collapse

* Recent Posts

2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 01:02:54 AM]


45 minutes ago at the Dallas Westin by MuggsyB
[Today at 12:19:24 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 12:10:57 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by CountryRoads
[Today at 12:05:42 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by Don_Kojis
[Today at 12:04:21 AM]


Where is Marquette? by marqfan22
[March 28, 2024, 09:29:52 PM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Daniel
[March 28, 2024, 08:47:22 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?  (Read 113136 times)

muwarrior69

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5128
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #325 on: December 20, 2014, 07:45:02 AM »
Does anyone know if there is some sort of precedent for this case?  

I mean there had to have been some physics, biology or anthropology class somewhere in the country where a student tried to divert the class into discussing intelligent design and was shut down by the professor.  And the student goes to the media, claims the professor is suppressing free exchange of ideas, etc.

Or, from the other side, the professor actually lets the intelligent design discussion go on a bit and some other student complains that the teacher is promoting religion in class.

I know physics and philosophy are different in nature, but feel free to sub some other discipline.

I don't know why either side of that debate would complain. Sounds like a very interesting discussion to me especially in a physics or cosmology course. The point is to learn both sides of an argument or theory based on the merits of the argument.

http://vimeo.com/magiscenter/review/65991688/919d58c543
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 07:49:00 AM by muwarrior69 »

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #326 on: December 20, 2014, 07:59:50 AM »
I don't know why either side of that debate would complain. Sounds like a very interesting discussion to me especially in a physics or cosmology course. The point is to learn both sides of an argument or theory based on the merits of the argument.

http://vimeo.com/magiscenter/review/65991688/919d58c543


It may be an appropriate discussion for a philosophy or theology class, but it is absolutely not an appropriate topic for a science class at any reputable institution of higher education. 

Intelligent Design (or however you want to label it) doesn't meet the standards of the scientific theory, and therefore should be ignored in those types of classes.

muwarrior69

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5128
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #327 on: December 20, 2014, 08:28:09 AM »

It may be an appropriate discussion for a philosophy or theology class, but it is absolutely not an appropriate topic for a science class at any reputable institution of higher education.  

Intelligent Design (or however you want to label it) doesn't meet the standards of the scientific theory, and therefore should be ignored in those types of classes.

Did you view the video in the link? It's a discussion proving ( The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a beginning of the universe) that all expanding universes that have an average expansion rate greater than zero must have a beginning; which begs the question what was before the beginning. A good discussion in theology, philosophy and even in science courses. Oh! Non-expanding universes cannot support life.

My point is not to shut down discussion; despite how absurd someone may think the topic is.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 08:31:53 AM by muwarrior69 »

rocket surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • NA of course
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #328 on: December 20, 2014, 08:46:21 AM »
but i believe Intelligent design was Gods design.  it had to start somewhere
don't...don't don't don't don't

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #329 on: December 20, 2014, 11:04:30 AM »
Did you view the video in the link? It's a discussion proving ( The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a beginning of the universe) that all expanding universes that have an average expansion rate greater than zero must have a beginning; which begs the question what was before the beginning. A good discussion in theology, philosophy and even in science courses. Oh! Non-expanding universes cannot support life.

My point is not to shut down discussion; despite how absurd someone may think the topic is.

I could be wrong but I ghought intelligent design was more along the lines of evolution never happened and Jesus walked with dinosaurs? In any case the Higgs Boson particle has been proved and created proving that accelerated light can make matter (also somewhat disproving the rule that you cannot create matter out of nothing) Now on that topic you could argue about where did the light come from that started everything and Id agree that warrants discussion in upper level science courses (think AP and college) but needn't be addressed in say the common core.
Maigh Eo for Sam

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #330 on: December 20, 2014, 01:34:58 PM »

This is really just awful.  Really a shame that it had to end this way.

Not that it's of any justification whatsoever, but Boulder is a pretty damn good consolation.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #331 on: December 20, 2014, 02:15:21 PM »
Not that it's of any justification whatsoever, but Boulder is a pretty damn good consolation.

Sounds like a perfect fit for her
Have some patience, FFS.

muwarrior69

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5128
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #332 on: December 20, 2014, 02:45:05 PM »
I could be wrong but I ghought intelligent design was more along the lines of evolution never happened and Jesus walked with dinosaurs? In any case the Higgs Boson particle has been proved and created proving that accelerated light can make matter (also somewhat disproving the rule that you cannot create matter out of nothing) Now on that topic you could argue about where did the light come from that started everything and Id agree that warrants discussion in upper level science courses (think AP and college) but needn't be addressed in say the common core.

Your point is well taken, but the Higgs Boson particle exists in physical time. The big bang was the start of physical time or when time began. Some physicist call the Higgs Boson particle the God particle. Now if they can prove the Higgs Boson particle is independent or outside of time that leads to a whole bunch of other questions; but still begs the question what was before physical time.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #333 on: December 20, 2014, 02:49:25 PM »
Your point is well taken, but the Higgs Boson particle exists in physical time. The big bang was the start of physical time or when time began. Some physicist call the Higgs Boson particle the God particle. Now if they can prove the Higgs Boson particle is independent or outside of time that leads to a whole bunch of other questions; but still begs the question what was before physical time.

The name God particle has absolutely zero reference to God.  It was from a title of a book, that was supposed to be titled the God-Damn particle, because of how infuriating the search for it was.

The publishers shortened the name of the book to the God Particle, and it has stuck.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 02:51:09 PM by forgetful »

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #334 on: December 20, 2014, 03:01:49 PM »

It may be an appropriate discussion for a philosophy or theology class, but it is absolutely not an appropriate topic for a science class at any reputable institution of higher education. 

Intelligent Design (or however you want to label it) doesn't meet the standards of the scientific theory, and therefore should be ignored in those types of classes.

I'll disagree with it not belonging as an appropriate topic for a science class at a reputable institution of higher education (but I think when I explain you will agree). 

I have been confronted with the theory of intelligent design in my classes before.  I also typically interject a good deal of the philosophy of science into my course (as I do teach a pseudo-science course also for fun).  I usually challenge the students to explain according to Popper's falsifiability tests how one can define intelligent design as science.  It ends up being a good avenue to discuss how science is defined and can be a nice 10-15 minute distraction from a lot of the repetitive teaching.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #335 on: December 20, 2014, 03:25:07 PM »
I'll disagree with it not belonging as an appropriate topic for a science class at a reputable institution of higher education (but I think when I explain you will agree). 

I have been confronted with the theory of intelligent design in my classes before.  I also typically interject a good deal of the philosophy of science into my course (as I do teach a pseudo-science course also for fun).  I usually challenge the students to explain according to Popper's falsifiability tests how one can define intelligent design as science.  It ends up being a good avenue to discuss how science is defined and can be a nice 10-15 minute distraction from a lot of the repetitive teaching.


Yep.  That makes perfect sense to me.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #336 on: December 20, 2014, 03:25:30 PM »
but i believe Intelligent design was Gods design.  it had to start somewhere


What you *believe* isn't necessarily good science.

muwarrior69

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5128
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #337 on: December 20, 2014, 08:30:53 PM »
I could be wrong but I ghought intelligent design was more along the lines of evolution never happened and Jesus walked with dinosaurs? In any case the Higgs Boson particle has been proved and created proving that accelerated light can make matter (also somewhat disproving the rule that you cannot create matter out of nothing) Now on that topic you could argue about where did the light come from that started everything and Id agree that warrants discussion in upper level science courses (think AP and college) but needn't be addressed in say the common core.

Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which ranges from radio waves to gamma rays. Electromagnetic radiation waves, as their names suggest are fluctuations of electric and magnetic fields, which can transport energy from one location to another. Light is not nothing. It exist in the physical universe . Just because something lacks mass doesn't mean its nothing.

Here is a debate on nothing and what does it actually mean; especially to those who study physics.
http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 08:40:35 PM by muwarrior69 »

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #338 on: December 20, 2014, 11:26:56 PM »
At the end of the day a student left Marquette because a faculty member made her feel unwelcome. I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum or where you place blame in this incident, the outcome is extremely sad.

Eldon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2945
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #339 on: December 21, 2014, 02:35:03 AM »
I'll disagree with it not belonging as an appropriate topic for a science class at a reputable institution of higher education (but I think when I explain you will agree). 

I have been confronted with the theory of intelligent design in my classes before.  I also typically interject a good deal of the philosophy of science into my course (as I do teach a pseudo-science course also for fun).  I usually challenge the students to explain according to Popper's falsifiability tests how one can define intelligent design as science.  It ends up being a good avenue to discuss how science is defined and can be a nice 10-15 minute distraction from a lot of the repetitive teaching.

God bless you for doing this.  I honestly believe that every student at every college should be required to take philosophy of science. Actually, I think that philosophy departments should create a hybrid logic/phil of science class that every student, regardless of major, should have to take.

All students are required to take classes in both the natural sciences and the social sciences, yet these students are never required to actually define 'science' or reflect on what the goal of science is.  In my opinion, the lessons learned in philosophy of science (as well as logic), e.g., Popper/falsification, as you mentioned, are just as fundamentally important as college algebra.  Colleges tout the importance of critical thinking, but fail to require their students to study the topic that would increase this ability the most.

rocket surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • NA of course
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #340 on: December 21, 2014, 09:07:38 AM »

What you *believe* isn't necessarily good science.

you are absolutely right sultan, but at the end of the day(i'm getting tired of that term, but feel it is appropriate here) when one has science under a proverbial microscope, and we have it down to the smallest common denominator, smaller than an electron...the Big Guy wins, imho of course and i'm a bio major, chem minor.  now how can anyone think about disputing that on a SUNDAY?  ;D    God bless all yous guyses!  and Merry Christmas!
don't...don't don't don't don't

WellsstreetWanderer

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #341 on: December 21, 2014, 12:18:39 PM »
From here on in there should be a fine jar on Scoop for when that phrase is used

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #342 on: December 21, 2014, 02:56:34 PM »
Maigh Eo for Sam

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #343 on: December 21, 2014, 03:22:07 PM »
Interesting take here.

http://dailynous.com/2014/12/02/response-to-mcadamss-attack-on-abbate/

That is a very well written piece and highlights a lot of the reasons why the review of McAdams behavior is not about free speech/gay rights.

hepennypacker5000

  • Scholarship Player
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #344 on: December 21, 2014, 08:06:01 PM »
you are absolutely right sultan, but at the end of the day(i'm getting tired of that term, but feel it is appropriate here) when one has science under a proverbial microscope, and we have it down to the smallest common denominator, smaller than an electron...the Big Guy wins, imho of course and i'm a bio major, chem minor.  now how can anyone think about disputing that on a SUNDAY?  ;D    God bless all yous guyses!  and Merry Christmas!

