1. Teaching hate in UK schools

Comment #275397 by Hamish on October 31, 2008 at 6:28 am

Isn't it an indictment of the public discourse that a person can "get away with" anything by mere obfuscation, no matter how pathetic and inadequate, so long as they avoid giving a definite response? From what I've seen of Jeremy Paxman on Youtube, he seems to be far less credulous than is common for television interviewers, but he still lends credence to this mode of discourse by inflating the status of the person's stated response. It is admirable that Paxman tries to get his interviewees to clarify their positions, but at best it is a waste of time to solicit a yes / no response when the answer is implicit and obvious.

I think what is most telling is the fact that a school or a system of schools should even need an inspector to ensure that children aren't being subjected to bigotry and falsehoods. The creation of such an office is an admission that these problems exist, and it can serve only the purpose of treating the symptoms.

2. Only a Theory

Comment #193750 by Hamish on June 16, 2008 at 2:03 am

But the hypotheses, that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that there is evidence of irreducible complexity, are testable hypotheses. They can be falsified.

How can a claim that begins with "I have faith that..." be demonstrated to be false? This is why I consider challenges to empiricism more dangerous than poor but testable hypotheses. I'm not saying that Behe and other proponents of ID aren't also challenging empiricism, and if they are, then that is their far greater sin.

3. Only a Theory

Comment #193741 by Hamish on June 16, 2008 at 1:38 am

Modernity is less threatened by the intelligent design theorists, who try to prove their case in terms of evidence and observation, than by those who challenge the process of science itself.

When one cannot explain something in terms of empirical evidence then, in the case of the "reasonable" religionists, they reject the epistemology itself. Religion is not merely a challenge to evidence, but a challenge to reason and to what "evidence" actually means.

I certainly don't believe that Professor Miller, an evolutionary biologist, rejects reason and the scientific method. But he somehow manages to accept another epistemology, an irrational one, and in doing so, particularly given his public prominence as a scientist, he does inadvertently undermine the legitimacy of scientific knowledge.

At least the claims of the biblical literalists are falsifiable!


Reasonably on topic: anyone in Australia might be interested in watching the Sir David Attenborough interview on Andrew Denton's new show tonight at 9:35 on ABC1.