The Discovery Institute is fighting back on Ball State University's egregious double standard. After Ball State president Jo Ann Gora's cowardly capitulation to the threat by Jerry Coyne/FFRF over the (superb) course in astronomy on the philosophical implications of modern science, it turns out that some atheist English professor is teaching an honors seminar at Ball State that trashes Christianity and pushes atheism.
Joshua Youngkin has a great post about it at ENV, and the DI has issued a statement.
I am evolving on this issue. In the past I have supported a low-profile approach, avoiding legal confrontation with atheists and appealing for strong academic freedom even although our enemies deny it to us. But the fact is that the thugs are just getting away with it, and our meticulously principled approach is making it easy for them to do it.
Time to fight. Bravo to the DI for calling Ball State to account. They should commence legal action if these bastards persist in this double standard.
Atheism and materialism are taught on government property and with public money in schools and universities across the country. Our kids are being indoctrinated in this shit, on our dime, in our schools. We need to take a more pro-active approach. No more double standards. The denial of natural purpose and intelligent agency in science has the same degree of religious implications as the affirmation of such. If ID and the Christian perspective is verboten in schools, then so must materialism and atheism be banned.
We need a Project Veritas for schools and universities nationwide. Every instance of atheist and materialist indoctrination needs to be called out, and in publicly funded institutions it needs to be kicked out. Let's root this atheist/materialist crap out, expose it, toss it out, and demand real government neutrality.
Joshua Youngkin has a great post about it at ENV, and the DI has issued a statement.
I am evolving on this issue. In the past I have supported a low-profile approach, avoiding legal confrontation with atheists and appealing for strong academic freedom even although our enemies deny it to us. But the fact is that the thugs are just getting away with it, and our meticulously principled approach is making it easy for them to do it.
Time to fight. Bravo to the DI for calling Ball State to account. They should commence legal action if these bastards persist in this double standard.
Atheism and materialism are taught on government property and with public money in schools and universities across the country. Our kids are being indoctrinated in this shit, on our dime, in our schools. We need to take a more pro-active approach. No more double standards. The denial of natural purpose and intelligent agency in science has the same degree of religious implications as the affirmation of such. If ID and the Christian perspective is verboten in schools, then so must materialism and atheism be banned.
We need a Project Veritas for schools and universities nationwide. Every instance of atheist and materialist indoctrination needs to be called out, and in publicly funded institutions it needs to be kicked out. Let's root this atheist/materialist crap out, expose it, toss it out, and demand real government neutrality.
Typical dishonest essay by liar-for-Jeebus Joshua Younkin from the Dishonesty Institute. He focuses on one of the essays in the book assigned by the English professor -an essay written by Sam Harris, with the title:
ReplyDeleteScience Must Destroy Religion
But the same book also contains an essay with the title:
Religion is the hope that is missing in science
That's supposed to be thrashing Christianity and promoting atheism?
Egnor, you demonstrate once again that you are a pathetic useful idiot with zero integrity.
troy:
DeleteSo teaching a diversity of viewpoints is ok?
I'm glad that you support teaching both Darwinism and ID in schools.
Yeah, let's also discuss how many angels may fit upon the point of a needle.
DeleteIn case you're not getting the point (pun intended), not every subject is worth discussing in a class. ID is no good either as science or as religion. By banging on the BSU door and demanding that ID be included, the fine DI folks expose themselves as crackpots that they are.
Hoo
Well, I see the first trout rose to the fly.
DeleteAs usual, Troi's argument is vacuous.
First, he obviously doesn't realize that a professor does not necessarily have to teach or assign every chapter in a required book.
Second, Egnor merely demands true neutrality. As does the DI:
Although we believe that Prof. Ranieri’s apparent teaching of a one-sided course on
religion should be allowed as part of academic freedom, BSU must now do unto its other
professors as it has done unto Dr. Hedin, for the sake of self-consistency and legal
compliance.
The DI may be wrong about many things, including ID, but they are right about that.
The bottom line is, leftist bigots despise free speech and academic freedom and will go to incredible - and often illegal - lengths to shut down free expression on campuses.