This is an excellent example of a non-sequitur, and why I agree with Eldon and forgetful that we should be teaching the philosophy of science. You've made it pretty apparent that even science majors don't get the fundamental philosophy on which the field they're studying is based.

rocket surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • NA of course
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #345 on: December 21, 2014, 08:42:34 PM »
This is an excellent example of a non-sequitur, and why I agree with Eldon and forgetful that we should be teaching the philosophy of science. You've made it pretty apparent that even science majors don't get the fundamental philosophy on which the field they're studying is based.

i completely understand the fundamental philosophy of sciences, i just choose to believe that when all is peeled away, something(God) greater than ourselves had to light the match.  yes, i do agree with eldon and forgetful also-nice generalization though ?-(
don't...don't don't don't don't

hepennypacker5000

  • Scholarship Player
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #346 on: December 21, 2014, 09:24:38 PM »
i completely understand the fundamental philosophy of sciences, i just choose to believe that when all is peeled away, something(God) greater than ourselves had to light the match.  yes, i do agree with eldon and forgetful also-nice generalization though ?-(

You used empirical observations of the structure of an electron as a tacit justification for your beliefs. Those two things aren't related, hence my comment of it being a non-sequitur. You can support the study of philosophy of science all you want, just don't pretend like your major is relevant.

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #348 on: December 22, 2014, 10:43:07 AM »
At the end of the day a student left Marquette because a faculty member made her feel unwelcome.

But that's not true.  And I believe that you don't think it's true either.  After all, with respect to the link Piper provided:

Interesting take here.

http://dailynous.com/2014/12/02/response-to-mcadamss-attack-on-abbate/

To which you responded:

Excellent points.

The linked page itself opened, "In recent news, a tenured professor at Marquette University, one John McAdams, has inspired a political attack against Cheryl Abbate, a philosophy graduate student at Marquette University." [emphasis mine]

McAdams didn't make the graduate student feel any more unwelcome than the graduate student made the student unwelcome in her class.  Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, but everyone involved here - McAdams, the grad student, the student, the media - was within their rights to do what they did, even if you think they were wrong.

I'll concede that McAdams didn't need to name the graduate student in his original entry in order to make his point.  But let's be realistic here... the media didn't pick up McAdams' entry because the graduate student was named; the media picked it up because of the content of the entry.  Further, because of the controversy surrounding the incident (and the media loves controversy), it's a foregone conclusion that the media would have done some investigating of who the graduate student was, and so it's probable that they would have named her at some point any way.

So if you think it's prudent to put the public embarrassment of the graduate student on McAdams because he was the inspiration for the media who blew this story up, let's be straight here that, ultimately, it was the graduate student who inspired McAdams.

New Moral of Story: "What goes around, comes around."  If you're not willing to deal with the fallout of your own actions/words, keep your mouth shut.  (This is equally applicable to McAdams.)
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #349 on: December 22, 2014, 10:50:49 AM »
But that's not true.  And I believe that you don't think it's true either.  After all, with respect to the link Piper provided:

To which you responded:

The linked page itself opened, "In recent news, a tenured professor at Marquette University, one John McAdams, has inspired a political attack against Cheryl Abbate, a philosophy graduate student at Marquette University." [emphasis mine]

McAdams didn't make the graduate student feel any more unwelcome than the graduate student made the student unwelcome in her class.  Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, but everyone involved here - McAdams, the grad student, the student, the media - was within their rights to do what they did, even if you think they were wrong.

I'll concede that McAdams didn't need to name the graduate student in his original entry in order to make his point.  But let's be realistic here... the media didn't pick up McAdams' entry because the graduate student was named; the media picked it up because of the content of the entry.  Further, because of the controversy surrounding the incident (and the media loves controversy), it's a foregone conclusion that the media would have done some investigating of who the graduate student was, and so it's probable that they would have named her at some point any way.

So if you think it's prudent to put the public embarrassment of the graduate student on McAdams because he was the inspiration for the media who blew this story up, let's be straight here that, ultimately, it was the graduate student who inspired McAdams.

New Moral of Story: "What goes around, comes around."  If you're not willing to deal with the fallout of your own actions/words, keep your mouth shut.  (This is equally applicable to McAdams.)

Wrong.

Per the link Piper posted and that I commented had good points, McAdams lied about the basic facts of the incident, and then perpetuated those lies in the local and national media. McAdams was NOT within his rights to do that.