Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Social justice warriors hit engineering

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The way thing are going, they might even succeed. From Rod Dreher at American Conservative:

Having all but ruined humanities education, the Social Justice Warriors now turn to the STEM fields. Purdue University has hired Donna Riley as its new head of its School of Engineering Education. Here’s an excerpt from Prof. Riley’s biography page at Smith College, where she taught for 13 years:

My scholarship currently focuses on applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women’s studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices. In 2005 I received a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation to support this work, which includes developing, implementing, and assessing curricular and pedagogical innovations based on liberative pedagogies and student input at Smith, and understanding how students at Smith conceptualize their identities as engineers. I seek as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges. More.

This is what happens when scientists come to believe that consciousness is an illusion and objectivity is sexist.

A friend notes that this trend will spread like a skin disease through the ranks of the people marchin’, marchin’ for science. Demanding more and more funding for less and less science. Convinced that the doubts they keep running into are merely prejudice…

See also: Objectivity is sexist.

ID has sexual politics?

“hate science”

A scientist on the benefits of post-fact science

and

Marchin’, marchin’ for Science (Hint: the problems are back at your desk, not out in the streets)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
loljdk
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
JDK, translation, you refuse to address the critical errors in your ideology and continue to insist that you and your fellow brites should rule our civilisation without question or significant challenge. Duly noted: never cede power to ideolgy-driven atheists and fellow travellers. KF PS: Plato's warning about evolutionary materialism in The Laws Bk X still patently obtains, 2350+ years later:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
kf, I can't even imagine trying to parse, much less respond to, that huge mishmash of a paragraph. It's like one remark from me unleashed a barrage of every overused apocalyptic, hyperbolic meme in your arsenal. That is no way to have a discussion with anyone, I don't think.jdk
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
JDK, could you tell me just where the ideological redefinition and sacralising of big-S Science [= applied atheism] has come from? Where then, have we seen policy, law, courts, administration and more reflecting the self-referential incoherence, subjectivism, relativism, ideological agendas, pressure group agit prop and media shadow-show games coming from that have led to amorality, nihilism and the ongoing worst holocaust in history (of our posterity: 800+ millions in 40+ y and mounting at 1 mn/wk)? The implied imposition of might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'knowledge,' 'justice,' 'rights,' 'law' etc? The resulting ongoing stereotyping, strawmannising, bigoted scapegoating and targetting of ethical theists in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? (Or, are you blandly insisting that we are imagining what has been happening to us and what has more or less been openly discussed as the onward intent? When, your own comment plainly translates into Christians should be marginalised, discredited, demonised, targetted and disenfranchised from influencing any significant policy. I call that gaslighting by way of turnabout projection and accusation, the better to secure the notion that atheistical, nihilistic brites have by their superman will to power, the right of superiority to make over the world in their image, never mind the resulting obvious chaos and absurdity.) In that context, kindly explain to us how it is not self-evidently true that it is wrong, evil, wicked to kidnap, sexually torture and kill a young child for one's sexual entertainment, or that it is not self-evidently our duty to try to rescue such a victim from such a monster? Thence, explain to us how you escape the implication that our sense of being under moral government of ought is on evo mat terms delusion (as many leading atheists have said or implied) letting loose grand delusion in our conscious mindedness leading to absurdity? And if we are under government of ought, does this not point to a world-root IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT? Do, let us know. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
JFK:
But the existence of God and Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a wholly different problem because a) their materialism fails in answering the big questions of cosmic & biological origins and the human mind,
Saying that god-did-it is not an answer. How god did it would be the answer. At least materialists have a reasonably good explanation, at least from a very short time after the Big Bang.
b) there is evidence for God and Jesus, and
There is evidence that a person like Jesus existed. Evidence that he is god, not so much. KF's account of 500 witnesses does not carry much weight. It is a single account that there were 500 witnesses, not 500 separate accounts. By his reasoning, alien abductiins are more likely.
c) the consequences of the atheist being wrong are terminal. And they worry about being wrong.
But not very much.Armand Jacks
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
Charles, a bit of a sharpish exchange, but thought-provoking. Do you have a bit of an expanded argument? (I am thinking that could be headlined for general discussion, as suitably adjusted in tone.) KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
