Welcome to USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School!

[Darth Wong]

"Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." - Bill O'Reilly, August 3, 2005

Welcome to USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School! At USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School, we believe that truth and accuracy in academia (and the resulting good grades) are a matter of belief, not facts and evidence. And it is certainly not the province of ivory tower intellectuals with doctorates who sit in their left-wing liberal secular humanist elitist ivory towers and sneer down at us good hard-working Americans and our family values.

So at USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School, we teach both sides of every story, and let you, the student, decide for yourselves! Far be it from us to educate you; we feel that our job should be to give you no guidance or correction whatsoever, so that the entire school system is reduced to the status of a library with lunchroom monitors.

Whatever you decide at USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School, you can't be wrong! That's the power of patriotic freedom and liberty, boys and girls. In America, you have the freedom to totally ignore the scientific method, the scientific peer review process, and scientific conclusions but still get an "A" in science!

Similarly, if you drive a Ford and you refuse to believe that Henry Ford was an anti-Semite, you can still get an "A" in 20th century American history, because we are not intellectual fascists. We let you, the student, decide what is true or false, right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. And once more, no matter what you decide, you can't be wrong! And if you decide that calculus is not a valid form of mathematics and therefore is not necessary for an advanced math honours diploma, that's OK! Because you, the student, get to decide. Not a lot of ivory tower liberal elitist left-wing secular humanist intellectuals promoting an anti-freedom, pro-terrorist agenda. The fact is that the elitist methods of academia really have no place in ... academia.

Ummm, yeah ... but anyway, welcome to USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School. Where everyone gets an "A", and no one can ever tell you that you're wrong about anything!

[Gandalf]

Good stuff. If I may add something:

"USAPFLHS: Where all beliefs are equal, except for that filthy Islamic stuff and that Buddhism gobbledygook."

[K. A. Pital]

But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." - Bill O'Reilly, August 3, 2005

[Mussolini]Smack, smack, smack[/Mussolini]

[brianeyci]

It's so mind-boggling to hear conservative pundits go for the golden mean, when real conservatism is about tried and tested values, "respect your elders" dogma. So, respect your elders, listen to tradition, ancient texts, and so on, but when it comes to ideas you don't like for example science, don't respect science's traditions, don't respect science's elders, shit all over them and apply those double standards! .

[K. A. Pital]

So, respect your elders, listen to tradition, ancient texts, and so on, but when it comes to ideas you don't like for example science

See, science is the locomotive of progress - something conservatism is generally opposed to as a value.

So science is a tool of spreading new knowledge instead of conservative ideas, and thus should be combated with the "elder" ideas - truly a 1000-year conservative idea like religion, for example.

[brianeyci]

So, respect your elders, listen to tradition, ancient texts, and so on, but when it comes to ideas you don't like for example science

See, science is the locomotive of progress - something conservatism is generally opposed to as a value.

So science is a tool of spreading new knowledge instead of conservative ideas, and thus should be combated with the "elder" ideas - truly a 1000-year conservative idea like religion, for example.

The thing is, golden mean is essentially a liberal idea. Let everybody's voice be heard, everybody has the right to freedom of speech, everybody is worth something. But somehow the fundamentalists have hijacked it and subjugated it to their own agenda.

The idea of a little kid going up to a science teacher and saying, "Hey you, you're wrong" is conservatism, but going up to a history teacher or a political science teacher and suggesting a change in the form of government or revisionist history is somehow not conservatism and liberalism?

I think the blending of conservatism and fundamentalism is at the root of the problem, and if only the fiscal conservatives would separate themselves from the loons.

[K. A. Pital]

I think the blending of conservatism and fundamentalism is at the root of the problem

Conservatism is certain somewhat set on a collision course with fundamentalist religion because of their approaches.

Conservative position: support old ideas and social institutions. Inbetween some reasonable institutions like the government, public voice institutes, are such things the Church, religion and other irrational bullcrap.

Fundamentalis positiont: challenge all new ideas that threated fundamentalist religionist dominion over the population.

It's easy to see how they come together. A drive to preserve old ideas that are themselves hostile to the new ideas is why conservatism and religious fundamentalism combust.

[wautd]

Nothing much to add, except that it was a damn fine rant

[Darth Wong]

New feature at USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School; students can now grade each others' assignments and tests! We at USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School understand that if a high school student is sufficiently qualified to judge the validity of scientific theories that are normally judged by panels of doctorate holders, then he is obviously qualified to grade high school assignments.

[Simplicius]

Needless to say, the fundamentalist definition of 'golden mean' varies substantially from an accurate one. "All voices should be heard...as long as they are my own!" It's nothing more than the suppression of free thought in sheep's clothing, calculated to appeal to the soft-headed, ignorant types who actually do think that all points of view are equally valid.

[Darth Wong]

More importantly, it tosses the whole idea of academic research out the window. When you're at a low level of education, you must take the word of more qualified researchers on faith, as odd as that may sound. Take the example of Julius Caesar. How do you know he existed? Documents? You've never seen them yourself, have you? And you certainly haven't dated them. You only know that Julius Caesar existed because all sorts of people with legitimate qualifications have looked much more thoroughly into the subject than you have, and have concluded that he existed, based on the historical sources available. Julius Caesar's existence is a theory, which happens to explain the documents. It is not observable or directly verifiable. It is not even experimentally testable in any way, thus making it inferior to evolution theory. And yet, no one disputes that it should be taught as a fact, right?

When there is such a high level of consensus among the most qualified experts in a field, it is totally absurd to question that at the high-school level, where you truly don't know shit. If you think there is something wrong with the experts' conclusions, become an expert yourself and then duke it out with them, not before. That's not fascism; it is merely an expectation of academic rigour.

[brianeyci]

When you're at a low level of education, you must take the word of more qualified researchers on faith--

AH HA! We've got you now you homo-bortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium liberal! Now that you admit science is part faith, you will of course agree to teaching creationism in high schools along with other important subjects such as home economics 101 how to be a woman without talking back to a man, astrology, homeopathy, chiropractic (good for kids with stiff necks studying) and of course the crown of the curriculum, abstinence and the importance of marriage. Because of course if science is based on faith and so is religion, you admit that religion is just as good as science and science is just as good as religion...

...goddamn, hurts my brain thinking like that.

[Thanas]

Julius Caesar's existence is a theory, which happens to explain the documents.

Ceasar's existence is a theory? May I assume George W. Bush is a theory as well, after the last person who saw him alive died?

[Wicked Pilot]

You forgot the sports programs where no matter the final score of the big game you will have always won if you believed it to be the case. So what if Secular Prep scored four touchdowns and you managed just a field goal, they don't have the right to come in and persecute your beliefs. Football after all is just another religion.

[Darth Wong]

Julius Caesar's existence is a theory, which happens to explain the documents.

Ceasar's existence is a theory? May I assume George W. Bush is a theory as well, after the last person who saw him alive died?

We'd still have his corpse at that time. But a thousand years from now? Yup, it'll simply be a parsimonious theory to explain all of this documentation. I think the people who rant at evolution being "just a theory" fail to realize how little of what we know about the past could be considered fact rather than theory.

[RedImperator]

\Take the example of Julius Caesar. How do you know he existed? Documents? You've never seen them yourself, have you? And you certainly haven't dated them. You only know that Julius Caesar existed because all sorts of people with legitimate qualifications have looked much more thoroughly into the subject than you have, and have concluded that he existed, based on the historical sources available. Julius Caesar's existence is a theory, which happens to explain the documents. It is not observable or directly verifiable. It is not even experimentally testable in any way, thus making it inferior to evolution theory.

I like this example a lot. I'm using it next time I get a chance.

[kheegster]

\Take the example of Julius Caesar. How do you know he existed? Documents? You've never seen them yourself, have you? And you certainly haven't dated them. You only know that Julius Caesar existed because all sorts of people with legitimate qualifications have looked much more thoroughly into the subject than you have, and have concluded that he existed, based on the historical sources available. Julius Caesar's existence is a theory, which happens to explain the documents. It is not observable or directly verifiable. It is not even experimentally testable in any way, thus making it inferior to evolution theory.

I like this example a lot. I'm using it next time I get a chance.

Better not...

[fundie] We know Julius Caesar existed because he was mentioned in the Bible![/fundie]

[Thanas]

Ceasar's existence is a theory? May I assume George W. Bush is a theory as well, after the last person who saw him alive died?

We'd still have his corpse at that time. But a thousand years from now? Yup, it'll simply be a parsimonious theory to explain all of this documentation. I think the people who rant at evolution being "just a theory" fail to realize how little of what we know about the past could be considered fact rather than theory.

Isn't it a fact if we have an unbroken chain of evidence, like in Caesars case? E.g. the lists of emperors made by the chroniclers of the Roman empires, who can be seen today? Or the statues and cities named after him, or his own literary works?

[fundie] We know Julius Caesar existed because he was mentioned in the Bible![/fundie]

That was actually Augustus Caesar aka Octavianus, iirc.

[Darth Wong]

Ceasar's existence is a theory? May I assume George W. Bush is a theory as well, after the last person who saw him alive died?

We'd still have his corpse at that time. But a thousand years from now? Yup, it'll simply be a parsimonious theory to explain all of this documentation. I think the people who rant at evolution being "just a theory" fail to realize how little of what we know about the past could be considered fact rather than theory.

