|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do.
|
On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do.
If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure.
Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor.
|
On June 07 2026 22:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 19:13 WombaT wrote:
What are the ideas that young people (or indeed older folks like ‘mature’ students such as yours truly) not being exposed to in tertiary education?
Least in my experience(s) it is something more akin to the kind of criticisms Ender is making, students are customers or clients as much as students, and the education process is thus less holistic than it perhaps could be. Perhaps the ethical sides of non-humanity degrees could be more greatly embedded, it feels they’re a bare-bones box-ticking exercise so something has been covered, but the main ‘goal’ as it were is satisfied customers who can get better jobs.
Granted, I’m not in the States. Perhaps campuses are hotbeds of Marxism over there for all I know.
Having done a humanities degree and a STEM one currently, politics certainly featured in the former and were almost entirely lacking in the latter (perhaps too much so). I could certainly make an educated guess as to the politics of my lecturers and tutors in the former, but they rather studiously avoided being too overt.
What politics there are tend to be student lead versus clubs and societies, but they’re quite varied. They’re also less vibrant than they were in my youth, partly because our Student Union facilities have been somewhat commercialised and sanitised over the years, rather than being primary facilities for student-lead politics. Partly to accommodate international students, who are big earners for our local unis (and may be paying 3-4x in fees what a native student does)
Minibat’s mother is a humanities academic and her perspective is somewhat similar, from that different vantage point. I took an introductory World Mythology course in college, and it was extremely insightful and interesting. Every unit, we explored the mythological stories and religious teachings of different groups, both past and present. We read relevant texts and learned about the most important deities, saviors, and allegories of various belief systems and cultures, including Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek/Roman, Norse, Mesopotamian, and multiple Native American tribes. It was a nice little tasting menu of various religiosities, and there were plenty of advanced courses that focused on one or two of these at a time, in much greater depth. We learned about their Creation myths (how the world / universe came into being), their Destruction myths (how/why the world was reset or how/why it will ultimately end), and more. It was really interesting to observe the parallels between various mythologies, like how many civilizations had their own version of a destructive "global" flood (since they were always built near bodies of water, great destructive storms causing large local floods were the norm). We compared and contrasted stories from a whole bunch of religions and mythologies. Not once did my professor push a political or religious (or anti-religious) agenda. She asked appropriate guiding and analytical questions when needed, but that was it. It was a great example of an educator scaffolding students on how to think, and not just what to think. And yet, I imagine that plenty of conservatives would freak out to learn that Christianity was just one of many chapters, and it was discussed as impartially and objectively as every other religion / mythology. I could see Republicans having an issue with the fact that Christianity wasn't pushed as absolute truth, or that it was even (correctly) categorized as a world mythology in the first place, because many conservatives start with the axiom that Christianity is indisputably true. I've also taken plenty of other non-math courses at university (psychology was one of my college minors; education was my other college minor), and neither the curricula nor the professors ever pushed a partisan agenda, even at a very liberal university (Rutgers). Obviously, my math courses weren't Democratic propaganda either.
Every place I taught had a standing policy of recording all lectures. Seriously, in this day and age, do you really think a video of "professor indoctrinates physics students in lefty politics in his lectures" would not be spreading like wildfire in conservative circles?
|
On June 07 2026 21:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 21:26 EnDeR_ wrote:
This tracks with my experience. Profs for the most part stay out of politics. Students normally don't want anything to do with profs, we don't mix socially and in fact we are encouraged against getting involved with students, for very obvious reasons. Most places I've worked at have mentorship schemes, but uni guidance makes it explicit that this relationship is for academic matters strictly, if a student starts talking about personal stuff we are instructed to signpost them to the appropriate person, e.g. mental health support or whatever. We are very explicitly forbidden from giving personal advice, which would include political stuff by default in a science degree. Absolutely my (student) experience in a university too. I don't think any of my professors ever talked about anything political in class, and i didn't really mingle with them outside of that either. But i guess a problem in the US is that the right makes everything political. How are you supposed to teach biology if the idea of evolution is political? How is anyone supposed to teach physics if global warming (which is mostly basic thermodynamics) is political?