jdk @ 25
Useless discussion
You seriously expected repeating "you are wrong" to advance your argument?Charles
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Useless discussion - I'll move on.jdk
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
jdk @ 23
Telling you that I think you are wrong is different than trying to persuade you are wrong.
As I said in @20, no one accused you of being compelling, just compelled, to reiterate, thrice now. If your entire argument rests on merely telling me that I'm wrong, how many more times will you need to argue it?Charles
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
You are mistaking statements about what one believes, which I have made, for arguments in support of those beliefs. Telling you that I think you are wrong is different than trying to persuade you are wrong. The fact that you don't see that distinction puzzles me.jdk
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
So I’ll just back up and reiterate that your characterization of atheists in #16 is fundamentally wrong.
And there it is. As I said in @16:
And so the atheist trys to prop himself up emotionally by trying to persuade believers that the atheist is right. If the atheist was as confident in their a-thesism as they are in their earth-roundedness, they wouldn’t bother. But it (their ego and their conscience) eats at them. They need the emotional security of persuading others to their point of view.
You, the atheist, bothering to persuade me, the believer, that you're right and I'm wrong. If you really didn't care about what I believed, if you really thought my beliefs were as ludicrous as believing in a flat-earth, you wouldn't even be arguing. But you have. Twice now.Charles
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Hmmm. I don't see things the same way you do about all of this, but I also see that further discussion is probably not fruitful. So I'll just back up and reiterate that your characterization of atheists in #16 is fundamentally wrong.jdk
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
jdk @ 19
If I was trying to persuade you that you we’re projecting, I would offer some arguments to support that statement. But I didn’t.
No one accused you of being compelling.
What I said was, or at least implied, that I don’t believe that laws in society should reflect any particular religious point of view,
Precisely. Legislation is the strongest form of persuasion (second only to force), isn't it. Use the law to "persuade" believers that you're right. Legislate the millenia old Judeo-Christian views out of society, in lieu of what atheists believe. That prayer should be banned from schools, that a human foetus has no right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, that the state defines "marriage" and not a 5,000 year old JudeoChristian tradition and social mores. And if the U.S. had been founded by atheists seeking to free themselves from the tyranny of British religion, you'd have a point. But America wasn't founded by atheists and so you don't. You and atheists are simply trying to rewrite history, ban Christianity, and using materialism as your excuse.Charles
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
No, I wasn't trying to persuade you that you were projecting. I just stated that that's what it looked like to me. If I was trying to persuade you that you we're projecting, I would offer some arguments to support that statement. But I didn't. Also, I'm not interested in "legislating" what Christians or Muslims believe: among other things, you can't legislate what someone believes. What I said was, or at least implied, that I don't believe that laws in society should reflect any particular religious point of view, and I certainly don't believe that any religion has some uniquely valid view of what is right and ought to be reflected in law. I would reject a Muslim argument that law X ought to be passed just because it violated Muslim belief just as much as I would, and do, reject a Christian argument that law X ought to be passed because it violated Christian belief.jdk
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
jdk @ 17
I definitely don’t worry about being wrong.
And yet here you are trying to persuade us that we're projecting.
If Christian theists didn’t feel like they needed to legislate their beliefs into society,
And yet, it is the atheists and SJWs that are trying to legislate their beliefs onto Christians, but not onto Muslims. Show us the courage of your atheist beliefs by legislating that Muslims must accept homosexuality and transgenders.Charles
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Hmmm. That sounds like a lot of projection to me. I'm an atheist. If Christian theists didn't feel like they needed to legislate their beliefs into society, claiming that they had some uniquely valid view of what is right, then I would be quite content to let them believe whatever they wanted to. I definitely don't worry about being wrong.jdk
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
john_a_designer @ 15
Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?
But atheists don't contentedly disbelieve. They fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince "believers" that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ. Note that athesists spend zero effort trying to convince flat-earthers that the earth is round, because atheists don't care what flat-earthers think, because atheists know for a fact the earth is round. But the existence of God and Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a wholly different problem because a) their materialism fails in answering the big questions of cosmic & biological origins and the human mind, b) there is evidence for God and Jesus, and c) the consequences of the atheist being wrong are terminal. And they worry about being wrong. And so the atheist trys to prop himself up emotionally by trying to persuade believers that the atheist is right. If the atheist was as confident in their a-thesism as they are in their earth-roundedness, they wouldn't bother. But it (their ego and their conscience) eats at them. They need the emotional security of persuading others to their point of view.Charles
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Charles responding to Armand Jack’s drive-by comment @6: ”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?” This is what we happens when an atheist has not come to terms with the implications of his own atheism-- that he is only an insignificant speck in a vast meaningless universe… His only recourse is to meddle with (mock, ridicule) the beliefs of others and try to drag them down to his level. But at the end of the day all he has revealed is his own moral, spiritual and intellectual bankruptcy. Personally if I were an atheist I’d leave other people alone, because I would have nothing to offer them… Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?john_a_designer
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Sorry: content and depth explosionkairosfocus
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
F/N: Dembski on the business of design:
. . . (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. (No Free Lunch, p. xi.)
Where, the older ABET Definition of Engineering:
The profession in Which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences [--> I would add, also, Engineering Sciences, relevant Project, Prod/op and General Management, Finance etc] gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind.
Nothing in that inherently is about XX vs XY chromosomes, and it is not very amenable to cultural marxist agit prop and media shadow shows. Where, the content and death explosion we had to reckon with in looking at a modern ECE programme design, pointed to confirming the Masters as the first full professional level. There is more than enough technical content to be busy with without worrying over who has what chromosome sets. As though Laplace Transforms and the like care. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
AAR, that's my point. Playing gender follytricks and virtue signalling not to mention hunting the heretics will not build us sound socio-technical systems or the structures and technologies we need. KF PS: AJ needs to understand that. As for the design inference on empirically grounded analytically backed signs, on a track record of trillions of test cases, it is still batting what Americans call 1000. (AJ had to create a further case of FSCO/I by intelligently directed configuration, in order to try to snidely suggest it is a failure.)kairosfocus
April 5, 2017
April
04
Apr
5
05
2017
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
I am a structural engineer in Australia and while women are in a minority in the profession I have found them to be as capable as men. Engineers don't distinguish on the basis of gender but on how well you perform. Isn't that what equality is about?aarceng
April 4, 2017
April
04
Apr
4
04
2017
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
How’s that working out for ID?
Armand, Evolution has never made a bridge. Andrewasauber
April 4, 2017
April
04
Apr
4
04
2017
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
AJ- I like to challenge atheists to a skydiving contest , me with my engineered and DESIGNED parachute , they with a parachute made via RM errors in copying and NS selecting the best errors, I have had no takers yet.Marfin
April 4, 2017
April
04
Apr
4
04
2017
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
Armand Jacks @ 6
How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?
As compared to Darwinian Evolution's collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?Charles
April 3, 2017
April
04
Apr
3
03
2017
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
How’s that working out for ID?
In my opinion, given that observations such as IC and semiosis haven't been touched by the opposition, I'd say ID is doing just fine. And the load? Anyone can see the scale and ferocity of the attack, yet these observations remain. Frankly, they've only been made more obvious.Upright BiPed
April 3, 2017
April
04
Apr
3
03
2017
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
KF:
Bridges gotta stand up under load.
How's that working out for ID? :)Armand Jacks
April 3, 2017
April
04
Apr
3
03
2017
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
Bridges gotta stand up under load.kairosfocus
April 3, 2017
April
04
Apr
3
03
2017
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
If you feel like an engineer, then you ARE an engineer! If you don't feel comfortable in the role life would have otherwise assigned you, and your genetics have driven you to engineering, then it's as simple as that. What don't you get about this?? 8-)EDTA
April 3, 2017
April
04
Apr
3
03
2017
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Maybe, before long, infantry troops will want to sit in a circle, and for the NCO's not to raise their voices unnecessarily. Perhaps, the special forces will be asking for their private space to be respected, etc. It might be an uphill task, however, as it was reported in the newspapers that the SAS made their case very forcefully, when told in the presence of the Minister of Defence that they might have to accept women as fellow combatants in the regiment. One man held up his hand : 'But, Sir, we're not PC', he said. 'We kill people....'Axel
April 3, 2017
April
04
Apr
3
03
2017
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply