Not all kids are wonderful students, and I have no illusions that there
will be a magical awakening if we just have the right approach, still,
there have to be better ways to teach than the system we have today.
Unfortunately, that takes a community-wide commitment to improving
society.

Aye, there's the rub . . .

So we could spend money building more prisons or we could spend it
making even the worst neighborhoods livable. Which one do you expect
your politician to vote for?

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:48:53 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

In talk.origins, "Not so quick" <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote in
<ZiuXb.40778$QJ3.34349@fed1read04>:

...

I think vouchers should be considered. Actually there is so
much corruption in corporate america that maybe it wouldn't
work but it should be considered. Why do you not get that I'm
talking about vouchers, not changing govt schools into religious
schools?

I am one of the few folks who defends science here who also defends K-12
vouchers (colleges already have them), but because I don't trust the
people who happen to be pro-voucher, I would insist that all schools
that take vouchers , public or private, not-for-profit or commercial,
provide the standard of education that has been recommended by recent
commissions. If that means that Georgia Public Schools cannot accept
vouchers because they don't teach biology properly, so be it. If it
means that a religious school is forbidden to lie about the history of
the universe if they want the money, that's their choice. If it means
that an Edison Project type school loses money, my heart won't break.

I am a fan of vouchers only because competition in colleges has worked
very well in the US, while K-12 public schools are inconsistent, at
best.

Not hardly. Vouchers for colleges create a whole lot of sleezy
'colleges and schools' that take the money, teach a substandard course
or even just take the money for non-existant students. I think there
was a huge stink in Florida over millions being wasted this way.

tooly wrote:

How can you purport a concept like 'education' when it has become so
OBVIOUSLY politicized today. Talk about mind control and brain
washing...sheese. Most modern intellectuals being mass produced from
academia have such 'short sightedness' that they'd walk right over the

following their colleagues thinking they are so 'enlightened' when all

see are a few inches before their own nose. The arrogance and hubris of
humankind magnified a thousand times over...found right there on college
campus...so contrite and assured of itself...all the way kissing it's

bum as it marches to the Hell it creates. Look around at the world. Do

like it...what we are creating? 'Education' my foot; hell, 'education'
hasn't been interested in 'educating' for decades now...for reason of

enamoured with 'new world socialization'. Except for a few elites who

lock themselves away from the mess they are creating...people are not

So go lock yourself in a cave and stay stupid and uneducated all your
life. <shrug>

nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) wrote in message news:<8fcb1069.0402120921.7abaca3d@posting.google.com>...

"R.Schenck" <nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message

<snip>

well, i think it operates by behaving illogically. i mean, we can
imagine other logical systems or perhaps we can imagine illogical
systems, but we dont have to be illogical over all in order for that
to happen. so basically, and i know it sounds like a cop out,
creationists are irrational. (duh, i know thats a big surprise)

The problem with this explanation (which I've heard many times
before), is that it really is only the *illusion* of an explanation.
It really doesn't explain anything. If they are "irrational," then
you can just ask the same question in another form: what is the
structure of their "irrational" thinking? And then we're back to the
original question (what is the structure of their thinking?). If you
say there's no structure to it, that it's completely random, this
makes no sense. Even a passing glance at theology tells us that it's
highly structured.

but its not structured systematically. its irrationally structured,
which -is- little more than random.

Like I said, I disagree with this. My understanding of dogmatic
ideology, whether theology, or political ideology, or whatever, is
that it is highly structured, not "little more than random." But
since this doesn't seem to be your view, I included, for the sake of
argument, the piece below.

But, for the sake of argument, even if it *were*
completely random, chaotic and amorphous, then how could a being which
thought this way even function in the world for 1 day without dying,
by walking into traffic or drinking poison instead of soda? So you'd
then have to explain how such "irrationalism" can exist side by side
with rational thought. And so, as in the first case, we're back to
the original question, and back to square one.

a person can certainly understand rational systems and yet have
irrational beleifs. the can understand the rationality of looking
both ways before crossing the street, but they can also say, if i get
hit its an at of god.

