Back when D & D was evil...

Posts: 543 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:10 pm

JZavoda wrote:

In science a fact would require an objective observation, which is impossible. This isn't excessive, this point is fundamental to the scientific method.

That people do not understand this is staggering, it shows how the dogmatized religion of big S Science has swallowed centuries of progress.

When people and especially teachers start believing and teaching scientific facts, they have stepped outside of science and into religion. They have failed, not only themselves, not only the people they teach, but they have failed the future of humanity.

science does not color within the lines, it does not require that the sky is blue, the grass is green. It does not have right or wrong, true or false, facts or the absolute. science is a method of study, a process of eternal questioning. Facts end qustioning, they end discovery, facts end science, they are not part of it.

This needs to be the first thing that is taught. There are no facts, question everything. If you teach a child that there are absolutes you put a wall in front of them, call it a fact, paint it a certain color and they may never, never ever, be able to get over it or through it or even paint it a different color.

History? It is so often said that history is written by the winners and winners choose the facts, but it doesn't make them true.

The truth is somewhere in between as I see it due to practical matters. Being a biology major and chemistry minor, I have a great affinity for science. I see many of its faults and know there are some people who make a religion or faith of it. I am not that extreme or impractical.

If you want to get legalistic, you can make a logical argument that there are no facts because there is no objective viewpoint, but most people agree on plenty of facts(ie. the freezing temperature of water, the existence of stars, the nuclear make-up of carbon, etc...). I'm not saying that might makes right or the majority is always right, but I don't quibble over this technicality.

JZavoda wrote:

Teach science, all the questions, all the possibilities, not just the ones that someone, somewhere has taken on faith.

Furthermore, it's not practical to teach all science has to offer. I personally think may public school systems have a decent science curriculum. While America overall could use some significant improvement to its education system, the curriculum is good enough. I wish it was better but I digress. Many university systems also do a great job of teaching science. America is losing ground to other countries in upper education, but it's still a top contender especially at certain schools. Look at the student diversity at MIT; the American born Caucasians are a small minority. People from other countries are clamoring to student at American universities. Again, I digress but the point is that America offers a good overall education in science, and it doesn't teach everything by a long-shot.

I agree that both science and religion are imperfect and radicals in either camp bug me at best and often disturb me. Another thing that I think most people here on these forums don't like is those who impose their ways/beliefs/faith on others whether they are religious/spiritual or not.

Which brings me back to the original topic which is that many of us liked playing D&D/Cthulhu/whatever, minding our own business and then someone(s) has to interfere, imposing their rules to fit their way of thinking and believing. This was especially disconcerting when likely we were expanding our creativity AND our reading abilty AND our understading of history and mythology AND more. I mean, I thank God for Gary Gygax because I now know that Lapis Lazuli is a blue, semi-precious stone, a fact I never would have learned if it weren't for D&D! Smile

Yes, that was random, but my point remains.

Posts: 46 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:26 pm

The problem is the dogmatization of either science or religion. Early man's attempts to understand things like fire and lightning, dreams and death are what gave birth to early religion, but did so through a primitive form of the scientific method. Observation of cause and effect. Science fact has always been limited by our understanding and by the methods available. As new discoveries are made, science fact changes in accordance. As it should. Einstein changed many facts and Hawking changed some of Einstein's. Even well established scientific constants are frequently altered by other factors. Terminal velocity is 9.8m/s^2 (unless you factor in wind resistance, etc). Water freezes at 32 degrees (unless for factor in the salinity of the water, etc). Facts are always malleable and limited to the knowledge at hand.

Religion is the search for Truth, not fact. Faith cannot be proven or measured by any means known. Any scientist who would dogmatize science and say "We know all there is to know, case closed.", doesn't deserve the name and should join the clergy.

My 2cp

Posts: 342 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:55 pm

benjoshua wrote:

Furthermore, it's not practical to teach all science has to offer. I personally think may public school systems have a decent science curriculum. While America overall could use some significant improvement to its education system, the curriculum is good enough. I wish it was better but I digress. Many university systems also do a great job of teaching science. America is losing ground to other countries in upper education, but it's still a top contender especially at certain schools. Look at the student diversity at MIT; the American born Caucasians are a small minority. People from other countries are clamoring to student at American universities. Again, I digress but the point is that America offers a good overall education in science, and it doesn't teach everything by a long-shot.

I agree that both science and religion are imperfect and radicals in either camp bug me at best and often disturb me. Another thing that I think most people here on these forums don't like is those who impose their ways/beliefs/faith on others whether they are religious/spiritual or not.

Which brings me back to the original topic which is that many of us liked playing D&D/Cthulhu/whatever, minding our own business and then someone(s) has to interfere, imposing their rules to fit their way of thinking and believing. This was especially disconcerting when likely we were expanding our creativity AND our reading abilty AND our understading of history and mythology AND more. I mean, I thank God for Gary Gygax because I now know that Lapis Lazuli is a blue, semi-precious stone, a fact I never would have learned if it weren't for D&D! Smile

Yes, that was random, but my point remains.

I teach math. American education completely fails its citizens' children on a fundemental level. In math, because they fail to understand what is needed in teaching math. Teaching the basics without crutches, without calculators, without just rote memorization. Teaching basics till the kids know the basics before passing them on to the next level, But at least with the math the kids just don't know, they don't think that they do know and base all their further thinking on that, they know that they don't know. And no one thinks it is a big deal not knowing how to do math.

But with science they teach these kids that water boils or freezes at a certain temperature, (without saying relative to what) that AC power is impossible (wait that was what they taught Tesla at college, just a damn good thing he didn't accept that fact) and lots of facts about chemical reactions and biological functions, about the physical world, the speed of sound, the speed of light, and fact after limiting that has nothing to do with science, telling them about theories and tests they will never try to test for themselves, making them believe that they stand upon solid ground, when they don't.

The most important thing, the fundemental lesson to teach, is to always, always question. Never accept, never believe with out doubt, question, test, observe, rinse and repeat.

Teach facts and you build a wall for kids, teach questions and nothing will stop them.

Posts: 577 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:26 pm

As I said, science is evolving. Plus, there's no point in pre-teaching things.

You teach math, you say. So probably you know very well that there is only one line parallel to a given line and passing through a given point in a bidimensional space. You probably also know that this is true only in the Euclidean space, and that in Lobachevsky's space there are two (infinity according to other sources), and none in Riemann's space. But is there a point in teaching such things to college students? Probably the best thing is to teach the most widespread theories, and let the ones who are interested in the subject discover there are different truths. This is a very correct way of teaching science.

Probably, a better approach would be to teach consolidated and widespread issues, while reminding students that, for (almost) every theory, there are other possible views, some of which might still have to be discovered.

I took the example of history, but it was not understood to the extent I was meaning. Think of the 6-days' war between Israel and Egypt. You cannot question the fact that, after that war, the regions of Gaza, Sinai and Suez passed under the control of the state of Israel. Of course there are contrasting opinions, like the radio propaganda that Nasser was spreading to his country ("Israel forces are about to collapse. Our aircrafts have sighted the lights of Tel Aviv"), but there are facts, like the number of prisoners, the forces involved, and the political consequences in the aftermath.

I'm not saying there is an absolute science which must be accepted by everyone. But there are some things which are consolidated enough to be accepted. I agree on the "in-between view" benjoshua was outlining.

Oh yes, going more and more off topic!

Posts: 1238 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:55 pm

guerret wrote:

Let's make it easy. Think of history. Are there no facts in history?

Now who's changing the subject? Very Happy

Erm, I like Dungeons & Dragons.................

Posts: 3999 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:38 pm

JZavoda wrote:

The most important thing, the fundemental lesson to teach, is to always, always question. Never accept, never believe with out doubt, question, test, observe, rinse and repeat.

And, clearly, if you don't agree with ________________ (Person X) then clearly you are on the side that does not question.

