7 ms·

I like this. Let us encourage people everywhere to ask more questions. We need it badly.

klez 9y ago
While the title of the article makes it seem like a good (or at least neutral) thing, the content of the article makes it quite clear that this is going to be a gift to the anti-science crowd. So no, it won't encourage people to think, it will just give more weapons to climate-change deniers and abstinence-only sex ed supporters.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  > a gift to the anti-science crowd... How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?
  - klez 9y ago
    > Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers? Because removal won't necessarily be decided by a scientist. It will be decided by someone appointed by the school board. Also there are guidelines for removal of stuff on the basis of the "belief that the material is “pornographic”". This has nothing to do with the certanity of science (which is not an absolute, anyway) or the fact that "deep down we're not really sure".
  - Oletros 9y ago
    It is a gift because the bill doesn't talk about the validity of the science
  - Lev1a 9y ago
    This enters the realm of politics where everything is up in the air. (Peer-reviewed) Science is pretty much considered fact. The only crowds this will benefit are as said above climate-change deniers (because they fear for their profits from fossil fuels), abstinence-only sex ed supporters(because they're blinded by their religious superstitions), anti-vaxxers (who consider one falsified and later retracted "study" as "evidence" that vaccines somehow cause autism). This benefits them because it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. This is pretty similar to how the Somali community in Minnesota was influenced to be anti-vaxxers and now look at the result [0]... [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rages-after-anti-vaccine-groups-target-vulnerable-community/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rag...
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      > it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? > manipulate people a lot easier. So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
      - Oletros 9y ago
        > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
      - Lev1a 9y ago
        "People" who spout nonsense again and again for some form of monetary gain or to live out and push on others their religious superstitions want to force their stance into the public eye through proposals like this. > My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science. > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.
      - taylodl 9y ago
        Where do these critical thinking skills to detect bullshit come from? Look at all the bullshit we inherited from Aristotle. No one even thought to think it was bullshit until people came along and said "let's see" and actually started performing experiments and thus introducing the Scientific Age. Ask any small child which will object will fall faster: a 10 Kg weight or a 5 Kg weight and they'll unanimously say the 10 Kg weight. So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit. It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion. So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything. Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'
  - mcphage 9y ago
    > How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Because it's not whether science can answer the questions, it's whether the hearing officers have any interest in answering the questions. And it's clear by the way the bill was designed, that the hearing officers will be chosen so that they do not.
flukus 9y ago
This is the exact opposite of allowing people to ask questions, it's helping to ensure that their pre-existing beliefs never have to be called into question.
amarant 9y ago
Yup, and the first question on everyone's mind should of course be "proof, or faith?" The second, "to know, or to believe?" Seriously, the fricking Pope has more faith in science than the people who support these kinds of laws, at some point you gotta ask yourself "am I a good Christian, or a Christian extremist?" If the Pope distances himself from your religious practices, it's starting to look like the latter
- wyager 9y ago
  The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine. He's not a benchmark of a traditional Christian. Also, most American Christians aren't catholic.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine Eh, no, for decades now the Catholic Church has been pro science and accepting scientific theories like Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory, etc.
    - wyager 9y ago
      That's not any of the stuff I'm talking about. Francis is, by far, the most outspoken supporter of homosexuality in recent papal history. Francis changed church policy in favor of divorces and annulments. He's also made many modern-liberal-friendly statements on abortion, environmental politics, economic inequality, and extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. He's very obviously retargeting church policy/optics in favor of a more liberal market. My guess is he's trying to pick up a bunch of atheist-by-birth millenials in the US and EU who tend to follow these politics.
Oletros 9y ago
I think this bill is not for asking questions
ableton 9y ago
I agree. There are a lot of very smart people on both sides of the issue. It is better to be exposed to both sides. Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks. Even Steve jobs, who was by no means traditional, prohibited nudity from the App Store because he thought it was bad for young people.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > It is better to be exposed to both sides. What sides? > Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks What's the problem with nudity in biology or anatomy books?
- jopsen 9y ago
  No Steve thought nudity was bad business for a high-end brand like Apple.
  - ableton 9y ago
    No I read somewhere reputable, I think in his biography that he though this.
    - qb45 9y ago
      Is Techcrunch reputable enough for you guys? https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/ We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone. You know, there’s a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That’s a place we don’t want to go – so we’re not going to go there.
      - eesmith 9y ago
        Porn isn't the same as nudity. Nick Ut's famous "The Terror of War", showing children fleeing a napalm attack during the Vietnam war, includes a naked girl screaming as the napalm melts layers off her skin. There is nothing pornographic about that nudity.
jimjimjim 9y ago
Yes, people should start by standing up in church and debate the validity of sermons and their source material.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  Actually not. In church you are supposed to have faith. Not so much so in science.
  - jimjimjim 9y ago
    Why? If you are meant to question education, why not question pastors/vicars/preachers/televangelists/people of the cloth/faith healers/popes/bible thumpers/bishops/fire and brimstone merchants and Archdeacons? why the double standard?
    - whiddershins 9y ago
      The whole point of Christianity is faith. At least that's a very widespread interpretation with an educated basis. If you aren't factoring that in to your comment, it comes off a little like you are trolling or being facile. Accepting the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a point of faith is arguably the only working definition of a "Christian."
      - jimjimjim 9y ago
        sigh, not trolling. why not question everything? If you have faith, why do you need to have churches? why don't churches start "red teams" to debate the Word. so that people can be reassured by the certainty of the teachings to bolster faith?
        babyrainbow 9y ago
        >why not question everything? Because the point of belief is not finding truth (Doubt it ever was), but finding peace, comfort and may be a sense of community and togetherness..
jernfrost 9y ago
But this does not follow a scientific process. People filing complaints don't need to disprove or prove anything taught. They just need to make the case that the material is not age appropriate. The criteria enployed are entirely subjective and unscientific. The US is already settling far too many issues in court. Issues like this are political questions which should be settled by a broad political debate rather than individuals creating endless courtcases in their local towns.