I agree. This is the observational data. People *can* understand the
rationality of looking both ways before crossing the street, and if,
for the sake of argument, these beliefs are irrational, there can
*also* exist side by side in their minds, this irrationality. So the
question, is, exactly *how* is this possible? That is, there needs to
be a theoretical model of the mind that explains what's going on that
enables this to happen. And so, like I said in the above paragraph,
"we're back to the original question, and back to square one." That
is, the statement "they are irrational" is only the ILLUSION of an
explantion. Because you'd then have to incorporate this data of them
having almost random, irrational beliefs alongside of structured,
rational thought. And how can a mind exist like this? How can a
being survive which such a mind? That's the question that this
"illusion of an explanation" allows people to weasel out of.

So your answer is worse than a cop-out. It's the illusion of an
answer, one that purports to explain something, but which really
doesn't. And it leaves people thinking that they've answered the
question, and so they stop trying to find the *real* answer.

it is the answer. what would you suggest that the answer is then?
that they are infact rational/logical/scientific? they quite
obviously are not. they can handle 'acting' or 'behaving' in a quasi
scientific manner, but in their head everything is irrational. God is
the center of everything for them. their beleifs are their beleifs
and there is nothign that can change it, not evidence or arguement.
As far as where they get their beliefs and why they beleive them, well
thats a different story and i doubt that there is one answer for all
of them. Some are apparently quite deranged, others probably put too
much support behind authority (ie their parents told them to beleive
this), others probablty have some sort of guilt-complex, and use the
redeeming abilities of religion to justifiy their own right to exist.

It is *these* types of questions that we need answers to.

yes, we do. in theory, if you can figure out the psyche of the
disorder, then perhaps you can correct it. i suspect simple education
is all that is required, tho people like behe defy that.

But it is precisely because "simple education" is failing to break
through the brick walls in the minds of the creationists, etc. which
prompted me to write this post in the first place. That's why we need
to understand this phenomenon better, so that we can make education
stick with these people!

short of taking them out of their parents homes and having them live
in communal barracks where they are not introduced to religion, it
doesnt seem there is anyway to -make- someone learn something.

It doesn't seem that there is any way to get through to them when we
don't have a good theoretical model of the mind, I'll grant you that.
Your statement points out the inadequacy of our current understanding
of the mind. It also seems to imply that no possible increase of our
knowledge of the mind could possibly make any difference in our
methods of education.

Is this really what you are trying to say?
That more scientific knowledge would be irrelevant?

Or are you just
saying that *you* can't conceive of any more that we could do that we
aren't already doing?

If it's the latter, I would think that you
should be on board with the idea that we need more and better research
into the thought processes of these dogmatic types.

its actually a rather interesting midframe. idiotic and never seems
to have its full implications flushed out, but then what world views
ever do, uhm, except science.

Yes. It's very interesting. So why aren't more people studying it,
and why hasn't more progess been made in figuring it all out? And
what can we do to help?

i dunno. i am surprised some psychology student (gosh there are
-tons- of those out there) has never made an attempt at it, or at
least an attempt that was succesful enough so as to become an actual
applied method. i suppose you could look at 'cult deprogrammers' for
a more extreme end member of the continum that the creationist
mindframe is on. In a sense its less extreme than the mindset of
people who join cults, but on the other hand, its more extreme in so
far as its programming done from birth.

Maybe more people aren't studying it partly because there are so many
answers out there that are only *illusions* of answers, like the one
you gave above. They think they already know all about it, and so
they don't think there's any need to dig any deeper for the real
answers.

and what would you suggest these real answers would be?

That's like asking someone in the Middle Ages who was advocating more
and better research into the causes of disease for his suggestion
about what the real answers to the causes of disease were, if he
wasn't satisfied with the then-current Medieval explanations (of the
four bodily humours, etc.).

The whole point of the call for more and better research is that our
current models, hypotheses and theories are inadequate to explain the
phenomenon. If I had the answers, why would I be advocating such
research, and advocating better theoretical models of the mind? If I
had a better model of the mind, I would just publish it, and not call
for more and better research so we could develop one.

you aren't
satisfied with my answer, so that means its not the real answer? why?

