Trans-Christianity: Yer Doin' It Wrong

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

[…]

I think it's a false dilemma. I'd be happy if neither Scientism nor Creationism was taught in the science classroom.

[UncleBob]

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

If I understand him, he’s created an absurd “alternative view” of the gospel: i.e. “Jesus is a big chicken.” (This is not unlike the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” hypothesis.) And, he’s requiring us to teach this alongside the biblical gospel because, after all, we must present alternative views.

It’s an example of reductio ad absurdum, if I understand him correctly, offered in a pique of frustration with the course of several other threads.

Do I read you correctly, UB?

Normally when you have to explain the joke, it kinda deflates the humor of it.

Except for Johnny Carson, who could alway milk a laugh out of a joke that fell flat.

You should try out your material on your academic friends, Bob. They might share you sense of humor.

Sorry, but it is unlikely that you could appreciate that humor. Lord knows I don't appreciate yours:

The racial irony was part of the joke, of course...

[tuttle]

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

If I understand him, he’s created an absurd “alternative view” of the gospel: i.e. “Jesus is a big chicken.” (This is not unlike the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” hypothesis.) And, he’s requiring us to teach this alongside the biblical gospel because, after all, we must present alternative views.

It’s an example of reductio ad absurdum, if I understand him correctly, offered in a pique of frustration with the course of several other threads.

Do I read you correctly, UB?

Normally when you have to explain the joke, it kinda deflates the humor of it.

Except for Johnny Carson, who could alway milk a laugh out of a joke that fell flat.

You should try out your material on your academic friends, Bob. They might share you sense of humor.

Sorry, but it is unlikely that you could appreciate that humor. Lord knows I don't appreciate yours:

The racial irony was part of the joke, of course...

hey guys remember the last time when bob told us del is a racist and everyone who disagrees with bob is an ignorant buffoon who can't understand how obviously smart bob is? remember the time before that? oh and the time before that?

dude, this is like an annual cycle with you. go feed your inner troll somewhere else before you login to crap all over CPS.

[Del]

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

If I understand him, he’s created an absurd “alternative view” of the gospel: i.e. “Jesus is a big chicken.” (This is not unlike the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” hypothesis.) And, he’s requiring us to teach this alongside the biblical gospel because, after all, we must present alternative views.

It’s an example of reductio ad absurdum, if I understand him correctly, offered in a pique of frustration with the course of several other threads.

Do I read you correctly, UB?

Normally when you have to explain the joke, it kinda deflates the humor of it.

Except for Johnny Carson, who could alway milk a laugh out of a joke that fell flat.

You should try out your material on your academic friends, Bob. They might share you sense of humor.

Sorry, but it is unlikely that you could appreciate that humor. Lord knows I don't appreciate yours:

The racial irony was part of the joke, of course...

you goaded me into bad behavior once. It will not happen again.

I have apologized many times, and I am truly sorry that I offended you.

But that chip on your shoulder is all on you now. I can't help you to let it go.

[DepartedLight]

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

If I understand him, he’s created an absurd “alternative view” of the gospel: i.e. “Jesus is a big chicken.” (This is not unlike the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” hypothesis.) And, he’s requiring us to teach this alongside the biblical gospel because, after all, we must present alternative views.

It’s an example of reductio ad absurdum, if I understand him correctly, offered in a pique of frustration with the course of several other threads.

Do I read you correctly, UB?

I need THAT decoder ring for shizzle.

[Jester]

+JMJ+

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

[…]

I think it's a false dilemma. I'd be happy if neither Scientism nor Creationism was taught in the science classroom.

I second this man. I mean Hell Yeah!

[durangopipe]

Agreed.

Susan Haack, 6 signs of “Scientism”:

1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.
4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumably to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. [to which most here would likely add revelation and faith]

I find #5 to be the most significant (faulty) characteristic of Scientism.
I believe this definition cuts to the heart of the matter:

Scientism - The view that only scientific claims are meaningful.

Still, I cannot support the teaching of creation science in the science classroom, and I believe it is a mistake for believers to argue their faith on the battlefield of science.

This, I think, has been Tuttle’s point all along.

I would love to see the teaching of science approached with a great deal more epistemic sophistication by educators at all levels.

[tuttle]

Susan Haack, 6 signs of “Scientism”:

1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.
4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumably to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. [to which most here would likely add revelation and faith]

Fantastic. Refreshingly concise. Nailed it.

[Gabriel]

What's really too bad, is that Tuttle and Del are dead on accurate about UB here. Both in this thread and others. It's too bad because it hasn't always been this way, but they're right. I get that being an admin/mod is hard, getting some "inside baseball" talk from Skip and Joe at the Chicago show is always enlightening. However, lately it seems to be the admins/mods who have been bringing the negativity/mean spirited game stronger than others. What gives?

[mont974x4]

What's really too bad, is that Tuttle and Del are dead on accurate about UB here. Both in this thread and others. It's too bad because it hasn't always been this way, but they're right. I get that being an admin/mod is hard, getting some "inside baseball" talk from Skip and Joe at the Chicago show is always enlightening. However, lately it seems to be the admins/mods who have been bringing the negativity/mean spirited game stronger than others. What gives?

Lack of coffee? Lack of whiskey? Lack of Twizzlers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gaining_age]

Agreed.

Susan Haack, 6 signs of “Scientism”:

1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.
4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumably to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. [to which most here would likely add revelation and faith]

I find #5 to be the most significant (faulty) characteristic of Scientism.
I believe this definition cuts to the heart of the matter:

Scientism - The view that only scientific claims are meaningful.

Still, I cannot support the teaching of creation science in the science classroom, and I believe it is a mistake for believers to argue their faith on the battlefield of science.

This, I think, has been Tuttle’s point all along.

I would love to see the teaching of science approached with a great deal more epistemic sophistication by educators at all levels.

This is interesting as I have been pondering lately if we might need a definition or delineation of "sciences" as a review-- I read the recent pages of the feathery lizards/dinos and some of the others. Interesting that my thoughts about discussing aspects of the hierarchy of sciences (physics vs. biology vs. social sciences) somewhat falls into some of these definitions of behavior of scientisms. My point would not be to elevate the importance of "science!" but to discuss the techniques and differences between "hard" and "soft" science. Regardless, I'll hold back

I do think it would behoove UB to do some boundary value problems from first principles to really review what assumptions go into and what types of results come out of these types of problems. There is some elegance there but also limitations (associated with the problem definitions) if you're observant. And it can provide quite the insight into how complex our world (universe) is.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." -A. Einstein.

"How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?" -- A. Einstein


G.

[DepartedLight]

Agreed.

Susan Haack, 6 signs of “Scientism”:

1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.
4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumably to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. [to which most here would likely add revelation and faith]

I find #5 to be the most significant (faulty) characteristic of Scientism.
I believe this definition cuts to the heart of the matter:

Scientism - The view that only scientific claims are meaningful.

Still, I cannot support the teaching of creation science in the science classroom, and I believe it is a mistake for believers to argue their faith on the battlefield of science.

This, I think, has been Tuttle’s point all along.

I would love to see the teaching of science approached with a great deal more epistemic sophistication by educators at all levels.

Day-gone. I really have become quite stupid.

generic terms of epistemic praise, I'd like to put on a coffee cup and send to a fellow work mate.

ug. me like highlighted part.

[UncleBob]

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

If I understand him, he’s created an absurd “alternative view” of the gospel: i.e. “Jesus is a big chicken.” (This is not unlike the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” hypothesis.) And, he’s requiring us to teach this alongside the biblical gospel because, after all, we must present alternative views.

It’s an example of reductio ad absurdum, if I understand him correctly, offered in a pique of frustration with the course of several other threads.

Do I read you correctly, UB?

Normally when you have to explain the joke, it kinda deflates the humor of it.

Except for Johnny Carson, who could alway milk a laugh out of a joke that fell flat.

You should try out your material on your academic friends, Bob. They might share you sense of humor.

Sorry, but it is unlikely that you could appreciate that humor. Lord knows I don't appreciate yours:

The racial irony was part of the joke, of course...

hey guys remember the last time when bob told us del is a racist and everyone who disagrees with bob is an ignorant buffoon who can't understand how obviously smart bob is? remember the time before that? oh and the time before that?

dude, this is like an annual cycle with you. go feed your inner troll somewhere else before you login to crap all over CPS.

I just get tired of the hypocrisy. Have you read the posts? Likely, no. If you think that there is no racism, like Del posts often over the years, then you are an ignorant buffoon. This ignorance is likely endemic of this rash of school shootings. As for "how smart bob is," I couldn't care less about that. But hey! You are the one who likes to tell me what I believe, anyways, right?

[UncleBob]

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

If I understand him, he’s created an absurd “alternative view” of the gospel: i.e. “Jesus is a big chicken.” (This is not unlike the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” hypothesis.) And, he’s requiring us to teach this alongside the biblical gospel because, after all, we must present alternative views.

It’s an example of reductio ad absurdum, if I understand him correctly, offered in a pique of frustration with the course of several other threads.

Do I read you correctly, UB?

Normally when you have to explain the joke, it kinda deflates the humor of it.

Except for Johnny Carson, who could alway milk a laugh out of a joke that fell flat.

You should try out your material on your academic friends, Bob. They might share you sense of humor.

Sorry, but it is unlikely that you could appreciate that humor. Lord knows I don't appreciate yours:

The racial irony was part of the joke, of course...

you goaded me into bad behavior once. It will not happen again.

I have apologized many times, and I am truly sorry that I offended you.

But that chip on your shoulder is all on you now. I can't help you to let it go.

And you know how to leave it; stop responding to my posts.

[CodeMonkey]

Well crap! I just can't seem to do anything right these days. Does anyone know where I can take remedial Trans-Christianity?

[UncleBob]

Well crap! I just can't seem to do anything right these days. Does anyone know where I can take remedial Trans-Christianity?

Here is a primer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aG1VV5pwHc

[gaining_age]

Well crap! I just can't seem to do anything right these days. Does anyone know where I can take remedial Trans-Christianity?

It's more of a state of being. Hmmmmmm......ohmmmmmmm.... cluck.

[TNLawPiper]

+JMJ+

My understanding based on collating several concurrent threads:

UB is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that we should teach “creation science” in science classrooms because it’s only fair to have “alternative views” presented (whether they are good science or not).

[…]

I think it's a false dilemma. I'd be happy if neither Scientism nor Creationism was taught in the science classroom.

AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, 'CAUSE WOSBALD SAID SO

[TNLawPiper]

This s*** is bananas! B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

[Jester]

.... then you are an ignorant buffoon. This ignorance is likely endemic of this rash of school shootings.

Is this statement appalling or am I reading it wrong?

The way I read it is anyone who disagrees with me is a potential school shooter. Specifically tuttle. If this is the accusation then my suggestion would be a short break from CPS.