Not to make this into a huge Clinton fest, but the prosecution agreed w/ the Clinton team on a legal definition of "sexual relations", which I listed on another post - it's fairly easy to look up with some google-fu.
It wasn't "intercourse", but it was a really dumb definition which I personally "misinterpreted" multiple times before I had to read on for the article I was reading to point it out to me. And I'm no slouch when it comes to pedantry;).
To put it simply, the prosecution did a terrible, terrible job questioning Clinton and Clinton did quite well considering he was trying to cover his ass at the same time. I personally haven't seen any evidence for perjury, let alone what he was held in contempt for.
On both counts, Clinton was quite sneaky legally and the prosecution bungled completely. All that they would've had to do is ask, "Have you ever had vaginal, anal, or oral sex with Monica Lewinsky?" and *bam*, he's done. Instead they asked roundabout questions about his location and whether he was "alone" at the time. Now I'm not any kind of expert, so perhaps their hands were tied by procedure (this was a slight tangent in the Jones case), although frankly it seems that if they're asking about Lewinsky due to a connection to a sexual harassment suit, they would be able to simply ask whether he's had sex with employees. Anyways... when they (prosecutors) asked about sexual relations, his (Clinton's) team asked for a legal definition and the prosecution *agreed*. Not only that, but after looking at three of them, listed below, they agreed to exclude 2 and 3 due to ambiguity. Definition 1 is vague enough (who constitutes "any person"?) that Clinton was able to defend interpreting it as the other person. In fact, when I read it, that's the exact same interpretation I had the first three times - I had serious trouble seeing what other interpretations their could be, as the use of "any" is inconsistent with their other references to "persons" like "the person" for Clinton, the deponent and "another person" for the other, Lewinsky.
Now, this is absolutely fiddling around with words, but that event primarily occurred when they agreed to use these legal definitions. Remember that - the prosecutors *agreed* to use these things, and they didn't have to, to my knowledge. And the interpretation after that fact actually isn't very weasely. At least it was good enough that it's what I saw the first multiple times:/.
Here's the definitions (remember that 2 and 3 were excluded. Clinton would've failed on 3):
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
Now, that was one of the issues on which he was held in contempt. The next was about whether he was "alone" with Lewinsky, which is definitely a bit fuzzier (although he of course did find a way to wease out of it and the prosecution was incompetent). Anyone can read the full transcript after a bit of google searching - the questions really were fairly stupid and the answers sneakier.
Anywho, the basic point is: that's not perjury.
IASNAL (I am soooo not a lawyer). If you couldn't tell;).
Perhaps you have seen, "the elevation of Darwinian natural selection as a means of species creation to an unrealistic importance", but it certainly isn't something I've experienced or heard from anyone who isn't explicitly a creationist/ID advocate. You would seem to be the minority if you were even taught the basics of biology and evolution in high school, let alone to the point where you actually retained any of it or knew the scientific method.
First, you throw around the word 'Darwinism' an awful lot, but the general usage refers to Darwin's original ideas and occasionally as a reference to natural selection with variation. I somewhat doubt that's how you are using it.
Second, the problem with say a physician rejecting evolution or the fact that natural selection plays a significant role in life's continued existence and evolution/evolution in the past generally indicates a laziness on that person's part if not an outright sense of antiscience. Absolutely, you can deny all science with any bearing on history and still memorize treatments that work, ailments and their causes, etc, and be great physician. You can also be someone like Michael Egnor.
You seem to want CS taught in public school, which I would have no problem with, but if we plan on teaching any biology at all in the classroom, evolution is absolutely foundational. We're already failing at it in the United States and it's been said that it may in fact be better to exclude biology classes from a public school education, usually due to the fact that teachers must simplify complex concepts due to time constraints and the creationist onslaught of inane political opposition.