Because, like I've said, the way I see it, your answer is only the
*illusion* of an explanation. It really doesn't explain anything, as
I've said above. If the thought of these people is random, chaotic,
etc., then what is the nature of the mind that gives rise to such
thinking, and how did such a mind evolve?

The statement "because they
are irrational" doesn't explain all this. "They are irrational" is
the whole explanation, as if nothing more than this is needed.

Just saying that they think this way because "they are irrational" is
not a scientific hypothesis that takes data and makes sense of it in a
way that allows us to make testable predictions from it. Or does it?
Tell me how the evolution of such a mind would have given our
ancestors a competitive advantage over other hominid species.

Tell me
how irrational and rational thought can exist side by side in the same
mind.

Base your answer on existing observational data in established
fields of study (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.). Then
I'll start to accept that the statement "they think this way because
they are irrational" is a legitimate scientific hypothesis.

Otherwise, I wouldn't consider it to be a "real" answer. Because to
me, only a legitimate scientific hypothesis could possibly qualify as
a real answer. To me, the statement "they think this way because they
are irrational" seem more like a way to evade the question than an
attempt to find a real answer.

you don't seem to have a reason other than your own conviction. if
that is true, then why are you asking me about the creationists brick
wall, you apparently have one yourself. The answer is that they are
irrational, there is no need to go beyond it, they simply choose faith
over logic, and there is no logical reason for that (obviously, there
can't be one, since logic is one of the systems being considered)

We all have brick walls in our minds. Just different brick walls.
What I'm advocating is that we study the structure, function and
operation of these "brick walls" in the mind, as a part of the
development of better theoretical models of the mind.

Like I said, this sort of answer you've given seems to me to *not* be
a serious attempt to look at existing data and come up with a
scientific hypothesis to explain that data. Instead, it looks like a
clever way to evade the question. Note how you conveniently say that
"there is no need to go beyond it" ("it" being your assertion that
they are irrational), that "there is no logical reason for that"
("that" being their choice of faith over logic), as if their minds and
thought-processes were beyond the scope of scientific investigation.

If they are beyond scientific investigation, then one can't
investigate them scientifically, can they? How convenient for you!

Therefore, it seems to me to be an attempt to evade the question, not
to answer it scientifically. And so, therefore, it doesn't qualify as
a "real" answer, because, to me at least, only a legitimate scientific
hypothesis (or theory) would qualify.

If I'm being unfair in my characterization of your explanation, please
set me straight.

for
the most part, most people are creationists because they are poorly
educated and do not know the facts invloved. They think evolution is
the straw man they were indoctrinated with, they think that there is
-no- evidence that says 'there was no global flood', they think that
there is nowhere in the world where the geologic column exists. they
have not been taught the facts, at least in some cases. other people
simply ignore the facts, and there is no way to -force- them to accept
them. I would suppose there is some sort of chemical cocktail that
can make a person beleive anything you tell them. I also would
suppose that their inability to accept the facts and their
implications could be looked at as a psychological disease. But
either way they, as a class, are acting irrational. Each individual
is going to have different reasons for doing so.

To me, even the most dogmatic human mind and the most
irrational-seeming thought-processes are subject to scientific
explanation. Even if we can't currently explain them scientifically.
Therefore, I seek scientific explanations for the way that
creationists and other dogmatic types think, and I advocate more and
better scientific research on these matters. You seem to have at
least *some* awareness of this idea, since you said that "I also would
suppose that their inability to accept the facts and their
implications could be looked at as a psychological disease." But your
"non-explanation" that "they are irrational" doesn't get us anywhere,
unless you can examine and explain the phenomenon of irrationality
itself as a psychological phenomenon, just like any other. If you
simply say that "they are irrational," and offer nothing more, as if
nothing more could possibly be said about it, or needs to be said
about it, as if the nature of "irrationality" is some kind of
"self-evident truth," then that is an unscientific explanation. At
least in my book. And therefore, it is not a "real" answer. At least
to me.

DV