What you're describing about biology is what you read about some Republicans trying to do 20-30 years ago to evolution/creationism in public schools. The criticism of universities nowadays has nothing to do with that. One day open a newspaper of people who think different from you instead of just caricaturing them with no theory of mind, like DPB thinking conservatives are mad the religious studies class mentioned something other than Christianity or the languages department taught something other than English or the history department said a country other than the US existed.
Biology is the fundamental underlying theory of biology. Global warming is nowhere near that to physics. If you can't teach physics without global warming, you shouldn't teach physics at all. You have Newton's laws, Maxwell's laws, the standard model, the Schrodinger equation, the heat equation, Ohm's law, you have everything about matter and energy, it's wrong to think the way biology needs evolution is the same as the way physics needs global warming. Which by the way appears in biology textbooks anyway because it's part of ecology.
Conservatives who are pre-med fully expect to learn biology correctly including evolution, and people who don't like biology don't choose to pursue medicine.
What people have issue with is academia is gatekept at certain choke points that tends to benefit an in-group. That's at the level of journal reviews, hiring committees, grants. That's why you have widening ideological gaps since the 80s especially in the humanities where you've got surveys that come out constantly like 9 out of 10 people self-identified as liberal, and analyses of their political contributions show they went 97% Democrat and 0% Republican. This is not a problem in, say, engineering, as long as the liberals don't have such a monopoly that they stopped doing any engineering at all. But it gets to be obnoxious when people in the English and history departments can't read English or history and are being taught how their civilization is shit. Finding a solution would be its own question, like how to get more conservatives to remain in academia instead of getting jobs, but short of that the first step to anything is understanding the problem.
On June 07 2026 22:32 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 22:01 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I do, it’s what Biden did with congress to try to deal with illegal immigration. Before Donny made them all go hardline and reject it so that he could get back in power. I stress the need to keep bringing this back up because it discredits all of the apocalyptic rhetoric around immigration that conservatives use to justify voting for a child rapist. Imagine if one of our nuclear power plants went full Chernobyl tomorrow night and Democrats refused to vote for a bill to contain the fallout because they wanted to win the 2028 presidential election on the basis of "Republicans irradiated our country and didn't do anything about it", and literally said that aloud to the press. They would look absolutely insane. But Republicans did that with immigration and their voters don't think they look like morons for being so openly duped.
Your analogy is spot-on if the rejected bill was to contain 30% of the fallout, and as soon as the Democrat won he immediately contained all the fallout proving the Republican could have done it the whole time already with no bill whatsoever.
|
On June 07 2026 22:54 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 22:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 19:13 WombaT wrote:
What are the ideas that young people (or indeed older folks like ‘mature’ students such as yours truly) not being exposed to in tertiary education?
Least in my experience(s) it is something more akin to the kind of criticisms Ender is making, students are customers or clients as much as students, and the education process is thus less holistic than it perhaps could be. Perhaps the ethical sides of non-humanity degrees could be more greatly embedded, it feels they’re a bare-bones box-ticking exercise so something has been covered, but the main ‘goal’ as it were is satisfied customers who can get better jobs.
Granted, I’m not in the States. Perhaps campuses are hotbeds of Marxism over there for all I know.
Having done a humanities degree and a STEM one currently, politics certainly featured in the former and were almost entirely lacking in the latter (perhaps too much so). I could certainly make an educated guess as to the politics of my lecturers and tutors in the former, but they rather studiously avoided being too overt.
