The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
That book is actually culturally relevant to the history of the Grand Canyon. The comic books you posted aren't saying anything unscientific that people will accept as true and are a simply poor attempt to get kids to learn about nature and stuff. The Night Sky book doesn't say anything about astrology.
The Hopeez book isn't relevant to the history of the Grand Canyon, it is relevant to the history of people who live (lived?) in the area in which the Grand Canyon is found. The very existence of superheroes is unscientific, and the number of people who accept it as true or not is inconsequential. The Night Sky book is about astrology, what the fuck are you talking about? There's nothing scientific about constellations, and they're the basis of astrology. And a lot of people believe in astrology and its alledged predictive powers.
The constellation book is just a book on the various constellations. Just because astrology uses them doesn't mean that the book is advocating astrology. If the book advocates astrology, then the International Astronomical Union advocates astrology because they divided up the sky into 88 official constellations. Next you will be telling me that astronomy is astrology because it developed from astrology and that chemistry is alchemy because it developed from alchemy. The history of the people who lived in the area of the Grand Canyon is part of the history of the Grand Canyon. Nobody believes that superheroes exist nor do the books claim that they exist.
If it's like every other Constellation Book I've seen, it doesn't claim to have any bearing on truth.
Dude what the hell does this even mean? Isn't some sort of claim of truth inherent in publishing any statement? Don't visual qualifiers like Bible verses, comic book art, "Inspirational Reading," "Hopi," "Noah's Flood," etc., categorize for us what kind of "truth" we're looking at?
Isn't the actual problem here that some people categorize some of those qualifiers into a different kind of truth than you would, and that really pisses you off in a way that Leprechauns pissed off rambozo?
IRT Richy: thank you. Agreeing with Yar will make you feel a little dirty, though.
Also titmouse, you are stretching really thin here. Among other things, it was already mentioned in this thread that this book is "just as bad as if NASA started selling books on astrology." I'm just pointing out the irony.
If it's like every other Constellation Book I've seen, it doesn't claim to have any bearing on truth.
Dude what the hell does this even mean? Isn't a claim of truth inherent in making any statement? Don't visual qualifiers like Bible verses, comic book art, "Inspirational Reading," "Hopi," "Noah's Flood," etc., categorize for us what kind of "truth" we're looking at?
Isn't the actual problem here that some people categorize some of those qualifiers into a different kind of truth than you would, and that really pisses you off in a way that Leprechauns pissed off rambozo?
No. Don't try to justify shit by claiming it is just a different kind of truth. The creationist book claims to be the scientific truth and not just part of a people's culture.
And the comic book claims a hero named Chasm can fly and stops evil-doers in the Canyon. What say you?
The comic book doesn't claim to be scientifically correct.
Contrary to what is widely believed, radioactive dating has not proven the rocks of the Grand Canyon to be millions of years old. The vast majority of the sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon were deposited as the result of a global flood that occurred after and as a result of the initial sin that took place in the Garden of Eden.
This claims that it is scientifically correct. Notice how it uses words like "radioactive dating" o make people think that science proves it is only 600 years old. The book also advocates using the Bible as a scientific textbook.
Some may question using the Bible as a science and/or history book. But who better to write the instruction manual on the life and history of the universe than God? He created it all!
For the stupid book, the Bible is scientific fact.
Unlike secular geologists, creationist geologists don’t need to speculate about history, because we accept the eyewitness accounts preserved in a reliable written record—the Bible.
This makes a testable statement that it wants people to accept as true.
The book makes a claim that what is said in the book is scientifically and physically true.
I understand that "none of the above" is the fastest growing "religion" in the world, and it's definite cause for hope, particularly after the boomer generation dies/becomes too senile to have any impact. there's still a few troubles with being satisfied with that though, as i see it.
.......
while i don't read you as suggesting that people should simply have an entirely hands-off policy towards faith, it doesn't seem like it doesn't seem like your strategy is doing much more than maintaining the status quo regarding unreason. i may be mischaracterizing you, but it seems like you, and people similar to you, only present arguments against faith when you talk to (or about) people like me. your method isn't bent on changing the current status quo, it is bent on working within religious (or unreasonable) notions to defeat religious notions, defeating theology with more theology. this is going to lead, it seems to me, to a dead end.