By the way, just to go on record: I am not a proponent of ID nor am I a supporter of the Institute. And it's not because I find the just-so stories of the diehard neo-darwinists convincing; to the contrary, I find them ridiculous and pathetic. It's simply that I, personally, do not think design can be established by a naturalistic methodology given its non-material nature.
And as usual and right on schedule, Hoots sets himself up as the Arbiter of Value.
DeleteMichael,
DeleteIt would be quite OK teaching ID in schools. When ID proponents actually come up with a theory and a way of actually testing it.
Until then, ID remains, as Stephen Meyer's latest substandard effort 'Darwin's Doubt' continues to prove, a process of lying and misrepresenting science.
Darwinism isn't necessarily atheistic. There are religious scientists who accept the existence of God and evolution as the mechanism used to achieve aims. Stephen Meyer spends many pages in 'Darwin's Doubt' criticising Robert Asher, author of 'Evolution and Belief. Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist' for criticising ID.
ID is of course religion. And a particular type of religion in which God creates species and then allows them to go extinct. Numerous times. For no reason.
I suppose it's an improvement that you're repeating criticism of a book you probably haven't read, instead of misinterpreting a book you have read, such as Libet's 'Mind Time'.
backfire: "It would be quite OK teaching ID in schools. When ID proponents actually come up with a theory and a way of actually testing it."
DeleteIt would be quite OK teaching rhetoric in schools. When rhetoric proponents actually come up with a theory and a way of actually testing it.
It would be quite OK teaching creative writing in schools. When creative writing proponents actually come up with a theory and a way of actually testing it.
It would be quite OK teaching art appreciation in schools. When art appreciation proponents actually come up with a theory and a way of actually testing it.
backfire, you went to a trade school, eh? It would explain a lot.
Georgie,
DeleteScience has theories. Theories make science. ID doesn't have a theory which can be taught.
I'm certain you'll be able to find a YouTube video which will explain this to you. Once you stop playing with your plastic toy battleships and get out of your bathtub.
backfire, I have no doubt that you, personally, couldn't teach it. However, you should not recklessly generalize.
DeleteMeanwhile, back at the ranch, the Texas State Board of Education is doing its best to get "creation science" into public schools. A textbook reviewer, appointed by the TSBE, writes:
ReplyDelete"I understand the National Academy of Science's [sic] strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that "creation science" based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."
DI is up to the same thing. ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
Hoo
From Wired, 2009:
DeleteYet [anti-vaccine and] environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams Offit [pediatrician and debunker of vaccine fraud] as a ‘biostitute’ who whores for the pharmaceutical industry.
US senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Chris Dodd of Connecticut have both curried favor with constituents by trumpeting the notion that vaccines cause autism.
They're plenty of idiocy to go around Hoots. Your self-righteous act is ludicrous.
Unless, of course, you're an anti-vaccine loon.
What do anti-vaxers have to do with ID, admiral?
DeleteHoo
There's plenty of idiocy to go around.
DeleteGeorgie,
Delete'Theres plenty of idiocy to go around'.
You've certainly got much more than your fair share. You've got the idiocy of entire football teams.
I'm not the one that believes in invisible gorillas or that the human eye is "like a digital camera", blinkfast.
DeleteAdmiral: "There's plenty of idiocy to go around."
DeleteThat's the equivalent of "Look, a squirrel!"
And in case you try to claim that the TSBE is irrelevant to Disco's shenanigan's, a Google search of Disco's site returns 16,300 instances of "Texas+State+Board+of+Education".
Hoo
Hoots toots: "[There's plenty of idiocy to go around is] the equivalent of "Look, a squirrel!"
DeleteSo sez Humpty Dumpty.
No, blinkfast, the invisible gorilla is not a case of "the brain doesn't see what it doesn't expect to see". It's a case of focused, directed attention. If your book said what you say it said, the book is wrong. I suspect the error is on your part.
DeleteOh, and digital cameras compress images, do they? No, blinkfast, the software converting the raw image data to a file format (e.g., .jpeg) is where the compression occurs, if it occurs.
An image file format may store data in uncompressed, compressed, or vector formats...
Lossless compression algorithms reduce file size while preserving a perfect copy of the original uncompressed image. Lossless compression generally, but not exclusively, results in larger files than lossy compression. Lossless compression should be used to avoid accumulating stages of re-compression when editing images.