What are you talking about concerning "extraordinary efforts put forth by various scientific bodies to defend Darwinism from all criticism", exactly? Antiscience creationism has been around for a long time and generally has been a concerted effort to wiggle its way into public science education (it can't handle actual scientific scrutiny). If you consider a project like the National Center for Science Education to be a "knee-jerk" reaction you must surely consider the entire Free Software movement to be a reactionary dictatorship of dogmatic, epic proportions. You didn't provide any evidence or specifics in your claim, of course, so I can only assume you're thinking of the AAAS or NCSE.
I wonder what the 'this' of "this is not science" is referring to. You mean the creationism-evolution controversy? Of course it's about science, it's about political attacks on specific scientific concepts that conflict with the personal beliefs of various people. Do you mean teaching evolution in public schools? I have to wonder which part you think isn't about science. The courses are entirely about learning scientific conepts. Biology classes of various kinds have been in public schools for over a century, so it certainly isn't an overreaction to recent developments or even the Scopes trial. In fact, many public schools taught more life science classes (zoology, botany, etc) in the early 1900s while right now you're lucky to get a single coherent biology course in a U.S. public school. If anything, biology education has taken a beating in the U.S.
I wonder who you've heard that thinks the "loss of Darwinism would destroy American education". American education is already pretty bad, especially considering how good it *could* be, and evolution is hardly taught at all. I think science education would be vastly improved, however, if we were at a level where students at least understood the theory of evolution in general, as it is a classic example of a successful scientific theory.
Ah, but then you get torn apart in review when you're too selective in your interpretations. The incentive for personal achievement, publishing, etc, is counterbalanced by complete shame if you are found doctoring data, a general sense of propriety, and of course peer review. You can pad your papers with classic academic-ese to inflate claims without lying per se, but that's about as far as you can get without some stinging replies.
Note that this is different from personal advocacy of pet projects, etc, of which you are more familiar than most other people. That is healthy academic competition and quite unlike a general dogmatic orthodoxy, as you probably know.
It wasn't just Ben Stein, actually, the driving force behind this film were various ideologues with cash and the producers. Many interviews were not carried out by Ben Stein at all. The film did, however, misrepresent its motives in order to get interviews by calling itself 'Crossroads: the intersection between faith and science' (or something along those lines). This is months after the domain expelledthemovie.com had been registered, mind you. I'm sure if they get enough heat for this they will eventually rationalize it in a way any conspiracy theorist can represent: 'How else could we have infiltrated the Darwinian orthodoxy to get honest views?'
If I were religious I would find this movie doubly idiotic on a personal level, as apparently the central message aside from the Darwin-Hitler connection (seriously) and 'academic suppression' is how evolution (they use 'Darwinism' as an epithet) leads to immoral atheism, etc.
Oh, the hilarity of the Sternberg controversy doesn't end there. One of the primary reasons for his reshuffling at the Smithsonian was because his sponsor, essentially his boss, passed away. In situations like this, a person with a poor record is often dropped, however to avoid the martyrdom firestorm someone quickly sponsored him. Rather than move to a nearby office with other coworkers, he chose an office on the other side of the building.
I imagine he did receive some flak from coworkers, but should we expect anything less for someone who had just committed a high-profile (in biology circles), unethical, antiscientific act? For some reason, antievolution martyrs always act like spoiled children who get caught with their hand in the cookie jar...
Yes, but like I said it's a difficult issue. If you believed that an eternity's worth of fate and happiness rested on your children believing in Jesus (and other things that go along with it), it'd be hard to see it as a misdeed. I think it's a two-fold problem that needs to be addressed from both sides: their ideas are wrong *and* religion should be treated as susceptible to dialogue and criticism, just like politics.
Religion and politics do not share the same core of indoctrination as you've indicated. Infact it's quite evident by the fact that you are forced to PARTICIPATE in your parents faith, with no choice of your own, from an age before you can make rational descisions yourself(frontal lobe development in children doesnt finish until past their teenage years lol)... However in politics we have a minimum age to PARTICIPATE, you ahve to be old enough and rational enough to make decetn descisions for yourself eg.18 otherwise you undermine the entire concept of democracy...If your vote or coice is not that of your own and doesnt reflect those ideas which are your own, you are being idsengenious to the entire political system. I agree. Analogies are never perfect. My central point is that unlike skin color, which one cannot change (and isn't meaningful anyways), religions are decisions much like politics, and I'm sure many if not all of the religious would agree. Now yes, there is often indoctrination outside of the child's control, but again that is the primary difference and could apply to any deeply-held opinions. If we were to indoctrinate children with politics it would be very similar.
In light of this, a taboo against discussing religion is only as rational as a taboo against discussing politics. If one is justifying their political decisions or decisions with a significant social impact with their religion, they should not be surprised, nor hurt, if their beliefs receive criticism. It is precisely what they have invited upon themselves by using the religious shortcut, exploiting a silly taboo, rather than focusing on secular or rational justifications. They don't do this intentionally, I think, we have all been socialized (to some extent) to see these beliefs as sacred and as such it puts people out of their comfort zone to be criticized for a religious belief. This is changing.
Weird, I read your whole post and didn't find a single argument for how Dawkins has more faith than you ever could. Should I take it that you think that because the most likely possible God is beyond our consideration, Dawkins has rejected this 'God' and is thus operating oh faith? Au contraire: if you had read the God Delusion, like most atheists, he is agnostic about such things, although he hardly gives them serious consideration. There's a reason the Flying Spaghetti Monster is so popular - it elucidates perfectly how seriously one should take that kind of speculation and how often our social attitudes about religion dictate our rationality.
In conclusion, Dawkins is very clear about which God concepts he's criticizing, I recommend that you read someone's opinions beforing editorializing on them.
Don't discount the power of rationalization. People in general, not just theists, will tend to research their ideas *just* enough to satisfy their preconceived notions. If someone were to find the best-evidenced religion and study it, then, they would not be forced to accept any others rationally, even if the evidence is silly: one sets the bar of confirmation individually.
An interesting comparison would be how much one believes in a religion based on little evidence based on any number of other silly things which nevertheless have *better* evidence for them, like racism or extreme laissez-faire economics. This is obviously ignoring the evidence against those two concepts mirroring reality, but then again that's precisely how religion tends to work.
It's important to note the clear implications or explicit declarations of exactly which religion or type of religion is being talked about, be it Dawkins or Dennett or some random guy on the street corner.
If I can assume that when you say 'opiate of the masses' or 'the cyanide [of the masses]', you mean generally critical claims against religion or theistic religion, I really cannot see the fault you present. I am sorry that it hurts, however in which way is it unfair? That you agree with atheists on many issues does not mean that we cannot disagree academically, even vehemently, on this issue, nor would it make such grand claims invalid. It's even less personal than you present, if one is talking about *religion* and not simply the religious. Your comparison of this academic question (even though it's personal) with race or sexuality is highly inappropriate as well. Religion may be ingrained in many of us from a young age, however so can politics, both of which are widely accepted as choices, which is a much better metaphor.
If someone said, 'Democrats are deluded as to their core beliefs and trust in their party leaders', should Democrats be hurt and considered to have been treated unfairly? Or is it more the case the only differences between claims about politics and claims about religion are 1) religion is more personal and 2) religion is treated, in general, as having sanctity, free from criticism?
This is why I have a tough time appreciating a point like, "It's the same thing with theists. Respect us, please, we have the right to practice our faith in peace." Keep in mind that this is in reaction to general claims against religion, juxtaposing a 'right to practice [your] faith' with criticism. In what way does a potential mischaracterization (which is really just a difference of opinion) keep you from practicing your faith in peace? The obvious answer is that it doesn't.
It may also be important to point out what seems to be ridiculously high rates of antiscience, evangelical Christianity in the U.S. If that is what one is presented with over and over, it's a bit unfair to say that one person's experience with the religious is less accurate than yours. Try living in Oklahoma for a while.
I think the important thing here is that we can disagree on some things and agree on others without needing to be at each others' throats or deeply hurt by the disagreements. That you and we are secularists is a good thing, definitely! But that doesn't mean I should censor my opinions on religion, nor does it mean that you should not consider me an ally in the secular cause if I criticize the rationality of your faith. (Sorry for the huge rant)
What's so hard to imagine about the idea of having two sites that people always have to bring up this false dichotomy? The foundation could simply start another project that borrows directly from Wikipedia. They could even rename the old Wikipedia to Wikipedia Beta or the new one to Wikipedia Verified and sound snazzy (in a geeky way) in the process. In fact, just doing a google search I found Veropedia.com, which seems to be attempting just that.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to make this into a huge Clinton fest, but the prosecution agreed w/ the Clinton team on a legal definition of "sexual relations", which I listed on another post - it's fairly easy to look up with some google-fu.
;).
It wasn't "intercourse", but it was a really dumb definition which I personally "misinterpreted" multiple times before I had to read on for the article I was reading to point it out to me. And I'm no slouch when it comes to pedantry
To put it simply, the prosecution did a terrible, terrible job questioning Clinton and Clinton did quite well considering he was trying to cover his ass at the same time. I personally haven't seen any evidence for perjury, let alone what he was held in contempt for.
On both counts, Clinton was quite sneaky legally and the prosecution bungled completely. All that they would've had to do is ask, "Have you ever had vaginal, anal, or oral sex with Monica Lewinsky?" and *bam*, he's done. Instead they asked roundabout questions about his location and whether he was "alone" at the time. Now I'm not any kind of expert, so perhaps their hands were tied by procedure (this was a slight tangent in the Jones case), although frankly it seems that if they're asking about Lewinsky due to a connection to a sexual harassment suit, they would be able to simply ask whether he's had sex with employees. Anyways... when they (prosecutors) asked about sexual relations, his (Clinton's) team asked for a legal definition and the prosecution *agreed*. Not only that, but after looking at three of them, listed below, they agreed to exclude 2 and 3 due to ambiguity. Definition 1 is vague enough (who constitutes "any person"?) that Clinton was able to defend interpreting it as the other person. In fact, when I read it, that's the exact same interpretation I had the first three times - I had serious trouble seeing what other interpretations their could be, as the use of "any" is inconsistent with their other references to "persons" like "the person" for Clinton, the deponent and "another person" for the other, Lewinsky.
Now, this is absolutely fiddling around with words, but that event primarily occurred when they agreed to use these legal definitions. Remember that - the prosecutors *agreed* to use these things, and they didn't have to, to my knowledge. And the interpretation after that fact actually isn't very weasely. At least it was good enough that it's what I saw the first multiple times
Here's the definitions (remember that 2 and 3 were excluded. Clinton would've failed on 3):
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
Now, that was one of the issues on which he was held in contempt. The next was about whether he was "alone" with Lewinsky, which is definitely a bit fuzzier (although he of course did find a way to wease out of it and the prosecution was incompetent). Anyone can read the full transcript after a bit of google searching - the questions really were fairly stupid and the answers sneakier.
Anywho, the basic point is: that's not perjury.
IASNAL (I am soooo not a lawyer). If you couldn't tell
Perhaps you have seen, "the elevation of Darwinian natural selection as a means of species creation to an unrealistic importance", but it certainly isn't something I've experienced or heard from anyone who isn't explicitly a creationist/ID advocate. You would seem to be the minority if you were even taught the basics of biology and evolution in high school, let alone to the point where you actually retained any of it or knew the scientific method.
First, you throw around the word 'Darwinism' an awful lot, but the general usage refers to Darwin's original ideas and occasionally as a reference to natural selection with variation. I somewhat doubt that's how you are using it.
Second, the problem with say a physician rejecting evolution or the fact that natural selection plays a significant role in life's continued existence and evolution/evolution in the past generally indicates a laziness on that person's part if not an outright sense of antiscience. Absolutely, you can deny all science with any bearing on history and still memorize treatments that work, ailments and their causes, etc, and be great physician. You can also be someone like Michael Egnor.
You seem to want CS taught in public school, which I would have no problem with, but if we plan on teaching any biology at all in the classroom, evolution is absolutely foundational. We're already failing at it in the United States and it's been said that it may in fact be better to exclude biology classes from a public school education, usually due to the fact that teachers must simplify complex concepts due to time constraints and the creationist onslaught of inane political opposition.
What are you talking about concerning "extraordinary efforts put forth by various scientific bodies to defend Darwinism from all criticism", exactly? Antiscience creationism has been around for a long time and generally has been a concerted effort to wiggle its way into public science education (it can't handle actual scientific scrutiny). If you consider a project like the National Center for Science Education to be a "knee-jerk" reaction you must surely consider the entire Free Software movement to be a reactionary dictatorship of dogmatic, epic proportions. You didn't provide any evidence or specifics in your claim, of course, so I can only assume you're thinking of the AAAS or NCSE.
I wonder what the 'this' of "this is not science" is referring to. You mean the creationism-evolution controversy? Of course it's about science, it's about political attacks on specific scientific concepts that conflict with the personal beliefs of various people. Do you mean teaching evolution in public schools? I have to wonder which part you think isn't about science. The courses are entirely about learning scientific conepts. Biology classes of various kinds have been in public schools for over a century, so it certainly isn't an overreaction to recent developments or even the Scopes trial. In fact, many public schools taught more life science classes (zoology, botany, etc) in the early 1900s while right now you're lucky to get a single coherent biology course in a U.S. public school. If anything, biology education has taken a beating in the U.S.
I wonder who you've heard that thinks the "loss of Darwinism would destroy American education". American education is already pretty bad, especially considering how good it *could* be, and evolution is hardly taught at all. I think science education would be vastly improved, however, if we were at a level where students at least understood the theory of evolution in general, as it is a classic example of a successful scientific theory.
Ah, but then you get torn apart in review when you're too selective in your interpretations. The incentive for personal achievement, publishing, etc, is counterbalanced by complete shame if you are found doctoring data, a general sense of propriety, and of course peer review. You can pad your papers with classic academic-ese to inflate claims without lying per se, but that's about as far as you can get without some stinging replies.
Note that this is different from personal advocacy of pet projects, etc, of which you are more familiar than most other people. That is healthy academic competition and quite unlike a general dogmatic orthodoxy, as you probably know.
It wasn't just Ben Stein, actually, the driving force behind this film were various ideologues with cash and the producers. Many interviews were not carried out by Ben Stein at all. The film did, however, misrepresent its motives in order to get interviews by calling itself 'Crossroads: the intersection between faith and science' (or something along those lines). This is months after the domain expelledthemovie.com had been registered, mind you. I'm sure if they get enough heat for this they will eventually rationalize it in a way any conspiracy theorist can represent: 'How else could we have infiltrated the Darwinian orthodoxy to get honest views?'
If I were religious I would find this movie doubly idiotic on a personal level, as apparently the central message aside from the Darwin-Hitler connection (seriously) and 'academic suppression' is how evolution (they use 'Darwinism' as an epithet) leads to immoral atheism, etc.
Oh, the hilarity of the Sternberg controversy doesn't end there. One of the primary reasons for his reshuffling at the Smithsonian was because his sponsor, essentially his boss, passed away. In situations like this, a person with a poor record is often dropped, however to avoid the martyrdom firestorm someone quickly sponsored him. Rather than move to a nearby office with other coworkers, he chose an office on the other side of the building.
I imagine he did receive some flak from coworkers, but should we expect anything less for someone who had just committed a high-profile (in biology circles), unethical, antiscientific act? For some reason, antievolution martyrs always act like spoiled children who get caught with their hand in the cookie jar...
Yes, but like I said it's a difficult issue. If you believed that an eternity's worth of fate and happiness rested on your children believing in Jesus (and other things that go along with it), it'd be hard to see it as a misdeed. I think it's a two-fold problem that needs to be addressed from both sides: their ideas are wrong *and* religion should be treated as susceptible to dialogue and criticism, just like politics.