Isn't it a fact if we have an unbroken chain of evidence, like in Caesars case?

No. The evidence is a fact, but the conclusion drawn from that evidence is a theory.

E.g. the lists of emperors made by the chroniclers of the Roman empires, who can be seen today? Or the statues and cities named after him, or his own literary works?

All observable, but the inference that Julius Caesar was a real person is still just a theory. You need to sit down and really think about the distinction between fact and theory sometime. No matter how overwhelming the evidence, any logical explanation for that evidence is still just a theory.

[RedImperator]

\Take the example of Julius Caesar. How do you know he existed? Documents? You've never seen them yourself, have you? And you certainly haven't dated them. You only know that Julius Caesar existed because all sorts of people with legitimate qualifications have looked much more thoroughly into the subject than you have, and have concluded that he existed, based on the historical sources available. Julius Caesar's existence is a theory, which happens to explain the documents. It is not observable or directly verifiable. It is not even experimentally testable in any way, thus making it inferior to evolution theory.

I like this example a lot. I'm using it next time I get a chance.

Better not...

[fundie] We know Julius Caesar existed because he was mentioned in the Bible![/fundie]

Response: "That was Octavian Augustus, moron. Christ, you don't even know what your own book says, do you?"

As for Caesar being a theory: yes, technically, he is. There's no corpse, no surviving eyewitnesses. There's a tremendous amount of evidence which cannot be explained any other way without violating parsimony, but there is no way to be 100% certain Julius Caesar ever really existed. And the evidence for Caesar is much stronger than that for other people widely considered to have actually existed, such as Socrates (or, for that matter, Jesus).

[Thanas]

Isn't it a fact if we have an unbroken chain of evidence, like in Caesars case?

No. The evidence is a fact, but the conclusion drawn from that evidence is a theory.

E.g. the lists of emperors made by the chroniclers of the Roman empires, who can be seen today? Or the statues and cities named after him, or his own literary works?

All observable, but the inference that Julius Caesar was a real person is still just a theory. You need to sit down and really think about the distinction between fact and theory sometime. No matter how overwhelming the evidence, any logical explanation for that evidence is still just a theory.

While I see the logic in your arguments, and I am generally willing to concede the argument, I have to point out this article, which was my main reason for arguing, namely this definition of a fact:

Fact, n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed...That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

I believe I must then consider this definition to be wrong.

[Adrian Laguna]

Fact, n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed...That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

I believe I must then consider this definition to be wrong.

Well, it is not wrong if you take into account what a dictionary is meant to do, and what it isn't meant to do. You're citing the definition of fact as per common usage. Meanwhile, Darth Wong is using the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory". By necessity, scientific definitions are more exact. Because lack of precision introduces room for error, and science progresses better when there is no ambiguity to what someone is saying.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't it a fact if we have an unbroken chain of evidence, like in Caesars case?

No. The evidence is a fact, but the conclusion drawn from that evidence is a theory.

E.g. the lists of emperors made by the chroniclers of the Roman empires, who can be seen today? Or the statues and cities named after him, or his own literary works?

All observable, but the inference that Julius Caesar was a real person is still just a theory. You need to sit down and really think about the distinction between fact and theory sometime. No matter how overwhelming the evidence, any logical explanation for that evidence is still just a theory.

While I see the logic in your arguments, and I am generally willing to concede the argument, I have to point out this article, which was my main reason for arguing, namely this definition of a fact:

Fact, n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed...That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

I believe I must then consider this definition to be wrong.

Not necessarily; the English language tends to have both strict and loose definitions of words. For example, the word "religion" normally refers to a belief system involving supernatural concepts. But the loose definition is anything you believe in strongly, so if you believe that Doritos are better than Pringles, that's a religion.

When people say that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact", they are using a strict definition of "fact". Using that same definition, Julius Caesar's existence is not a fact. If we say that a fact is just something that is based on evidence, then evolution is a fact too (please note that the phenomenon of evolution, as opposed to its mechanism, is actually a fact even by the strict definition, but that's another argument).

[Alyeska]

"Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." - Bill O'Reilly, August 3, 2005

Does Billy Boy realize that he uses the word fascism so frequently he has diluted its meaning? His rhetoric is actually quite funny because its so poorly thought out.

[Darth Wong]

"Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." - Bill O'Reilly, August 3, 2005

Does Billy Boy realize that he uses the word fascism so frequently he has diluted its meaning? His rhetoric is actually quite funny because its so poorly thought out.

As Dave Letterman said, if you watch Bill O'Reilly for a while you get the impression that 90% of what he says is crap.