First off, I think it's absolutely possible to leave the pressure off moderation while still being absolutely rabid about intellectual honesty and relativity (there was a month long stretch where I foamed at the mouth every time I heard the words "Intelligent Design" or "Behe"). If we vigorously contain the worst symptoms religion, making that a basis of interaction in modern society, the religious angle will eventually take care of itself, in my opinion much more quickly that if we attack religion just as rigorously as it's ill side-effects.
As to my strategy, and that of other atheists, I think it was a bit miscommunication there. I've been in every religious thread in D&D for the last however long, putting forward this same position. The difference is, when you are in the same threads, you (and what I'd call the Dawkins school of thought in public discussion) hammer away at your issues with everyone continually, while what I (and the more pragmatic school of thought) do is put the ideas out there, and then engage those who chose to follow up on it. I'm just as devoted to seeing the status quo change as you are, I simply take a more measured position because I think being overly aggressive is counter-productive.
What you are saying makes a very small point and changes little. Like I said, when a book is laden with Biblical text, you know what you are getting into. It is in an inspirational reading section, not the sciences section, and was placed there at the requests of a council of scientists ("if it is to remain"). And astrology is also presented as science.
What you are saying makes a very small point and changes little. Like I said, when a book is laden with Biblical text, you know what you are getting into. It is in an inspirational reading section, not the sciences section, and was placed there at the requests of a council of scientists ("if it is to remain"). And astrology is also presented as science.
Having biblical text doesn't excuse it from claiming that what it says is scientifically correct.
Astrology is no longer considered a science and the book on constellation does not teach astrology.
Ok, fine, so put this back into the larger context. A book called "A Different View" and in the Inspirational Reading section along with the bottom-of-the-barrel crap like crystals and new-age shit (it's not even where the Astrology and Hopi religion stuff is, they are given better sectional treatment) is described by the bookstore as a "creationist view" and is laden with Biblical text and declares itself from the start as consistent with the Bible... but it makes vaguely scientific claims nevertheless. And, so... what? What harm will be caused, really? Are geologists the world over going to suddenly drop their calipers and run to Church? Is even one of them going to do it based on this book? Is a little kid who is on the fence about religion and science, even though the whole Canyon surrounds him with unambiguous scientific data tailored for his education, somehow going to come across this book and get the wrong idea? Is it so bad to just respect your fellow humans for what they are and put this book there and nod politely at the mouth-breathers and continue to watch "none of the above" as the fastest-growing religion? Or do you really want to push this pointless issue that far?
Ok, fine, so put this back into the larger context. A book called "A Different View" and in the Inspirational Reading section along with the bottom-of-the-barrel crap like crystals and new-age shit (it's not even where the Astrology and Hopi religion stuff is, they are given better sectional treatment) is described by the bookstore as a "creationist view" and is laden with Biblical text and declares itself from the start as consistent with the Bible... but it makes vaguely scientific claims nevertheless. And, so... what? What harm will be caused, really? Are geologists the world over going to suddenly drop their calipers and run to Church? Is even one of them going to do it based on this book? Is a little kid who is on the fence about religion and science, even though the whole Canyon surrounds him with unambiguous scientific data tailored for his education, somehow going to come across this book and get the wrong idea? Is it so bad to just respect your fellow humans for what they are and put this book there and nod politely at the mouth-breathers and continue to watch "none of the above" as the fastest-growing religion? Or do you really want to push this pointless issue that far?
Ignorant people will believe that the statements that claim to be scientifically correct are true. The book isn't being sold to geologist; the book is being sold to the average person who doesn't know much about geology. Ignorant people vote and pass down their beliefs to their children.
Do you actually know if stuff on crystal power, etc. is actually in that section?
Do you actually know if stuff on crystal power, etc. is actually in that section?
I know that there was a section on stuff like that the last couple times I was at a Canyon bookstore. I think it was called 'Inspriational" but I don't remember exactly. Anyway, the Astrology and Hopi religion and stuff were in more respectable sections. I won't be there again until this summer.
