Teacher posts evolution challenge

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-03-31 04:50pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:--On a related note, is there any reason this teacher would have an advantage in the "debate" if he isn't particularly skilled at rhetoric, beyond 50/50 chance that is?

The requirements he framed are unachievable. Forbidding any visuals will give a clear advantage to the oversimplified arguments used by creationists and hamper the more complicated but more sound arguments used by science. The debate format allows this guy to blast question after question at his opponent, leaving his opponent having to counter each argument in turn (which takes time and will likely cause the audience to lose track of what he is saying).

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2006-03-31 06:30pm

TheBlackCat wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:--On a related note, is there any reason this teacher would have an advantage in the "debate" if he isn't particularly skilled at rhetoric, beyond 50/50 chance that is?
The requirements he framed are unachievable. Forbidding any visuals will give a clear advantage to the oversimplified arguments used by creationists and hamper the more complicated but more sound arguments used by science. The debate format allows this guy to blast question after question at his opponent, leaving his opponent having to counter each argument in turn (which takes time and will likely cause the audience to lose track of what he is saying).

--You are missing the point. One doesn't have to make a single science or evolution argument to win. All one has to show is that he is defending a logical fallacy: appeal to his own authority. This leaves plenty of room for one's own rhetoric to "tip the scales".
-I think this may be worth while because you aren't risking any of your own cash and have a better than 50/50 chance of winning $1k.

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-04-01 12:49pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:--You are missing the point. One doesn't have to make a single science or evolution argument to win. All one has to show is that he is defending a logical fallacy: appeal to his own authority. This leaves plenty of room for one's own rhetoric to "tip the scales".

We are talking about high school students here. They are specifcally trained to respect a teacher's authority as absolute. Besides, if one side is blasting hundres of facts that appear to support his position (the HS students he would pick likely wouldn't know they are BS) and the other is just going on and on about logical fallacies, they are naturally going to think that guy with the "facts" knows what he is talking about better than the guy without them. Any counter the evolution side comes up with will simply provoke another question. If he blasts off a bunch of questions and never leaves his opponent to enough time to answer more than a few, then it will seem like he has facts on his side and evolution doesn't have any counter. I am not saying this stuff out of thin air, this is how creationism/evolution debates of this type go.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-01 12:56pm

There are several problem with choosing high school students as judges in an evolution/creationism debate. First, they've probably been exposed to only three weeks of evolution, during their freshman year; and second, the American educational system is so broken that the students have probably never learned how to think critically. The bullshit is going to be flying fast and furiously, and it doesn't take much to overwhelm the average high school student.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2006-04-01 01:31pm

TheBlackCat wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:--You are missing the point. One doesn't have to make a single science or evolution argument to win. All one has to show is that he is defending a logical fallacy: appeal to his own authority. This leaves plenty of room for one's own rhetoric to "tip the scales".
We are talking about high school students here. They are specifcally trained to respect a teacher's authority as absolute. Besides, if one side is blasting hundres of facts that appear to support his position (the HS students he would pick likely wouldn't know they are BS) and the other is just going on and on about logical fallacies, they are naturally going to think that guy with the "facts" knows what he is talking about better than the guy without them. Any counter the evolution side comes up with will simply provoke another question. If he blasts off a bunch of questions and never leaves his opponent to enough time to answer more than a few, then it will seem like he has facts on his side and evolution doesn't have any counter. I am not saying this stuff out of thin air, this is how creationism/evolution debates of this type go.

--Well I grew up in the US and neither I nor anyone I know was "trained to respect a teacher's authority as absolute."
-You are still missing the point. HS students might not be trained to think critically or know why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but one doesn't need to even mention "logical fallacy" to them. One can simply point out how his entire position fails because of it. This will take no time and at all, is simple, and only one point. Something along the lines of "He says evolution is true because he 'acknowlogdes it' oh ... wait ... does he think evolution is faith ... I forget ... whatever, doesn't matter what he thinks." Anything he says about evolution can be summarily dismissed this way thus turning the tables on the entire creationism debating strategy. While he is busy spouting all sorts of crap the HS students are probably going to forget, you get to hammer home just one point and utilize a proven Bush/republican strategy. In addition, one doesn't need to convince every student there, only >50% of them.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2006-04-01 01:32pm

Surlethe wrote:There are several problem with choosing high school students as judges in an evolution/creationism debate. First, they've probably been exposed to only three weeks of evolution, during their freshman year; and second, the American educational system is so broken that the students have probably never learned how to think critically. The bullshit is going to be flying fast and furiously, and it doesn't take much to overwhelm the average high school student.

--Which is why I think this guy is actually at a disadvantage. He is likely to spout all sorts of nonsense that you can completely bypass and that the students aren't likely care about....

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2006-04-01 01:34pm

Surlethe wrote:...

--Do you actually have DW's avatar? Aren't you looking for trouble from on high?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-01 01:42pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:--Which is why I think this guy is actually at a disadvantage. He is likely to spout all sorts of nonsense that you can completely bypass and that the students aren't likely care about....

The issue is that while he will certainly spout nonsense, he will spout the nonsense convincingly. Since students generally don't receive training in critical thinking, they'll not be persuaded by coherent and sound arguments, but rather by how convincing the argument sounds. Regardless of their veracity, flashy sound bits are actually far more convincing to the average person than detailed technical discussions simply because they can be stated with strong conviction and are much easier to grasp.

--Do you actually have DW's avatar? Aren't you looking for trouble from on high?

Well, as long as he doesn't know ...

[size=0]I actually PMd him and asked for permission.[/size]

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-03 12:02pm

Unfortunately, we live in times where a science degree is considered a detriment to your ability to judge issues of scientific validity, which is why apparently the best jury for a debate of this nature is a bunch of ignorant high school students.

The problem with debating a total unknown like this is that you really have no idea what kind of arguments he'll use. You might go in there assuming he'll be hammering on "transitional species" and it turns out he totally ignores that and quotes Hume on induction as part of a generalized attack on the entire nature of empiricism and the scientific method. Or you'll be expecting an attack on the scientific method and he goes after it from the political angle rather than scientific angle, darkly muttering about conspiracy theories and asking why scientists refuse to let high school students hear both sides of the argument, rhetorically challenging you to admit that you don't trust high school students to have enough wisdom to choose for themselves (they don't, but pretending they do is a surefire way to win over high school students).

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2006-04-03 12:34pm

The problem is serious because the stupid will continue to outbreed the intelligent. The easy solution is distasteful too--if society moves to give people privileges based on their intelligence, then whatever metric you use might create an elite. If people with advanced degrees have more than one vote, or people who pass a certain test, it might create an atmosphere of oppression (poor people are generally less intelligent as well so their issues will be less represented).

The only reasonable solution (which unfortunately far more difficult) is that intelligent people have a duty to help the stupid people out of the gutter. If in general everybody was half as much more intelligent there wouldn't be a problem. If the intelligensia cloister themselves and ignore the problems of the world, idoicy will continue to gain ground until it overwhelms and consumes human civilization.

That's a little dramatic, but you get the point.

Brian

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-04-03 05:04pm

The real problem here is that people want to be bamboozled into believing there is a higher power. I would say almost all people do not like the thought of winking out of existence when we die, and any alternative to that is more appealing .So what if you have to follow little rules?

Whether a debate is successful for the religious proponent or not, it doesn't really matter. If you have an objective enough mind, you will keep questioning religious claims on your own and eventually see their massive flaws. The ones who really want to believe simply won't. They see the Emperor with his clothes on, and until they want to do so, they will not look at the naked truth.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-03 05:13pm

This particular challenge would be anything but objective, though. As I said, there is a high likelihood that if the teacher gets into trouble, he will appeal to the arrogance and pride of the high-school kids: namely, their conceit that they are smart enough and knowldegeable enough to decide for themselves. That's why he wants a judging panel of high-school kids.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-04-05 03:04am

This particular challenge would be anything but objective, though. As I said, there is a high likelihood that if the teacher gets into trouble, he will appeal to the arrogance and pride of the high-school kids: namely, their conceit that they are smart enough and knowldegeable enough to decide for themselves. That's why he wants a judging panel of high-school kids.

Oh for sure. I was waxing philosophical there more then this specific instance.

It's frustrating as hell that such important issues as these can be politicized in such a way that an actually GOOD way of debating such things is not done in a highly publicized and "contest-like" way. I mean, couldn't we have a popular show along the lines of American Idol that would have to impress us each week with a performance that has to stand up in order to continue on?

Have a panel of judges that have good credentials that can hear arguments and make judgements on them, maybe have some weekly challenges and contests each side has to fulfill and rate them on their score, etc. If they can find a way to get the debate into the entertainment realm, half the battle would be won.