klez 9y ago

While the title of the article makes it seem like a good (or at least neutral) thing, the content of the article makes it quite clear that this is going to be a gift to the anti-science crowd. So no, it won't encourage people to think, it will just give more weapons to climate-change deniers and abstinence-only sex ed supporters.

babyrainbow 9y ago
> a gift to the anti-science crowd... How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?
- klez 9y ago
  > Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers? Because removal won't necessarily be decided by a scientist. It will be decided by someone appointed by the school board. Also there are guidelines for removal of stuff on the basis of the "belief that the material is “pornographic”". This has nothing to do with the certanity of science (which is not an absolute, anyway) or the fact that "deep down we're not really sure".
- Oletros 9y ago
  It is a gift because the bill doesn't talk about the validity of the science
- Lev1a 9y ago
  This enters the realm of politics where everything is up in the air. (Peer-reviewed) Science is pretty much considered fact. The only crowds this will benefit are as said above climate-change deniers (because they fear for their profits from fossil fuels), abstinence-only sex ed supporters(because they're blinded by their religious superstitions), anti-vaxxers (who consider one falsified and later retracted "study" as "evidence" that vaccines somehow cause autism). This benefits them because it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. This is pretty similar to how the Somali community in Minnesota was influenced to be anti-vaxxers and now look at the result [0]... [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rages-after-anti-vaccine-groups-target-vulnerable-community/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rag...
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    > it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? > manipulate people a lot easier. So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
    - Oletros 9y ago
      > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
    - Lev1a 9y ago
      "People" who spout nonsense again and again for some form of monetary gain or to live out and push on others their religious superstitions want to force their stance into the public eye through proposals like this. > My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science. > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.
    - taylodl 9y ago
      Where do these critical thinking skills to detect bullshit come from? Look at all the bullshit we inherited from Aristotle. No one even thought to think it was bullshit until people came along and said "let's see" and actually started performing experiments and thus introducing the Scientific Age. Ask any small child which will object will fall faster: a 10 Kg weight or a 5 Kg weight and they'll unanimously say the 10 Kg weight. So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit. It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion. So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything. Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'
- mcphage 9y ago
  > How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Because it's not whether science can answer the questions, it's whether the hearing officers have any interest in answering the questions. And it's clear by the way the bill was designed, that the hearing officers will be chosen so that they do not.

