Global warming transforms New York Times to toast

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 4, 2010

Global Warming}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

If this story doesn’t persuade you to cancel your subscription to failing dead tree media like the New York Times , you are helpless and hopeless.

There, we are informed, by Leslie Kaufman,

Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.

Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.

Comments

Borne @7,
Amazing how ill-reasoned Darweens are. Brings to mind “deceiving and being deceived”.
I am not a "Darween" nor am I trying to deceive anyone.Toronto_{March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

From the OP,
It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”) How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.
I agree with you here, but what you are suggesting is that we not restrict ourselves to an absolute truth, which makes the comment by, Seversky @10,
Of course, if that is true for science then why not for other subjects as well? Why shouldn’t children be presented with detailed brochures for all the world’s major religions and left to choose which, if any, they find most appealing?
equally valid.Toronto_{March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

The flat Earth, the geocentric solar system, astrology, illness caused by demonic possession were all respectable and accepted 'theories' in their time. They aren't now. Yes, we know. But O'Leary was arguing, in effect, that experts or other authorities should not pick and choose what students are taught. They should be taught "both sides of a question" and left to make up their own minds. So who is to say that flat Earth theory or astrology shouldn't be taught? And on what grounds? Remember, the students should be allowed to decide for themselves. No one should decide for them. Of course, if that is true for science then why not for other subjects as well? Why shouldn't children be presented with detailed brochures for all the world's major religions and left to choose which, if any, they find most appealing?Seversky_{March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

In the UK as well people, even the BBC (which is very biased by anyone standard)reported on the issue of Global warming and the religious rhetoric. Please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8468233.stm In France, things are even darker: no dissident opinion on global warming is allowed. The only one given is via journalist that is hated by the french press: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcgakw_l-%C3%A9cologie-est-devenue-une-religion_news (l'ecologie est devenue une religion de substitution)Kyrilluk_{March 5, 2010
March
03
Mar
5
05
2010
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

I am struggling to see the problem with the story. Is it false?Mark Frank_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

Seversky has presented us with the usual codswallop defense for NOT allowing criticism of Darwinism (or AGW). Yet I have heard little or nothing of anyone proposing teaching astrology, flat earth or alchemy in public schools. Sev is using the usual Darwinian diversion + equivocation tactic - otherwise known as smoke and mirrors. i.e. Equivocate ID (in this case) to long outdated and known falsehoods and then go from there as though the equivocation were valid! Darwinism is the biological flat earth of our day - so where are his complaints of teaching such salient balderdash? Amazing how ill-reasoned Darweens are. Brings to mind "deceiving and being deceived".Borne_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

It's been a very long time - well over two millennia - since any educated person in the Western world entertained the idea that Earth was a dinner plate, as opposed to a sphere. Astrology was NOT an unreasonable idea, in its origin. After all, it was reasonable to suppose that the stars determine our destiny. Everyone assumed that the stars were bigger than us and had more power than us. The cosmology made a lot of sense, in principle, unless you knew a reason to oppose it. But the idea did not happen to be true, so it failed on the evidence, just as Darwinism is doing today.O'Leary_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

gleaner63, Re: 4 Exactly. The reason ToE and Global Warming skepticism should be addressed is precisely because a significant number in the scientific community have offered not only their skepticism, but reasoned alternatives. Flat Earth 'theory' is not a reasoned alternative to modern cosmology, and astrology is no where near a reasoned alternative to modern astronomy. Seversky sets up yet another straw man for us to easily tear down....er...tip over with a slight push (is more like it).CannuckianYankee_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Seversky at #3: "Does treating both sides equally mean teaching flat Earth as well as oblate spheroid Earth theory?" No one with any "standing", that I am aware of, believes the Earth is flat, or that the earth is an oblate spheroid is just a theory. Can you point us to someone in the science community who believes this?gleaner63_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

That sounds suspiciously like the fallacy of guilt by association. Whatever may or may not be wrong in the world of climate research has no bearing on the strength of the theory of evolution. Unless you are suggesting that there is a cabal of climatologists who have been seduced by the Dark Side of methodological naturalism just like evolutionary biologists. Is Richard Dawkins secretly a Sooth Lord plotting to take over the world of science abetted by his evil apprentice Darth Myers?
It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”) How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.
That sounds reasonable on the face of it but it raises some awkward questions. Does treating both sides equally mean teaching flat Earth as well as oblate spheroid Earth theory? Does it mean teaching both astronomy and astrology? Should we teach the four Elements - fire, water, earth and air - as well as the periodic table? In other words, does giving students the opportunity to make up their own minds mean that all theories, regardless of their true standing in the scientific community, should be presented as if they are all equally valid and well-founded?Seversky_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Leslie Kaufman seems to repeat him/herself.SCheesman_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Discovery's John West is quoted in the article: "John G. West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a group that advocates intelligent design and has led the campaign for teaching critiques of evolution in the schools, said that the institute was not specifically promoting opposition to accepted science on climate change. Still, Mr. West said, he is sympathetic to that cause. 'There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,' he said, 'with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.'”William Dembski_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply