By my calculation, Obama had 51% of the news articles, 55% of the front pages, and (according to stats that I heard from last week's election) 57% of the vote.
It's also not clear that candidates *should* get "equal time" in terms of news articles. The news reporting should go wherever the news is.
However, there are other ways of measuring bias that seem (to me) to be more objective. I recently read about a study that found most of the televised media 1/3 more (less) likely to report good (bad) news about Clinton's approval ratings, the exception being Fox, which was 2/3 in the other direction. I've also seen counts of the flavor of talking heads that they bring on to express opinions, which (according to the report) greatly favored conservatives.
OTOH, there were a lot of McCain press appearances that felt very scripted and fake... as if he was doing it just to get himself into the news.
Yes, probably the best expression of bias is who they let use them as a soapbox. We get bombarded with tons of "stories" about people complaining about this or that, which IMO isn't news at all.
And then there's the stuff that *doesn't* get reported. The "ultra-liberal" PBS has a report on torture that they decided they can't fit into their schedule until the day after the upcoming inauguration...
For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this. This is utterly unacceptable.
We should have been up in arms the first time we heard the term "free speech zone".
OTOH, this isn't entirely new. There's a long history of zealotic (is that a word?) law enforcement taking a "get tough" approach in the lead-up to political conventions.
I think sometimes that mentality is what causes the following civil disturbances, too.
Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so) (and following genesis quote)
Yes, I knew it was seven, but it wasn't really the time and place to bring up little-known facts about the bible. Fine. 7 just makes it even less plausible.
Actually the Bible tells the story twice, using "two" in one version and "seven" in the other. (Actually, the latter was only seven for the 'clean' animals; still just two for the unclean. And AIUI, the text is ambiguous as to whether the seven was "seven pairs" or just "seven".)
Only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read.
In my experience, the most dogmatic defenders of Biblical literalism don't actually know what it says. Let alone show any signs of actually thinking about the parts they have read.
Of course, the fact that my denomination encouraged us to read and understand is probably a key contribution to the fact that I don't believe it any more...
if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
He actually knew as much about it as you do; the two of you just happened to know the numbers from the two different versions of the story in this always-true text.
I may not agree with everything this law entails but it's interesting to me that any attempt to be critical of evolution is immediately vilified by the bastions of critical thinking.
This isn't an attempt to be "critical" of evolution; it's an attempt to provide shelter for ignorant religious cultists to dismiss evolution on the basis of a set of long-refuted creationist misrepresentations.
If you want criticism of the theory of evolution or any other product of science, turn to science's own peer reviewed literature, not to an overly religious gradeschool teacher who thinks their charges will end up in hell if they're taught anything other than their own religious dogma.
Of course, the above statement will immediately be modded down
The poorly-informed board members. Maybe we should be voting in board members who are not clueless.
These people aren't so much clueless as politically motivated. Their entire reason for being on the school board is to help get kiddies brainwashed with strange religious beliefs.
There have been recent instances of creationists getting voted off the school board as a result of pushing the creationist agenda, but for the most part ordinary people don't much know or care who is on their school board.
Notice that many (most?) states don't require school board members to know the first think about education, let alone science.
There is nothing remotely "anti-evolution" in the text of the law. Go read it and see for yourself (it's only a single page).
I call foul on this headline. I'm so tired of people shouting about how terrible all "those people" are, and I'm especially tired of people putting things in the worst possible light all the time.
If you would take the time to discover what is actually behind this movement (no, Louisiana isn't the only state that has tried it this year), you'd know that it *is* an creationist-motivated bill intended to provide cover for anti-evolution teaching.
What did you expect, a preamble saying "this is an unconstitutional effort to have our schools teach religious beliefs"?
"Critical analysis" is just the latest scam in a long series of scams 'designed' to get creation back into public schools after the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. Now you have to paint it up and attach a label that says "this isn't really religion".
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
The modern ID movement isn't a philosophical construct; it's a propaganda effort. If it belongs in the curriculum at all, it belongs in a class where notorious propaganda efforts are deconstructed.
And this is precisely why it isn't science. Creationism says "God did it" without any way to test it.
Ever heard of an axiom? It's the basis of all logic, mathematics and scientific discourse. This is an axiom, it's objectively untestable.
That's why discourse in the natural sciences isn't actually based on axioms.
We do make a couple of base assumptions, i.e. that evidence tells us something about reality. But beyond that everything stands or falls on the basis of evidence.
(Notice also that axioms in fields that actually use them can be utterly arbitrary, so long as you don't base your proofs on a set of contradictory axioms. E.g., the difference between Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry lies in the choice of axioms you build on.)
The difference between science and religion is that they seek different aspects of the truth. Science asks 'how' and religion asks 'why'. The problem we are facing in recent times is that religious extremists are attempting to answer the 'how' question and they are completely unequipped to do so in a sensible fashion.
Of course, they are completely unequipped to answer the 'why' question as well, unless you're willing to settle for an arbitrary fantasy answer.
And there is absolutely nothing scientific about the "intelligent design" theory.
Attitudes like this stifle scientific inquiry. When "the debate is over" on global warming, or against Intelligent Design, or String Theory, then what was science becomes religion.
Sorry, but it's a plain fact. Science is defined in terms of how you approach the topic. Intelligent Design is religious propaganda thinly disguised as science, and does not invoke any science whatsoever.
To my mind, a belief that is unwilling to stand up at any time to challenge is probably in some way fatally flawed.
All sciences are continually under challenge from scientific sources. Some of the people creationists hate the most, such as Gould, actually got their fame within the scientific community by pushing radical ideas. However, their ideas won out on the basis of evidence and/or explanatory power, not the factually and logically flawed kind of drool the Intelligent Design movement is pushing.
If you want to see challenges to what scientists believe, read the latest issue of a science journal, not the rantings of some cult recruiter.
No, since there was no way to observe every stage of evolution for every living thing it's still a theory, but a theory like gravity, rather than a theory like 9/11truth.
No, strictly speaking gravity is a fact, and the (mostly missing) theory of gravity is an attempt to explain it.
(I say "mostly missing" because we're not much beyond describing its effects and saying that mass causes it. Things like loop quantum gravity are attempts to actually explain it, but AFAIK none are widely accepted among physicists yet.)
I just read the Act word-for-word and to me it's very vague. It's not clear to me that the intention is to knock down global warming, evolution, and cloning. Of course, given the vagueness of the article it is a possibility.
The purpose of this act is well known. Several other states have tried the same thing this year, in every case basing their proposed law on a draft provided by the lets-pretend-we're-not-creationists Discovery Institute.
I understand the knee-jerk reaction to immediately be on the defensive and bash the Act, but it could be a stepping stone to officially include the discussion and topic of global warming, cloning, and evolution into the classroom. Then, once introduced the kids will be exposed to the subjects and be able make their own decisions.
Yeah, that's why these laws are only being pushed in the most progressive states...
"D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
We don't have a religious motivation behind this, really!!
For some reason conservatives have settled upon the notion that if you say "it isn't X" then it really isn't X. Look at the number of times the current US administration has done this, on every topic under the sun.
Here's a critical thought: maybe it isn't the best thing to allow a bunch of politicians to decide which subjects supposedly need a dose of "critical thinking" above and beyond what will already be in there as a matter of course.
Unfortunately, the movement is well organized and those politicians probably ran for the state school board for the sole purpose of undercutting the teaching of evolutions. Sane people generally have better things to do than run for a position for the sole purpose of keeping a cultist out of it.
But maybe we need to change out attitudes about that...
The thing that annoys me about this debate is that the existence, or even correctness, of either point of view does not make the other point of view wrong. [...] Now, apply the same idea to the creation of the world, and the evolution of life. God creates the mechanisms by which creation and evolution occur, then the mechanisms perform the task in hand.
I can make the same claim for the carrot I ate yesterday.
The problem is that there is an infinite number of claims you could make that are utterly unsupported by the evidence. A claim that the carrot I ate yesterday created Andromeda has the same epistemological status as every religious belief. If you apply the same standards of evidence you have to relegate them all to the same belief category. IMO, until someone actually comes up with some evidence for creation, or any other supernatural claim, they all belong in the dumpster.
Of course, it would be logically sound to lower your standard of evidence and accept them all as true. But who is arguing for that? No, this is a simple case of a group of people using their political clout to protect one arbitrary belief.
Note: I don't believe in God. I'm completely agnostic
If you don't believe in any gods you're an atheist, not an agnostic. The a- just means "without", as in a-symmetrical, a-phasia, a-gnostic.
Exactly my thought. ITER is costing US$ 9.3 billion. This costs 0.006% as much. If it is more than 0.006% as likely to work, then it's probably a good use of money. That reasoning works when you only consider one fringe idea. What happens if you try to fund *all* of them?
To bad the article doesn't tell us anything useful about the funding. Was it a budget item? An earmark? Was it singled out for funding, or bundled in with a bunch of related stuff? How much was it funded for, and for how long? And does "slashed" mean eliminated, or merely reduced? Or simply not extended?
I do not believe that Israeli policy regarding the Palenstinians, while not innocent or guilt-free or strictly moral, is not on the same level as the unbridled evil that the NSDAP committed against the world. I quit criticising Israel in 2003, due to my own country's behavior.
Not that we've never misbehaved before -- badly -- but at least we used to make some pretense of caring what was right.
But back to Israel and the current thread... I get the impression that much of Lieberman's deranged stance on everything related to the Middle East comes from a misguided notion of what's best for Israel.
A shame that he puts Israel's interests before his own country's, and insult to injury that he's so fooking stupid in the way he goes about it.
There isn't a corporation in the US that's a match against the power of the federal government. Yeah, by the time buy your 51st senator it's already election year again.
Chipping the code into a specific shape by hand... Give it a few years and software development will be more like civil engineering. Pouring concrete into shapes which have known specifications. Yep, Real Soon Now, just like we've been telling ourselves for the past quarter of a century.
And by the time we get to that point, all the coding will be done by code generators that take the specs as input.
Too bad none of us will ever meet a customer who actually knows what he wants until after you deliver the program...
Slashdot Mirror
I could swear that this has got to be the third time Discover has run almost this exact same story
Far more than three, according to the theory!
By my calculation, Obama had 51% of the news articles, 55% of the front pages, and (according to stats that I heard from last week's election) 57% of the vote.
It's also not clear that candidates *should* get "equal time" in terms of news articles. The news reporting should go wherever the news is.
However, there are other ways of measuring bias that seem (to me) to be more objective. I recently read about a study that found most of the televised media 1/3 more (less) likely to report good (bad) news about Clinton's approval ratings, the exception being Fox, which was 2/3 in the other direction. I've also seen counts of the flavor of talking heads that they bring on to express opinions, which (according to the report) greatly favored conservatives.
OTOH, there were a lot of McCain press appearances that felt very scripted and fake... as if he was doing it just to get himself into the news.
Yes, probably the best expression of bias is who they let use them as a soapbox. We get bombarded with tons of "stories" about people complaining about this or that, which IMO isn't news at all.
And then there's the stuff that *doesn't* get reported. The "ultra-liberal" PBS has a report on torture that they decided they can't fit into their schedule until the day after the upcoming inauguration...
For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this. This is utterly unacceptable.
We should have been up in arms the first time we heard the term "free speech zone".
OTOH, this isn't entirely new. There's a long history of zealotic (is that a word?) law enforcement taking a "get tough" approach in the lead-up to political conventions.
I think sometimes that mentality is what causes the following civil disturbances, too.
Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so) (and following genesis quote)
Yes, I knew it was seven, but it wasn't really the time and place to bring up little-known facts about the bible. Fine. 7 just makes it even less plausible.
Actually the Bible tells the story twice, using "two" in one version and "seven" in the other. (Actually, the latter was only seven for the 'clean' animals; still just two for the unclean. And AIUI, the text is ambiguous as to whether the seven was "seven pairs" or just "seven".)
Only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read.
In my experience, the most dogmatic defenders of Biblical literalism don't actually know what it says. Let alone show any signs of actually thinking about the parts they have read.
Of course, the fact that my denomination encouraged us to read and understand is probably a key contribution to the fact that I don't believe it any more...
if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
He actually knew as much about it as you do; the two of you just happened to know the numbers from the two different versions of the story in this always-true text.
I may not agree with everything this law entails but it's interesting to me that any attempt to be critical of evolution is immediately vilified by the bastions of critical thinking.
This isn't an attempt to be "critical" of evolution; it's an attempt to provide shelter for ignorant religious cultists to dismiss evolution on the basis of a set of long-refuted creationist misrepresentations.
If you want criticism of the theory of evolution or any other product of science, turn to science's own peer reviewed literature, not to an overly religious gradeschool teacher who thinks their charges will end up in hell if they're taught anything other than their own religious dogma.
Of course, the above statement will immediately be modded down
As of this writing, you're at 2.
The poorly-informed board members. Maybe we should be voting in board members who are not clueless.
These people aren't so much clueless as politically motivated. Their entire reason for being on the school board is to help get kiddies brainwashed with strange religious beliefs.
There have been recent instances of creationists getting voted off the school board as a result of pushing the creationist agenda, but for the most part ordinary people don't much know or care who is on their school board.
Notice that many (most?) states don't require school board members to know the first think about education, let alone science.
There is nothing remotely "anti-evolution" in the text of the law. Go read it and see for yourself (it's only a single page).
I call foul on this headline. I'm so tired of people shouting about how terrible all "those people" are, and I'm especially tired of people putting things in the worst possible light all the time.
If you would take the time to discover what is actually behind this movement (no, Louisiana isn't the only state that has tried it this year), you'd know that it *is* an creationist-motivated bill intended to provide cover for anti-evolution teaching.
What did you expect, a preamble saying "this is an unconstitutional effort to have our schools teach religious beliefs"?
"Critical analysis" is just the latest scam in a long series of scams 'designed' to get creation back into public schools after the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. Now you have to paint it up and attach a label that says "this isn't really religion".
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
The modern ID movement isn't a philosophical construct; it's a propaganda effort. If it belongs in the curriculum at all, it belongs in a class where notorious propaganda efforts are deconstructed.
And this is precisely why it isn't science. Creationism says "God did it" without any way to test it.
Ever heard of an axiom? It's the basis of all logic, mathematics and scientific discourse. This is an axiom, it's objectively untestable.
That's why discourse in the natural sciences isn't actually based on axioms.
We do make a couple of base assumptions, i.e. that evidence tells us something about reality. But beyond that everything stands or falls on the basis of evidence.
(Notice also that axioms in fields that actually use them can be utterly arbitrary, so long as you don't base your proofs on a set of contradictory axioms. E.g., the difference between Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry lies in the choice of axioms you build on.)
In high school, it's taught that scientific knowledge has stages:
1- Hypothesis - You formulate an idea on a problem and how to address it.
2- Theory - You actually put that hypothesis to the test by trying it via the scientific method.
3- Fact - the result if your idea was right, and the testing of the theory proved it.
Sounds like one or more of your highschool science teachers needs to get a science education. Unless you just misunderstood what they said.
The difference between science and religion is that they seek different aspects of the truth. Science asks 'how' and religion asks 'why'. The problem we are facing in recent times is that religious extremists are attempting to answer the 'how' question and they are completely unequipped to do so in a sensible fashion.
Of course, they are completely unequipped to answer the 'why' question as well, unless you're willing to settle for an arbitrary fantasy answer.
And there is absolutely nothing scientific about the "intelligent design" theory.
Attitudes like this stifle scientific inquiry. When "the debate is over" on global warming, or against Intelligent Design, or String Theory, then what was science becomes religion.
Sorry, but it's a plain fact. Science is defined in terms of how you approach the topic. Intelligent Design is religious propaganda thinly disguised as science, and does not invoke any science whatsoever.
To my mind, a belief that is unwilling to stand up at any time to challenge is probably in some way fatally flawed.
All sciences are continually under challenge from scientific sources. Some of the people creationists hate the most, such as Gould, actually got their fame within the scientific community by pushing radical ideas. However, their ideas won out on the basis of evidence and/or explanatory power, not the factually and logically flawed kind of drool the Intelligent Design movement is pushing.
If you want to see challenges to what scientists believe, read the latest issue of a science journal, not the rantings of some cult recruiter.
on't believe me? There are about 250 Christian faiths in the world, they all believe they are "the one true faith."
According to this Wikipedia article, there are 39,000 Christian denominations.
They could be preaching scientology in the schools and filling the little tykes' minds with thoughts of Xenu, thetans, spaceships, and volcanos.
Would that actually be worse? It looks to me like merely a different flavor of the same kool-aid.
No, since there was no way to observe every stage of evolution for every living thing it's still a theory, but a theory like gravity, rather than a theory like 9/11truth.
No, strictly speaking gravity is a fact, and the (mostly missing) theory of gravity is an attempt to explain it.
(I say "mostly missing" because we're not much beyond describing its effects and saying that mass causes it. Things like loop quantum gravity are attempts to actually explain it, but AFAIK none are widely accepted among physicists yet.)
I just read the Act word-for-word and to me it's very vague. It's not clear to me that the intention is to knock down global warming, evolution, and cloning. Of course, given the vagueness of the article it is a possibility.
The purpose of this act is well known. Several other states have tried the same thing this year, in every case basing their proposed law on a draft provided by the lets-pretend-we're-not-creationists Discovery Institute.
I understand the knee-jerk reaction to immediately be on the defensive and bash the Act, but it could be a stepping stone to officially include the discussion and topic of global warming, cloning, and evolution into the classroom. Then, once introduced the kids will be exposed to the subjects and be able make their own decisions.
Yeah, that's why these laws are only being pushed in the most progressive states...
This section of the proposed act is funny:
"D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
We don't have a religious motivation behind this, really!!
For some reason conservatives have settled upon the notion that if you say "it isn't X" then it really isn't X. Look at the number of times the current US administration has done this, on every topic under the sun.
Here's a critical thought: maybe it isn't the best thing to allow a bunch of politicians to decide which subjects supposedly need a dose of "critical thinking" above and beyond what will already be in there as a matter of course.
Unfortunately, the movement is well organized and those politicians probably ran for the state school board for the sole purpose of undercutting the teaching of evolutions. Sane people generally have better things to do than run for a position for the sole purpose of keeping a cultist out of it.
But maybe we need to change out attitudes about that...
The thing that annoys me about this debate is that the existence, or even correctness, of either point of view does not make the other point of view wrong. [...] Now, apply the same idea to the creation of the world, and the evolution of life. God creates the mechanisms by which creation and evolution occur, then the mechanisms perform the task in hand.
I can make the same claim for the carrot I ate yesterday.
The problem is that there is an infinite number of claims you could make that are utterly unsupported by the evidence. A claim that the carrot I ate yesterday created Andromeda has the same epistemological status as every religious belief. If you apply the same standards of evidence you have to relegate them all to the same belief category. IMO, until someone actually comes up with some evidence for creation, or any other supernatural claim, they all belong in the dumpster.
Of course, it would be logically sound to lower your standard of evidence and accept them all as true. But who is arguing for that? No, this is a simple case of a group of people using their political clout to protect one arbitrary belief.
Note: I don't believe in God. I'm completely agnostic
If you don't believe in any gods you're an atheist, not an agnostic. The a- just means "without", as in a-symmetrical, a-phasia, a-gnostic.
To bad the article doesn't tell us anything useful about the funding. Was it a budget item? An earmark? Was it singled out for funding, or bundled in with a bunch of related stuff? How much was it funded for, and for how long? And does "slashed" mean eliminated, or merely reduced? Or simply not extended?
Substance, please.
Not that we've never misbehaved before -- badly -- but at least we used to make some pretense of caring what was right.
But back to Israel and the current thread... I get the impression that much of Lieberman's deranged stance on everything related to the Middle East comes from a misguided notion of what's best for Israel.
A shame that he puts Israel's interests before his own country's, and insult to injury that he's so fooking stupid in the way he goes about it.
And by the time we get to that point, all the coding will be done by code generators that take the specs as input.
Too bad none of us will ever meet a customer who actually knows what he wants until after you deliver the program...