The opposite is also true: If you agree with _________________ (Person X) then it is clear that you have adequately thought and questioned.

Not meaning you, Jason...just pointing out that intellectual dishonesty is the norm among homo sapiens.

People everywhere choose what they want to believe and then choose their facts to fit those beliefs.

Generally, those who squeal the loudest that of course they don't do this are very often demonstrating the least intellectual honesty.

Posts: 1238 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:42 pm

gyg wrote:

Erm, I like Dungeons & Dragons.................

....And John Cusack movies Very Happy

Posts: 3999 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:51 pm

guerret wrote:

I took the example of history, but it was not understood to the extent I was meaning. Think of the 6-days' war between Israel and Egypt. You cannot question the fact that, after that war, the regions of Gaza, Sinai and Suez passed under the control of the state of Israel. Of course there are contrasting opinions, like the radio propaganda that Nasser was spreading to his country ("Israel forces are about to collapse. Our aircrafts have sighted the lights of Tel Aviv"), but there are facts, like the number of prisoners, the forces involved, and the political consequences in the aftermath.

The task of the historian is very much like that of the Dungeon Master.

It is the challenge to see and think from different points of view

A diligent historian must present those points of view projected against a backgroud narrative of objective facts.

Unfortunately, in the discipline of history as presented today on television and in schools, a real knowledge of objective facts is frequently replaced with the "but actually" syndrome.

The "but actually" syndrome works like this:

1) Start from a position of ignorance.

2) Assume that everyone is equally ignorant.

3) Watch a TV show or lecture that purports to give you "the real story."

4) Do not consider the value or biases of your source.

5) Don't consider that people who really know a topic are not impressed by your supposedly insider information. Or, that what you consider to be "the real story" is actually a fairly limited viewpoint based upon incomplete or misunderstood information.

6) Join a discussion of history with the words, "But actually..."

7) Dismiss those who correct you as, "people who just don't ever question what they've been told."

Cool

Repeat ad nauseum.

Posts: 2504 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:29 pm

spades1013 wrote:

Religion is the search for Truth, not fact.

"Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth." You didnt just quote Indiana Jones and goof it up now did you? Wink

Sorry.....I couldnt stop myself. I'll leave now. Embarassed

Posts: 46 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:22 pm

[quote="Kingofpain89"]

"Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth." You didnt just quote Indiana Jones and goof it up now did you? Wink

[size=7]Sorry.....I couldnt stop myself. I'll leave now. Embarassed

[/size][/quote]

Lol. Not exactly, but I did allude to that quote. In the sense that archaeology (being a science) was concerned with fact while if one seeking truth "Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. " In the sense that both religion and philosophy have goals more similar to each other than either does to science.

Posts: 46 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:23 pm

Edit, weird double post.

Posts: 2631 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:13 pm

JZavoda wrote:

When children are taught one theory and not another, they are being lied to, they are being dogmatized, whether by creationism or undirected evolution.

Yet another convincing argument not to allow religion to be taught in schools, then. You mentioned scientific method in an earlier post, so let's go back to that. Wink

Creationism, specifically "intelligent design", is not a theory. It is a hypothesis (at best). There are no predictions based on intelligent design, nor experiments to test that hypothesis. There's no iterative process. It's simply a claim of fact, end of story. So it's certainly not a theory, and shouldn't be given as much regard as a theory.

If schools want to discuss alternative theories to natural selection, such as orthogenesis or Lamarckism, that's perfectly fine. They weren't particularly good theories, didn't hold up over time, and have been largely displaced.

Posts: 543 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:14 pm

JZavoda wrote:

The most important thing, the fundemental lesson to teach, is to always, always question. Never accept, never believe with out doubt, question, test, observe, rinse and repeat.

Teach facts and you build a wall for kids, teach questions and nothing will stop them.

Right on brother! I am all for teaching questions. I wish more people understood that. Not that facts are unimportant, because they are.

I am no education expert, but I personally think that kids in high school should be mostly taught what most people consider facts. They should be made mostly to memorize information. Maybe by the time they are in 11th and 12th grade there can be some lessons on logic and thinking out-side the box and such. The two obvious exceptions to this are music and art where creativity and passion also should be included, for example, items that have little to do with facts. I also believe that what happens in the high school classroom should not be their only education. Parents should be teaching them about life, love, faith and more.

However, at the college level, students should learn/understand what is most important is not the answers but the questions. Answering questions like, who am I? What is my vocation? What is truth? What is real?

Two types of learners commonly emerge from childhood into adulthood. One is a facts/dogmatic kind of person and the other is a truth/principled kind of person. The facts person looks at the truth person and may call them wrong or heretical. The truth person looks at the facts person and may call them narrow-minded or stupid. I'm not saying there are only two types of people, but this soap opera emerges time and again. What's the answer? You can't always agree to disagree because it's not unusual for the facts person to want none of that. Anyway, that's why I think up until the 11th or 12th grade, it's best to accommodate all kinds of people(facts & truth) in education, but in college, it's incumbent upon the college/university to transform all of its' students into graduates who can do more than manage.

D&D is great because it helps its players to think outside the box, especially if you have a great DM who presents players with puzzles and personalities. Monty Haul campaigns don't count. This creative thinking can scare facts/dogmatic people.

Posts: 4449 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:55 pm

deimos3428 wrote:

Yet another convincing argument not to allow religion to be taught in schools, then. You mentioned scientific method in an earlier post, so let's go back to that. Wink

Creationism, specifically "intelligent design", is not a theory. It is a hypothesis (at best). There are no predictions based on intelligent design, nor experiments to test that hypothesis. There's no iterative process. It's simply a claim of fact, end of story. So it's certainly not a theory, and shouldn't be given as much regard as a theory.

If schools want to discuss alternative theories to natural selection, such as orthogenesis or Lamarckism, that's perfectly fine. They weren't particularly good theories, didn't hold up over time, and have been largely displaced.

Religion should be taught in religious schools. Period. I have to agree that creationism/intelligent design is merely a back door way to shoehorn religious study into the classroom. And, as I said before, I have no wish for any public school teacher to attempt to school my child in religious study....

By the same token, I wouldn't mind Lamarckism being taught if only for contrast. Sure it's been largely discredited....but there are still believers out there. Instead of being dictated to, kids should be shown alternatives, even if they are prefaced by "this is something most scientists don't believe. Some still do. Here is why we do/don't think it works". I actually think the entire history of Lamarckism is pretty fascinating, and an often overlooked chapter in the search for "Why we are like we are". Not that I believe it...but there are those that are smarter than me that believe in components (Neo-Lamarckists) so what do I know... Wink

BTW, Darwin himself dabbled in orthogenesis, pangenesis, and similar ideas...apparantly he was a man who was willing to keep his mind open.

I really think, from some comments by scientific/atheistic types, that Science is slowly heading towards becoming some sort of Godhead while scientists themselves see themselves as the "high priests" of the Religion of Science. Really, it seems like sometimes it's like the beginning of a bad B-movie SF flick. And it absolutely scares the hell out of me. Shocked

Mike B.

Posts: 7604 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:31 am

its funny that - while clearing out a room over the weekend, i came across an old school report from way back in 1984. all my reports barring one, were great. guess which one sucked..... ?

Religious Education Smile

i HATED that subject with a passion. the teacher was a pompous idiot who didnt really teach, actually just tried to super-impose his opinion of it all on you.

Al

Posts: 543 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:43 am

Badmike wrote:

I really think, from some comments by scientific/atheistic types, that Science is slowly heading towards becoming some sort of Godhead while scientists themselves see themselves as the "high priests" of the Religion of Science. Really, it seems like sometimes it's like the beginning of a bad B-movie SF flick. And it absolutely scares the hell out of me. Shocked

Mike B.

I agree that religion should only be taught in religious schools. The state trying to be neutral is never going to happen. Which bring me to another pet peeve which is anyone trying to be "neutral."

Also, I haven't met any of these high priest science types, but I guess that would be pretty scary. Anyone who is pompous, no matter what they believe makes me gag. puker

Posts: 1179 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:32 am

There was one form of government missing from the list on page 89 of the Dungeon Masters Guide that applies to that concept. Technocracy.

Of course there was not much room for that in a fantasy setting.

If it was not for some of the little nuggets in the DMG I probably would not have read (and learned) as much as I have over the years.

Maybe that was the real basis of the perceived threat of D&D.

That it promoted imagination, thinking, problem solving and not accepting the status quo.

Those things have always been anathema to any dogmatic belief system.

Posts: 2631 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:39 am

Badmike wrote:

Instead of being dictated to, kids should be shown alternatives, even if they are prefaced by "this is something most scientists don't believe. Some still do. Here is why we do/don't think it works". I actually think the entire history of Lamarckism is pretty fascinating, and an often overlooked chapter in the search for "Why we are like we are". Not that I believe it...but there are those that are smarter than me that believe in components (Neo-Lamarckists) so what do I know... Wink

Well, JZavoda slipped one by me there, actually.

He suggested that everything is subjective, which is true, but then he implied that there's no such thing as a valid scientific fact, which is not true. Some things are less subjective than others. Facts are never truly objective, but (scientific) facts are as objective as possible. There's a general consensus based on available information. We constantly strive to improve those facts; they are not static.

Y'know, things like the fact that oxygen exists. Can we objectively prove it? Probably not, but it's generally agreed to exist based on our observation to date. Do we start all over when we "question everything"? No, we don't. If you're not specifically questioning the existence and nature of oxygen at the moment, you accept it as fact. You "question everything" in a piece-meal fashion.

Quote:

BTW, Darwin himself dabbled in orthogenesis, pangenesis, and similar ideas...apparantly he was a man who was willing to keep his mind open.

Sure he did, and he should have. These were the great ideas of his time. Today, they aren't.

If you simply allow any old crackpot to make an empirical claim of fact, without any sort of supporting evidence whatsoever, giving it equal time in the school system, you may as well teach things such as this:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Posts: 1736 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:18 am

deimos3428 wrote:

If you simply allow any old crackpot to make an empirical claim of fact, without any sort of supporting evidence whatsoever, giving it equal time in the school system, you may as well teach things such as this:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I might get one of those T Shirts too Very Happy

Posts: 4449 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:28 am

deimos3428 wrote:

Sure he did, and he should have. These were the great ideas of his time. Today, they aren't.

And who knows who or where the next great idea will come from? Probably from someone everyone calls a nut, like Tesla, who the scientific community at the time mocked, derided and rejected. Yeh, those open minded scientists are ALWAYS for the advancement of knowledge Rolling Eyes

You can bank on the fact the next great scientific breakthough in a science will be met with outright hostility...as in the Church of God, the Church of Science does NOT suffer disbelievers or apostates.... Very Happy

Quote:

If you simply allow any old crackpot to make an empirical claim of fact, without any sort of supporting evidence whatsoever, giving it equal time in the school system, you may as well teach things such as this:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

It's crap like that that polarizes people. It serves no purpose but to mock long held beliefs that shaped our world and country, and to give the athiest/agnostic absolutist group another smug, smarmy, ass eating giggle as they "stick it to the Jesus lovers". No wonder they are so beloved... Rolling Eyes

People really respond to mockery well. I would dare anyone that thought this was funny to walk up to a mosque (not a church) and hand out fliers....like that would happen. Mocking all religions usually boils down to mocking mainstream Christianity....who wants to get beheaded just for a dumb joke....odd how mocking Muslims just doesn't get the traction mocking Joe Protestant does!

Frankly though I'd rather have my kids learn about a Flying Spaghetti Monster than the typical bullshit indoctrination they get in a public school. Maybe they could throw FSM into a few science classes just to give an alternative viewpoint, it's not anymore fantastical than the free health care proposals all the politicians espouse.

I do like the shirts...think I'll make one myself to stiff this guy a few bucks.... Very Happy

Mike B.