What politics there are tend to be student lead versus clubs and societies, but they’re quite varied. They’re also less vibrant than they were in my youth, partly because our Student Union facilities have been somewhat commercialised and sanitised over the years, rather than being primary facilities for student-lead politics. Partly to accommodate international students, who are big earners for our local unis (and may be paying 3-4x in fees what a native student does)
Minibat’s mother is a humanities academic and her perspective is somewhat similar, from that different vantage point. I took an introductory World Mythology course in college, and it was extremely insightful and interesting. Every unit, we explored the mythological stories and religious teachings of different groups, both past and present. We read relevant texts and learned about the most important deities, saviors, and allegories of various belief systems and cultures, including Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek/Roman, Norse, Mesopotamian, and multiple Native American tribes. It was a nice little tasting menu of various religiosities, and there were plenty of advanced courses that focused on one or two of these at a time, in much greater depth. We learned about their Creation myths (how the world / universe came into being), their Destruction myths (how/why the world was reset or how/why it will ultimately end), and more. It was really interesting to observe the parallels between various mythologies, like how many civilizations had their own version of a destructive "global" flood (since they were always built near bodies of water, great destructive storms causing large local floods were the norm). We compared and contrasted stories from a whole bunch of religions and mythologies. Not once did my professor push a political or religious (or anti-religious) agenda. She asked appropriate guiding and analytical questions when needed, but that was it. It was a great example of an educator scaffolding students on how to think, and not just what to think. And yet, I imagine that plenty of conservatives would freak out to learn that Christianity was just one of many chapters, and it was discussed as impartially and objectively as every other religion / mythology. I could see Republicans having an issue with the fact that Christianity wasn't pushed as absolute truth, or that it was even (correctly) categorized as a world mythology in the first place, because many conservatives start with the axiom that Christianity is indisputably true. I've also taken plenty of other non-math courses at university (psychology was one of my college minors; education was my other college minor), and neither the curricula nor the professors ever pushed a partisan agenda, even at a very liberal university (Rutgers). Obviously, my math courses weren't Democratic propaganda either. Every place I taught had a standing policy of recording all lectures. Seriously, in this day and age, do you really think a video of "professor indoctrinates physics students in lefty politics in his lectures" would not be spreading like wildfire in conservative circles?
Yeah, seriously.
|
On June 07 2026 23:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 21:32 Simberto wrote:On June 07 2026 21:26 EnDeR_ wrote:
This tracks with my experience. Profs for the most part stay out of politics. Students normally don't want anything to do with profs, we don't mix socially and in fact we are encouraged against getting involved with students, for very obvious reasons. Most places I've worked at have mentorship schemes, but uni guidance makes it explicit that this relationship is for academic matters strictly, if a student starts talking about personal stuff we are instructed to signpost them to the appropriate person, e.g. mental health support or whatever. We are very explicitly forbidden from giving personal advice, which would include political stuff by default in a science degree. Absolutely my (student) experience in a university too. I don't think any of my professors ever talked about anything political in class, and i didn't really mingle with them outside of that either. But i guess a problem in the US is that the right makes everything political. How are you supposed to teach biology if the idea of evolution is political? How is anyone supposed to teach physics if global warming (which is mostly basic thermodynamics) is political? What you're describing about biology is what you read about some Republicans trying to do 20-30 years ago to evolution/creationism in public schools. The criticism of universities nowadays has nothing to do with that. One day open a newspaper of people who think different from you instead of just caricaturing them with no theory of mind, like DPB thinking conservatives are mad the religious studies class mentioned something other than Christianity or the languages department taught something other than English or the history department said a country other than the US existed. Biology is the fundamental underlying theory of biology. Global warming is nowhere near that to physics. If you can't teach physics without global warming, you shouldn't teach physics at all. You have Newton's laws, Maxwell's laws, the standard model, the Schrodinger equation, the heat equation, Ohm's law, you have everything about matter and energy, it's wrong to think the way biology needs evolution is the same as the way physics needs global warming. Which by the way appears in biology textbooks anyway because it's part of ecology. Conservatives who are pre-med fully expect to learn biology correctly including evolution, and people who don't like biology don't choose to pursue medicine. What people have issue with is academia is gatekept at certain choke points that tends to benefit an in-group. That's at the level of journal reviews, hiring committees, grants. That's why you have widening ideological gaps since the 80s especially in the humanities where you've got surveys that come out constantly like 9 out of 10 people self-identified as liberal, and analyses of their political contributions show they went 97% Democrat and 0% Republican. This is not a problem in, say, engineering, as long as the liberals don't have such a monopoly that they stopped doing any engineering at all. But it gets to be obnoxious when people in the English and history departments can't read English or history and are being taught how their civilization is shit. Finding a solution would be its own question, like how to get more conservatives to remain in academia instead of getting jobs, but short of that the first step to anything is understanding the problem.
