pay any taxes in 2010. It has since been reported that GE had not finished its tax filing, and that the company expected to pay taxes.

At this point in time there's really no excuse for repeating this falsehood about GE paying no taxes. Looks to me they were late.

Nope.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

RonD1120

I have a response for you but I am waiting on GeorgiaDon.

Been tied up at work.

Thanks for your answer. I have to say, though, that I am not clear on your meaning. Are you suggesting that curiosity and intelligence are a "blessing", but only if the answer one arrives at is always in conformity with the Bible? Yet, it would seem that any rational examination of those points that can be critically evaluated lead to a different conclusion than the Biblical one. For example, many lines of evidence from geology, biology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy all point against the universe being created in 6 days around 6,000 BCE. The evidence that the universe is a bit older than 13 billion years, and that the Earth itself is about 4 1/2 billion years old, comes from many avenues of inquiry that are independent of each other, yet all lead to the same result. In fact the Bible is notoriously poor as a science text, as it gets so many things wrong (flat Earth, Earth as the center of the universe, etc). Biblical science is, on the other hand, a good representation of a human Bronze Age level of sophistication.

Personally, I think the current scientific view of the world is a lot more interesting from a spiritual point of view. Most of the atoms in our body were formed inside stars, and were released and/or created there in massive supernovae billions of years before the Earth was formed. Every living thing on the Earth is related, members of the same family tree, its branches dividing over an unimaginably long (but still quite measurable) history. These ideas seem vastly more appealing to me than the notion of a rabbit-out-of-the-hat one off trick of literally modeling Adam out of a lump of clay, and yanking out a rib to make Eve.

Now, the fact that virtually all of the science in the Bible is demonstrably incorrect does not logically prove that the Bible is also incorrect on those more important points that can't be tested scientifically, such as the existence or not of God. Still it seems to me that there is a problem. If, in order to be a good Christian (in the eyes of some but not all versions of the faith, including Paul Broun's) you have to believe in the literal truth of every word in the Bible, then you have to believe that the universe was made in such a way as to lure the curious into a trap, as any objective, rational, intelligent examination of questions like "how old is the world", "is the world flat or round", "where does rain come from", etc would lead you into conflict with the Bible. The only way to escape the trap is to be so uncurious as to never ask such questions, or so irrational as to choose untestable mythology over scientific observation and experiment.

From that perspective curiosity and intelligence are a curse, as they can only lead to error. Where is the blessing?

When I lived in Tucson, on my way to work I passed a church with the slogan "Happiness is submission to God" on the wall. That seems to me to reflect well the attitude of Paul Broun and those of his ilk: don't ask questions, don't be curious, don't reason, don't even think. Just submit mindlessly and all will be perfect.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

I'm usually not going to watch a damned video on something. Find me a transcript.

But I do have a question here: if it wasn't explained, how is scientific literacy defined? Or illiteracy? Is it that a person is able to understand the concepts of scientific practice? Is it that a person is able to rattle off facts on any issue relayted to science? Is it that a person is capable of asking questions, coming up with answers, an predicting natural events?

Unless we know what the definition is, everyone here is commenting through his/her keisters. I'm ignorant as to exactly what people mean by "scientific illiteracy." Of course, the whole point is to keep everyone ignorant of what the fuck is meant by it. It's way easier to attack somebody for being scientifically illiterate when yoyu don't have to actually defend it with a standard.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

If you assume most conservatives like to see American jobs going overseas, you are dead wrong.

I assume most conseravtives want to see successful corporate decisions driven by market forces.

The interesting question now is why do you think you're anything other than stone dead wrong? Why do you assume that liberals want to see companies put profit ahead of their domestic employee's job security?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 62]

jclalor

******Let's stipulate, just for purposes of this discussion, that God created humans in their present form, with (in at least some individuals) both curiosity about the world and the intelligence to figure out how things work (physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc). Would you say that these attributes (curiosity and intelligence) are a blessing or a curse?

Don

I choose blessing that becomes a curse with ego centrism.

It's a blessing as long as the knowledge does not call into question the existence of a god. What you call ego centrism is nothing more than a person who believes the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

That is what I call rebellion against the word of God.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

GeorgiaDon

***I have a response for you but I am waiting on GeorgiaDon.

Been tied up at work.