Not to bring back an old topic, but as Yar and others have previously stated other then the book being in the gift shop the rest of the article was total and utter bullshit. That people believed it saddens me.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Then why did PEER issue that statement in the first place? In my opinion, this is why:
PEER is an anti-Bush, anti-religion liberal activist watchdog group in search of demons to exorcise and dragons to slay. On one level, that’s how the system works in a free society, and there are plenty of pro-Bush, pro-religion conservative activist watchdog groups who do the same thing on the other side. Maybe in a Hegelian process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis we find truth that way; at least at the level of talk radio. But journalistic standards and scholarly ethics still hold sway at all levels of discourse that matter, and to that end I believe we were duped by an activist group who at the very least exaggerated a claim and published it in order to gain notoriety for itself, or worse, simply made it up.
To that end I apologize to all of our readers for not fact checking this story before publishing it on eSkeptic and www.skeptic.com. Shame on us. But shame on you too, Mr. Ruch, and shame on PEER, for this egregious display of poor judgment and unethical behavior.
Couldn't have said it better Arde. Besides isn't part of science understanding different perspectives? So wouldn't ignoring the religious aspect of things kind of a close minded way of looking at the world?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Couldn't have said it better Arde. Besides isn't part of science understanding different perspectives? So wouldn't ignoring the religious aspect of things kind of a close minded way of looking at the world?
So wouldn't ignoring the Flying Spaghetti Monster aspect of things be kind of a close-minded way of viewing the world? The only different perspectives that science has to understand are ones supported by available evidence and rational thought.
Couldn't have said it better Arde. Besides isn't part of science understanding different perspectives? So wouldn't ignoring the religious aspect of things kind of a close minded way of looking at the world?
No. It's not about different perspectives. It's about the Scientific perspective, which can vary, but never, ever, ever, involves religion.
It kind of saddens me that there are anti-religious groups that just make crap up. However it heartens me that the "we can't tell you the age" stuff never happened.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It kind of saddens me that there are anti-religious groups that just make crap up. However it heartens me that the "we can't tell you the age" stuff never happened.
It kind of saddens me that there are anti-religious groups that just make crap up. However it heartens me that the "we can't tell you the age" stuff never happened.
Couldn't have said it better Arde. Besides isn't part of science understanding different perspectives? So wouldn't ignoring the religious aspect of things kind of a close minded way of looking at the world?
No. It's not about different perspectives. It's about the Scientific perspective, which can vary, but never, ever, ever, involves religion.
Yeah, science isn't about understanding different perspectives, it's about understanding evidence and theories.
Life, at least insofar as not leading a bigotted and narrow-minded life, is about understanding different perspectives. Because there's more to life than science.
PEER never actually lied. They just very carefully and purposefully misled you. I pointed that out severalpagesago.
The problem is that people need to learn to recognize this stuff. This is a more extreme example of what many journalists do. As I said earlier, when someone asks you to ban a book, take a second to review all of the details yourself. Or whatever, just please stop jumping to conclusions that fit your pre-conceived world view instead of determining exactly what is being said, why, and what it really means.
PEER never actually lied. They just very carefully and purposefully misled you. I pointed that out severalpagesago.
The problem is that people need to learn to recognize this stuff. This is a more extreme example of what many journalists do. As I said earlier, when someone asks you to ban a book, take a second to review all of the details yourself. Or whatever, just please stop jumping to conclusions that fit your pre-conceived world view instead of determining exactly what is being said, why, and what it really means.
Every time I agree with Yar, God kills a kitten. But I figure the kitten had it coming.
It kind of saddens me that there are anti-religious groups that just make crap up. However it heartens me that the "we can't tell you the age" stuff never happened.
To be fair most religious groups rely on books which were ultimately 'just made up'...
Still groups intentionally making up stories to support their views is pretty bad form, but common enough. Here in the UK some group (only a small group) decided it didn't like a tv show (Jerry Springer's Opera or something, not sure I really disagree with them but...), so mass spammed various places with complaint letters. Created a story from nothing, etc. Makes something irrelevant look like a big deal.
It kind of saddens me that there are anti-religious groups that just make crap up. However it heartens me that the "we can't tell you the age" stuff never happened.
To be fair most religious groups rely on books which were ultimately 'just made up'...
An anti-religious group is caught making up a story, but "to be fair" when we mention it we have to include a blanket attack against all religions? That's a concept of "fairness" I was not previously familiar with.
PEER never actually lied. They just very carefully and purposefully misled you. I pointed that out severalpagesago.