I don't know why you quotereply to me, i don't talk to you. And you should know that.
|
On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor.
Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right?
|
On June 07 2026 23:01 oBlade wrote:
Your analogy is spot-on if the rejected bill was to contain 30% of the fallout, and as soon as the Democrat won he immediately contained all the fallout proving the Republican could have done it the whole time already with no bill whatsoever.
Oh? So we didn't need $170b for ICE, that was entirely unnecessary because Trump fixed the problem immediately? Damn, where's our tax dollars going then, we need to DOGE that shit.
If you can't teach physics without global warming, you shouldn't teach physics at all. You have Newton's laws, Maxwell's laws, the standard model, the Schrodinger equation, the heat equation, Ohm's law, you have everything about matter and energy, it's wrong to think the way biology needs evolution is the same as the way physics needs global warming.
oBlade thinking college and postgrad physics covers the same things he should've learned in grade-school honestly explains a lot. Although I should've already suspected as much after reading the percentages rant.
|
On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right?
No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards.
Is it random or isn't it.
It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is.
At that point it's up to you what you believe.
Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one.
Austria's slowly cooking.
|
Northern Ireland26965 Posts
On June 07 2026 22:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 19:13 WombaT wrote:
What are the ideas that young people (or indeed older folks like ‘mature’ students such as yours truly) not being exposed to in tertiary education?
Least in my experience(s) it is something more akin to the kind of criticisms Ender is making, students are customers or clients as much as students, and the education process is thus less holistic than it perhaps could be. Perhaps the ethical sides of non-humanity degrees could be more greatly embedded, it feels they’re a bare-bones box-ticking exercise so something has been covered, but the main ‘goal’ as it were is satisfied customers who can get better jobs.
Granted, I’m not in the States. Perhaps campuses are hotbeds of Marxism over there for all I know.
Having done a humanities degree and a STEM one currently, politics certainly featured in the former and were almost entirely lacking in the latter (perhaps too much so). I could certainly make an educated guess as to the politics of my lecturers and tutors in the former, but they rather studiously avoided being too overt.
What politics there are tend to be student lead versus clubs and societies, but they’re quite varied. They’re also less vibrant than they were in my youth, partly because our Student Union facilities have been somewhat commercialised and sanitised over the years, rather than being primary facilities for student-lead politics. Partly to accommodate international students, who are big earners for our local unis (and may be paying 3-4x in fees what a native student does)
Minibat’s mother is a humanities academic and her perspective is somewhat similar, from that different vantage point. I took an introductory World Mythology course in college, and it was extremely insightful and interesting. Every unit, we explored the mythological stories and religious teachings of different groups, both past and present. We read relevant texts and learned about the most important deities, saviors, and allegories of various belief systems and cultures, including Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek/Roman, Norse, Mesopotamian, and multiple Native American tribes. It was a nice little tasting menu of various religiosities, and there were plenty of advanced courses that focused on one or two of these at a time, in much greater depth. We learned about their Creation myths (how the world / universe came into being), their Destruction myths (how/why the world was reset or how/why it will ultimately end), and more. It was really interesting to observe the parallels between various mythologies, like how many civilizations had their own version of a destructive "global" flood (since they were always built near bodies of water, great destructive storms causing large local floods were the norm). We compared and contrasted stories from a whole bunch of religions and mythologies. Not once did my professor push a political or religious (or anti-religious) agenda. She asked appropriate guiding and analytical questions when needed, but that was it. It was a great example of an educator scaffolding students on how to think, and not just what to think. And yet, I imagine that plenty of conservatives would freak out to learn that Christianity was just one of many chapters, and it was discussed as impartially and objectively as every other religion / mythology. I could see Republicans having an issue with the fact that Christianity wasn't pushed as absolute truth, or that it was even (correctly) categorized as a world mythology in the first place, because many conservatives start with the axiom that Christianity is indisputably true. I've also taken plenty of other non-math courses at university (psychology was one of my college minors; education was my other college minor), and neither the curricula nor the professors ever pushed a partisan agenda, even at a very liberal university (Rutgers). Obviously, my math courses weren't Democratic propaganda either.
Definitely one aspect of how many US courses are structured I’d like to see emulated more over here. There’s a lot less scope to pick up things outside your discipline unless you’ve actively chosen to do some dual minor/major kind of program
|
On June 07 2026 15:14 KwarK wrote:
In other news Hegseth delivered a D-Day speech in which he criticized invaders storming beaches on boats. The European continent and people must be defended against these foreign invaders.
I just read about this. Hegseth blatantly suggesting the Nazis were the good guys is par for the course.
|
On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one.
There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light".
Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text.
|
United States44046 Posts
On June 07 2026 15:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 15:07 KwarK wrote:
It doesn’t matter if it’s student led, the left wing students must be silenced if we want any hope of achieving free speech. Didn't say that
No, only that the problem was that they were too loud. That they were shouting. That the volume was the problem that needed to be addressed. Hold up, seems like you did say that they should be silenced.
|
On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text.
Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven.
I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows.
It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it.
Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell.
But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good.
|
On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell.
Please do not confuse a scientific theory, which is very rigurously defined (you can look it up) with anything to do with religion.
|
United States44046 Posts
On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good.
You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories.
|
On June 07 2026 21:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 21:26 EnDeR_ wrote:
This tracks with my experience. Profs for the most part stay out of politics. Students normally don't want anything to do with profs, we don't mix socially and in fact we are encouraged against getting involved with students, for very obvious reasons. Most places I've worked at have mentorship schemes, but uni guidance makes it explicit that this relationship is for academic matters strictly, if a student starts talking about personal stuff we are instructed to signpost them to the appropriate person, e.g. mental health support or whatever. We are very explicitly forbidden from giving personal advice, which would include political stuff by default in a science degree. Absolutely my (student) experience in a university too. I don't think any of my professors ever talked about anything political in class, and i didn't really mingle with them outside of that either. But i guess a problem in the US is that the right makes everything political. How are you supposed to teach biology if the idea of evolution is political? How is anyone supposed to teach physics if global warming (which is mostly basic thermodynamics) is political?
It seems like an impossible problem to solve when there is full belief without any proof (faith). Whether it’s the 2020 election fraud, or universities indoctrination, Lügenpresse (fake news), or all the other BS.
Evidence suggests they are wrong on most if not all, and it makes 0 difference. Faith is so dangerous when abused.
|
Whatever. I'm not here to argue about proving or disproving religion or the big bang. I just found the thought process similar between that phrase and what exists as a still unproven theory.
You can intuitively know or at least accurately guess things without material proof, sometimes. Not a fan of pure materialism either way.
|
On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories.
I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths.
Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things.
The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence".
I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that.
What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology?
|
Northern Ireland26965 Posts
Genuine question, think I posed briefly earlier but what is the stuff that conservatives think is being neglected in tertiary educational institutions?
I hear the general complaint a lot, but less so in what specific kind of social or intellectual diversity is actually lacking.
Coming from where I come from, colonialism ain’t an especially popular topic for some, but how do you teach genuine history by skipping something like that out?
I think you can teach history that considers it something of a ‘mixed bag’ to be crude, and an accelerant that has brought us our modern world, but at least in my particular context the demand seems to be to just whitewash the bad stuff while waving a wee Union Jack ideally as one does so
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