Thanks for your answer. I have to say, though, that I am not clear on your meaning. Are you suggesting that curiosity and intelligence are a "blessing", but only if the answer one arrives at is always in conformity with the Bible? Yet, it would seem that any rational examination of those points that can be critically evaluated lead to a different conclusion than the Biblical one. For example, many lines of evidence from geology, biology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy all point against the universe being created in 6 days around 6,000 BCE. The evidence that the universe is a bit older than 13 billion years, and that the Earth itself is about 4 1/2 billion years old, comes from many avenues of inquiry that are independent of each other, yet all lead to the same result. In fact the Bible is notoriously poor as a science text, as it gets so many things wrong (flat Earth, Earth as the center of the universe, etc). Biblical science is, on the other hand, a good representation of a human Bronze Age level of sophistication.

Personally, I think the current scientific view of the world is a lot more interesting from a spiritual point of view. Most of the atoms in our body were formed inside stars, and were released and/or created there in massive supernovae billions of years before the Earth was formed. Every living thing on the Earth is related, members of the same family tree, its branches dividing over an unimaginably long (but still quite measurable) history. These ideas seem vastly more appealing to me than the notion of a rabbit-out-of-the-hat one off trick of literally modeling Adam out of a lump of clay, and yanking out a rib to make Eve.

Now, the fact that virtually all of the science in the Bible is demonstrably incorrect does not logically prove that the Bible is also incorrect on those more important points that can't be tested scientifically, such as the existence or not of God. Still it seems to me that there is a problem. If, in order to be a good Christian (in the eyes of some but not all versions of the faith, including Paul Broun's) you have to believe in the literal truth of every word in the Bible, then you have to believe that the universe was made in such a way as to lure the curious into a trap, as any objective, rational, intelligent examination of questions like "how old is the world", "is the world flat or round", "where does rain come from", etc would lead you into conflict with the Bible. The only way to escape the trap is to be so uncurious as to never ask such questions, or so irrational as to choose untestable mythology over scientific observation and experiment.

From that perspective curiosity and intelligence are a curse, as they can only lead to error. Where is the blessing?

When I lived in Tucson, on my way to work I passed a church with the slogan "Happiness is submission to God" on the wall. That seems to me to reflect well the attitude of Paul Broun and those of his ilk: don't ask questions, don't be curious, don't reason, don't even think. Just submit mindlessly and all will be perfect.

Don

I have no idea when the universe was created and really do not care. Your original statement and question was:

Quote

Let's stipulate, just for purposes of this discussion, that God created humans in their present form, with (in at least some individuals) both curiosity about the world and the intelligence to figure out how things work (physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc). Would you say that these attributes (curiosity and intelligence) are a blessing or a curse?

I responded to the last sentence.

Curiosity and intelligence are or can be the catalyst or motivation to understand the wonder of God's universe and His creations. Therefore it is a blessing. When that curiosity develops into the denial of almighty God as creator then it becomes a curse.

We are all born into sin and condemned to eternal death, the eternal separation from God. We must repent and accept Jesus Christ as the propitiation and atonement for our sin.

Arguments over when or how the the universe and the earth was created are a subterfuge. Jesus Christ is the path to eternal life with God the father and creator. I am content with that understanding.

I am a counselor. I made an A in Earth Science in 1966 as a sophomore in college. I never gave it another thought after that. I am concerned with people who are suffering and want to change their lives.

I like Paul Broun because he is an unabashed Christian and a pro-gun 2nd Amendment supporter.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rickjump1 0]

jakee

Quote

If you assume most conservatives like to see American jobs going overseas, you are dead wrong.

I assume most conseravtives want to see successful corporate decisions driven by market forces.

The interesting question now is why do you think you're anything other than stone dead wrong? Why do you assume that liberals want to see companies put profit ahead of their domestic employee's job security?

If you think Barack Hussein Obama jumped for joy when he found out his "Job Czar" was taking GE jobs to China, you are mistaken. BHO more than likely: A. Shit his pants B. Cried like a baby or C. Referred to Jeff Imelt as an SOB. I really don't think he liked to see GE, "put profit ahead of their domestic employee's job security" and move part of the company to China. BHO politics border a little on the liberal side. Right?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,132]

>BHO more than likely: A. Shit his pants B. Cried like a baby or C. Referred to
>Jeff Imelt as an SOB.

As your First Sergeant once told you, "assumptions are the mother of fuck-ups."

[jakee 1,610]

rickjump1

***

Quote

If you assume most conservatives like to see American jobs going overseas, you are dead wrong.

I assume most conseravtives want to see successful corporate decisions driven by market forces.

The interesting question now is why do you think you're anything other than stone dead wrong? Why do you assume that liberals want to see companies put profit ahead of their domestic employee's job security?