In light of this, a taboo against discussing religion is only as rational as a taboo against discussing politics. If one is justifying their political decisions or decisions with a significant social impact with their religion, they should not be surprised, nor hurt, if their beliefs receive criticism. It is precisely what they have invited upon themselves by using the religious shortcut, exploiting a silly taboo, rather than focusing on secular or rational justifications. They don't do this intentionally, I think, we have all been socialized (to some extent) to see these beliefs as sacred and as such it puts people out of their comfort zone to be criticized for a religious belief. This is changing.
Weird, I read your whole post and didn't find a single argument for how Dawkins has more faith than you ever could. Should I take it that you think that because the most likely possible God is beyond our consideration, Dawkins has rejected this 'God' and is thus operating oh faith? Au contraire: if you had read the God Delusion, like most atheists, he is agnostic about such things, although he hardly gives them serious consideration. There's a reason the Flying Spaghetti Monster is so popular - it elucidates perfectly how seriously one should take that kind of speculation and how often our social attitudes about religion dictate our rationality.
In conclusion, Dawkins is very clear about which God concepts he's criticizing, I recommend that you read someone's opinions beforing editorializing on them.
Don't discount the power of rationalization. People in general, not just theists, will tend to research their ideas *just* enough to satisfy their preconceived notions. If someone were to find the best-evidenced religion and study it, then, they would not be forced to accept any others rationally, even if the evidence is silly: one sets the bar of confirmation individually.
An interesting comparison would be how much one believes in a religion based on little evidence based on any number of other silly things which nevertheless have *better* evidence for them, like racism or extreme laissez-faire economics. This is obviously ignoring the evidence against those two concepts mirroring reality, but then again that's precisely how religion tends to work.
Wow, that wasn't supposed to be a single block paragraph. I fail. Is there a trick to breaks on slashdot?
It's important to note the clear implications or explicit declarations of exactly which religion or type of religion is being talked about, be it Dawkins or Dennett or some random guy on the street corner. If I can assume that when you say 'opiate of the masses' or 'the cyanide [of the masses]', you mean generally critical claims against religion or theistic religion, I really cannot see the fault you present. I am sorry that it hurts, however in which way is it unfair? That you agree with atheists on many issues does not mean that we cannot disagree academically, even vehemently, on this issue, nor would it make such grand claims invalid. It's even less personal than you present, if one is talking about *religion* and not simply the religious. Your comparison of this academic question (even though it's personal) with race or sexuality is highly inappropriate as well. Religion may be ingrained in many of us from a young age, however so can politics, both of which are widely accepted as choices, which is a much better metaphor. If someone said, 'Democrats are deluded as to their core beliefs and trust in their party leaders', should Democrats be hurt and considered to have been treated unfairly? Or is it more the case the only differences between claims about politics and claims about religion are 1) religion is more personal and 2) religion is treated, in general, as having sanctity, free from criticism? This is why I have a tough time appreciating a point like, "It's the same thing with theists. Respect us, please, we have the right to practice our faith in peace." Keep in mind that this is in reaction to general claims against religion, juxtaposing a 'right to practice [your] faith' with criticism. In what way does a potential mischaracterization (which is really just a difference of opinion) keep you from practicing your faith in peace? The obvious answer is that it doesn't. It may also be important to point out what seems to be ridiculously high rates of antiscience, evangelical Christianity in the U.S. If that is what one is presented with over and over, it's a bit unfair to say that one person's experience with the religious is less accurate than yours. Try living in Oklahoma for a while. I think the important thing here is that we can disagree on some things and agree on others without needing to be at each others' throats or deeply hurt by the disagreements. That you and we are secularists is a good thing, definitely! But that doesn't mean I should censor my opinions on religion, nor does it mean that you should not consider me an ally in the secular cause if I criticize the rationality of your faith. (Sorry for the huge rant)
What's so hard to imagine about the idea of having two sites that people always have to bring up this false dichotomy? The foundation could simply start another project that borrows directly from Wikipedia. They could even rename the old Wikipedia to Wikipedia Beta or the new one to Wikipedia Verified and sound snazzy (in a geeky way) in the process. In fact, just doing a google search I found Veropedia.com, which seems to be attempting just that.