The problem is that people need to learn to recognize this stuff. This is a more extreme example of what many journalists do. As I said earlier, when someone asks you to ban a book, take a second to review all of the details yourself. Or whatever, just please stop jumping to conclusions that fit your pre-conceived world view instead of determining exactly what is being said, why, and what it really means.
So how is the statement "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees" not just a lie? There's no conclusion to jump to; they don't lead you anywhere. They just say something that's false.
And there's a point where it's impractical to research everything in-depth yourself. When read stuff on reputable looking websites I usually take it at face value until someone corrects it. I really highly doubt you double-check all the news you read. To me the story seemed just plausible enough given the current administration's dicking around with global warming reports, and I figured that maybe there was a short period of time where things went screwy over there.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
So how is the statement "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees" not just a lie? There's no conclusion to jump to; they don't lead you anywhere. They just say something that's false.
I explained this earlier, but probably not very well.
In order for the Park to be considered giving an "official age," one might argue that they cannot be also providing material that cites a very different age. So PEER's take is that the fact that you can go to the Grand Canyon and find two different sources of information, both approved by the GCA, yet which cite very different ages of the Canyon, then this means that they are not giving an official age.
The request by the Scientific community for them to move the book to a non-Science section of the bookstore was honored. The request by PEER and other anti-Christian groups was for the book to be removed (again, the removal constituting, arguably, the return to giving an "official age"), and this request was promised a high-level review.
Due possibly in part to people in positions appointed by other poeple who are loosely considered to be part of the Bush Administration (i.e., "Bush Adminstration Appointees"), the "high-level review" was sat on and never really happened. Or, it didn't happen in any formal manner, perhaps. This neglect, or refusal to decide, could be interpreted as "pressure" since pressure isn't a very tightly defined term, politically.
So yeah, it's bullshit to the nth degree. But because Bush Administration Appointees did not intervene as requested and remove a piece of GCA-sanctioned information that presents a different age of the Canyon, then one might arguably be able to rest easy with their conscience when claiming that, "GCNP is not permitted to give an official age due to pressure from Bush Admin. Appointees."
And there's a point where it's impractical to research everything in-depth yourself.
Yes, and when you decide to act on the information, pass it along to others, express moral outrage, and so forth, you are on the side of that point which requires a little due dilligence. If all you intend to do is go "hmmm. maybe." then sure, it's impractical to research it.
When read stuff on reputable looking websites I usually take it at face value until someone corrects it. I really highly doubt you double-check all the news you read. To me the story seemed just plausible enough given the current administration's dicking around with global warming reports, and I figured that maybe there was a short period of time where things went screwy over there.
There at least a couple problems here:
1) The story seemed plausible?
2) The story was released by PEER, and the only person quoted was the head of PEER. That's a big fucking clue that you need to either dismiss it or research further. It isn't journalism when you're just quoting yourself.
3) Even if you breezed through my #1 and #2 above, you really think a story such as this isn't worthy of a little closer look?
Posts
Isn't the actual problem here that some people categorize some of those qualifiers into a different kind of truth than you would, and that really pisses you off in a way that Leprechauns pissed off rambozo?
IRT Richy: thank you. Agreeing with Yar will make you feel a little dirty, though.
Also titmouse, you are stretching really thin here. Among other things, it was already mentioned in this thread that this book is "just as bad as if NASA started selling books on astrology." I'm just pointing out the irony.
It's the title of the God-damned book!
And the comic book claims a hero named Chasm can fly and stops evil-doers in the Canyon. What say you?
The book makes a claim that what is said in the book is scientifically and physically true.
First off, I think it's absolutely possible to leave the pressure off moderation while still being absolutely rabid about intellectual honesty and relativity (there was a month long stretch where I foamed at the mouth every time I heard the words "Intelligent Design" or "Behe"). If we vigorously contain the worst symptoms religion, making that a basis of interaction in modern society, the religious angle will eventually take care of itself, in my opinion much more quickly that if we attack religion just as rigorously as it's ill side-effects.
As to my strategy, and that of other atheists, I think it was a bit miscommunication there. I've been in every religious thread in D&D for the last however long, putting forward this same position. The difference is, when you are in the same threads, you (and what I'd call the Dawkins school of thought in public discussion) hammer away at your issues with everyone continually, while what I (and the more pragmatic school of thought) do is put the ideas out there, and then engage those who chose to follow up on it. I'm just as devoted to seeing the status quo change as you are, I simply take a more measured position because I think being overly aggressive is counter-productive.