If you think Barack Hussein Obama jumped for joy when he found out his "Job Czar" was taking GE jobs to China, you are mistaken. BHO more than likely: A. Shit his pants B. Cried like a baby or C. Referred to Jeff Imelt as an SOB. I really don't think he liked to see GE, "put profit ahead of their domestic employee's job security" and move part of the company to China. BHO politics border a little on the liberal side. Right?

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]That is what I call rebellion against the word of God.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

lawrocket

I'm usually not going to watch a damned video on something. Find me a transcript.

But I do have a question here: if it wasn't explained, how is scientific literacy defined? Or illiteracy? Is it that a person is able to understand the concepts of scientific practice? Is it that a person is able to rattle off facts on any issue relayted to science? Is it that a person is capable of asking questions, coming up with answers, an predicting natural events?

Unless we know what the definition is, everyone here is commenting through his/her keisters. I'm ignorant as to exactly what people mean by "scientific illiteracy." Of course, the whole point is to keep everyone ignorant of what the fuck is meant by it. It's way easier to attack somebody for being scientifically illiterate when yoyu don't have to actually defend it with a standard.

There's a "Read the Transcript" link right below the video. I agree that I'd rather read it than watch/listen to it.

Short version: Evolution Science is "Lies of the devil himself."

Pretty stupid. Not just illiterate, stupid. And the guy is a congresscritter on the House Science and Technology committee.

Coming from a physician who uses the results of science on a regular basis (or at least did while actively practicing medicine) it's also very hypocritical.

Which is also typical of the "Literal Truth" Bible crowd. They pick and choose what they want to believe.

Stuff that matches their beliefs is "true." Stuff that doesn't isn't.
Regardless of the proof behind it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. I find that type of willful contrarianism is ludicrous to me. But is it "scientific illiteracy?" A physician is probably scientifically literate. A radiologist certainly. What if she is a Christian and does not believe in evolution? Does that make her "scientifically illiterate?"

I think the terms are being somewhat misplaced. I think "scientific illeteracy" is also being misused. I found this: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.html

Note how different "scientific literacy" is from what is being suggested. For example:
[Quote]A literate citizen should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately. (National Science Education Standards, page 22)

Now, this is something that is being said absolutely should not happen. Period. As in climate change, there are experts. I was told just a couple of days ago that I have no business questioning the guys with a Ph.D. on the subject.

My sense is that the whole "scientific literacy" this will be twisted and used as a weapon to quash dissent. Seriously - scientific literacy nowadays seems to mean shut the hell up and agree with the powers that be. If you ask questions and attempt to analyze what is being said you are a denier and illiterate.

I fear where this is taking us.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

I had a gander at this.
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/sites/default/files/article_images/Climate%20Literacy%20Booklet%20Hi-Res.pdf

Here's the question: how does this stack up in terms of teaching climate science? Here's the gem:

Quote

A climate-literate person:
• understands the essential principles of Earth’s
climate system,
• knows how to assess scientifically credible
information about climate,
• communicates about climate and climate change
in a meaningful way, and
• is able to make informed and responsible
decisions with regard to actions that may
affect climate.

Here are some changes that I would make in order to make it more educational and less propaganda-like:

Quote

A climate-literate person:
• has an understanding of the principles of Earth’s
climate system;
• understands the underlying concepts of the physics involved;
• understands uncertainty;
• assesses data about climate and the conclusions from it;
• participates in the exchange and discussion of data and conclusions; and
• makes evidence-based decisions and conclusions.

If anyone can identify the differences, what I did was took out all reference to subjective outcomes. For example, "scientifically credible information" necessarily means a person saying what is credible and what is not. Whenever someone puts "scientific literacy" in terms of "responsible decisions" it is inherently a political goal that is sought.

This is what is being pushed as "scientific literacy." It is the furthest thing from independent assessment and decision-making. Isn't that anti-science literacy?

This thing tell you what to think and is quite amazingly very light on references. It's got some references to IPCC AR4 WG1 and 2 reports. Mind you, that's a gold mine. Nevertheless, it'd be nice to see additional resources.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

jakee

Quote

If you assume most conservatives like to see American jobs going overseas, you are dead wrong.

I assume most conseravtives want to see successful corporate decisions driven by market forces.

The interesting question now is why do you think you're anything other than stone dead wrong? Why do you assume that liberals want to see companies put profit ahead of their domestic employee's job security?

You really won't get too many answers on this point. Problem is that you are asking a Republican to choose between two main talking point:

1 Free Market baby, it is all about the free market.

2 Made in the USA, America Fuck Yeah!