flukus 9y ago

This is the exact opposite of allowing people to ask questions, it's helping to ensure that their pre-existing beliefs never have to be called into question.

amarant 9y ago

Yup, and the first question on everyone's mind should of course be "proof, or faith?" The second, "to know, or to believe?" Seriously, the fricking Pope has more faith in science than the people who support these kinds of laws, at some point you gotta ask yourself "am I a good Christian, or a Christian extremist?" If the Pope distances himself from your religious practices, it's starting to look like the latter

wyager 9y ago
The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine. He's not a benchmark of a traditional Christian. Also, most American Christians aren't catholic.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine Eh, no, for decades now the Catholic Church has been pro science and accepting scientific theories like Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory, etc.
  - wyager 9y ago
    That's not any of the stuff I'm talking about. Francis is, by far, the most outspoken supporter of homosexuality in recent papal history. Francis changed church policy in favor of divorces and annulments. He's also made many modern-liberal-friendly statements on abortion, environmental politics, economic inequality, and extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. He's very obviously retargeting church policy/optics in favor of a more liberal market. My guess is he's trying to pick up a bunch of atheist-by-birth millenials in the US and EU who tend to follow these politics.

Oletros 9y ago

I think this bill is not for asking questions

ableton 9y ago

I agree. There are a lot of very smart people on both sides of the issue. It is better to be exposed to both sides. Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks. Even Steve jobs, who was by no means traditional, prohibited nudity from the App Store because he thought it was bad for young people.

Oletros 9y ago
> It is better to be exposed to both sides. What sides? > Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks What's the problem with nudity in biology or anatomy books?
jopsen 9y ago
No Steve thought nudity was bad business for a high-end brand like Apple.
- ableton 9y ago
  No I read somewhere reputable, I think in his biography that he though this.
  - qb45 9y ago
    Is Techcrunch reputable enough for you guys? https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/ We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone. You know, there’s a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That’s a place we don’t want to go – so we’re not going to go there.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Porn isn't the same as nudity. Nick Ut's famous "The Terror of War", showing children fleeing a napalm attack during the Vietnam war, includes a naked girl screaming as the napalm melts layers off her skin. There is nothing pornographic about that nudity.

jimjimjim 9y ago

Yes, people should start by standing up in church and debate the validity of sermons and their source material.

babyrainbow 9y ago
Actually not. In church you are supposed to have faith. Not so much so in science.
- jimjimjim 9y ago
  Why? If you are meant to question education, why not question pastors/vicars/preachers/televangelists/people of the cloth/faith healers/popes/bible thumpers/bishops/fire and brimstone merchants and Archdeacons? why the double standard?
  - whiddershins 9y ago
    The whole point of Christianity is faith. At least that's a very widespread interpretation with an educated basis. If you aren't factoring that in to your comment, it comes off a little like you are trolling or being facile. Accepting the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a point of faith is arguably the only working definition of a "Christian."
    - jimjimjim 9y ago
      sigh, not trolling. why not question everything? If you have faith, why do you need to have churches? why don't churches start "red teams" to debate the Word. so that people can be reassured by the certainty of the teachings to bolster faith?
      - babyrainbow 9y ago
        >why not question everything? Because the point of belief is not finding truth (Doubt it ever was), but finding peace, comfort and may be a sense of community and togetherness..

jernfrost 9y ago

But this does not follow a scientific process. People filing complaints don't need to disprove or prove anything taught. They just need to make the case that the material is not age appropriate. The criteria enployed are entirely subjective and unscientific. The US is already settling far too many issues in court. Issues like this are political questions which should be settled by a broad political debate rather than individuals creating endless courtcases in their local towns.