Astrology is no longer considered a science and the book on constellation does not teach astrology.
Do you actually know if stuff on crystal power, etc. is actually in that section?
Not to bring back an old topic, but as Yar and others have previously stated other then the book being in the gift shop the rest of the article was total and utter bullshit. That people believed it saddens me.
pleasepaypreacher.net
nice.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
pleasepaypreacher.net
So wouldn't ignoring the Flying Spaghetti Monster aspect of things be kind of a close-minded way of viewing the world? The only different perspectives that science has to understand are ones supported by available evidence and rational thought.
No. It's not about different perspectives. It's about the Scientific perspective, which can vary, but never, ever, ever, involves religion.
What exactly are you talking about?
This link posted earlier:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html
PEER making crap up about government officials pressuring the park to say "we can't tell you the age."
Yeah, science isn't about understanding different perspectives, it's about understanding evidence and theories.
Life, at least insofar as not leading a bigotted and narrow-minded life, is about understanding different perspectives. Because there's more to life than science.
The problem is that people need to learn to recognize this stuff. This is a more extreme example of what many journalists do. As I said earlier, when someone asks you to ban a book, take a second to review all of the details yourself. Or whatever, just please stop jumping to conclusions that fit your pre-conceived world view instead of determining exactly what is being said, why, and what it really means.
To be fair most religious groups rely on books which were ultimately 'just made up'...
Still groups intentionally making up stories to support their views is pretty bad form, but common enough. Here in the UK some group (only a small group) decided it didn't like a tv show (Jerry Springer's Opera or something, not sure I really disagree with them but...), so mass spammed various places with complaint letters. Created a story from nothing, etc. Makes something irrelevant look like a big deal.
An anti-religious group is caught making up a story, but "to be fair" when we mention it we have to include a blanket attack against all religions? That's a concept of "fairness" I was not previously familiar with.
So how is the statement "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees" not just a lie? There's no conclusion to jump to; they don't lead you anywhere. They just say something that's false.
And there's a point where it's impractical to research everything in-depth yourself. When read stuff on reputable looking websites I usually take it at face value until someone corrects it. I really highly doubt you double-check all the news you read. To me the story seemed just plausible enough given the current administration's dicking around with global warming reports, and I figured that maybe there was a short period of time where things went screwy over there.
In order for the Park to be considered giving an "official age," one might argue that they cannot be also providing material that cites a very different age. So PEER's take is that the fact that you can go to the Grand Canyon and find two different sources of information, both approved by the GCA, yet which cite very different ages of the Canyon, then this means that they are not giving an official age.
The request by the Scientific community for them to move the book to a non-Science section of the bookstore was honored. The request by PEER and other anti-Christian groups was for the book to be removed (again, the removal constituting, arguably, the return to giving an "official age"), and this request was promised a high-level review.
Due possibly in part to people in positions appointed by other poeple who are loosely considered to be part of the Bush Administration (i.e., "Bush Adminstration Appointees"), the "high-level review" was sat on and never really happened. Or, it didn't happen in any formal manner, perhaps. This neglect, or refusal to decide, could be interpreted as "pressure" since pressure isn't a very tightly defined term, politically.
So yeah, it's bullshit to the nth degree. But because Bush Administration Appointees did not intervene as requested and remove a piece of GCA-sanctioned information that presents a different age of the Canyon, then one might arguably be able to rest easy with their conscience when claiming that, "GCNP is not permitted to give an official age due to pressure from Bush Admin. Appointees."
Yes, and when you decide to act on the information, pass it along to others, express moral outrage, and so forth, you are on the side of that point which requires a little due dilligence. If all you intend to do is go "hmmm. maybe." then sure, it's impractical to research it.
There at least a couple problems here:
1) The story seemed plausible?
2) The story was released by PEER, and the only person quoted was the head of PEER. That's a big fucking clue that you need to either dismiss it or research further. It isn't journalism when you're just quoting yourself.
3) Even if you breezed through my #1 and #2 above, you really think a story such as this isn't worthy of a little closer look?