Lossy compression algorithms preserve a representation of the original uncompressed image that may appear to be a perfect copy, but it is not a perfect copy. Often lossy compression is able to achieve smaller file sizes than lossless compression. Most lossy compression algorithms allow for variable compression that trades image quality for file size.
--- Wiki: Image File Formats
You're welcome.
Admiral: "Oh, and digital cameras compress images, do they? No, blinkfast, the software converting the raw image data to a file format (e.g., .jpeg) is where the compression occurs, if it occurs."
DeleteRight, software is the camera's soul. Which, as anybody knows, is totally separate from the physical body! Yay for dualism!
Hoo
I'm curious, Hoots... was there a point?
DeleteFace it, admiral, you're clueless, not curious. Of course there was a point! Try to grasp it! You can do it! And if you try and fail, feel free to ask me again. Don't hesitate! :)
DeleteHoo
Oh, I failed. And I'm still curious. What was the point?
DeleteThe point is that both a camera and an eye produce compressed images. "Software" is not really present in a camera or an eye. It is a term that describes the work of a programmer.
DeleteHoo
What is it that is causing the specific arrangements of pixels that you see on your display? Leprechauns?
DeleteBy the way, just to make sure we're not working out of the Dumpty Dictionary:
DeleteIn computer science and information theory, data compression... involves encoding information using fewer bits than the original representation.
Software isn't necessary for encoding.
DeleteHoo
Hoots toots: "Software isn't necessary for encoding."
DeleteWell, you actually mean "encrypting". Which one can do by assigning numbers to letters. Or using pig latin.
Nevertheless, I never said software was necessary. In fact, Babbage's Difference Engine was purely mechanical. Strawman.
If "'Software' is not really present"
"What is it that is causing the specific arrangements of pixels that you see on your display?"
Not the software, if that's what you mean.
DeleteHoo
"What is it that is causing the specific arrangements of pixels that you see on your display?"
DeleteEnough bullshit questions, admiral. Skip to the chase already.
DeleteHoo
If software is not present, "What is it that is causing the specific arrangements of pixels that you see on your display?"
DeleteThat's a dumb question, admiral. An analog videocamera has no software. Yet it is perfectly able to produce "a specific arrangements of pixels" on a video screen. The signal can be compressed by Fourier filtering.
DeleteYou scored another own goal, grandpa.
Hoo
Georgie,
DeleteWhat's this obsession with 'pixels'? The human retina each has 126 million pixels, 126 million photoreceptors, distributed over the retina, so each point in the visual field emits photons which stimulate a particular photoreceptor in the retina.
So a point in the periphery of the visual field corresponds to a photoreceptor in the periphery of the retina.
The 126 million photoreceptors consist of 6 million cones and 120 million rods. The cones are concentrated in the centre of the retina and are responsible for fine and colour vision and wire extensively to the brain.
The rods are evenly distributed and are sensitive to light but not colour, and aren't wired extensively in the brain. They mainly detect movement at the edge of the peripheral field.
Most of the information from the retina gets thrown away. There are less than 1 million axons in the optic nerve. 126 million doesn't go into 1 million.
The visual cortex then adds information to the poor image it has received from the eyes, basically just the central field and a vague impression of movement in the peripheral field, based on memory and expectation.
The very rich visual perception of the external world is just an illusion, a very good illusion, but still an illusion, but it can be fooled. As shown by the 50% of students who don't perceive an actor dressed in a gorilla suit, even if the student directly looks at the 'gorilla' and must have stimulated the central retina.
It's possible that the 'gorilla' might have reached working memory, but not eventually transferred to long term memory. And then when the experimenters asked the students whether they saw anything unusual after the experiment, the 'gorilla' wasn't in long term memory.
The book 'Permanent Present Tense' has a fascinating account of memory based on a decades long study of a man who unfortunately had a bilateral resection of the hippocampus for intractable epilepsy.
If you wait long enough you might be able to see the motion picture version since the film rights have been sold. I know you're incapable of reading, preferring YouTube videos for your information.
Hoots, you keep building these amusing little rabbit trails. I' not asking about Enigma machines, difference engines, analog videocameras, abaci, or MONIAC machines.
DeleteHere's my question: ""What is it that is causing the specific arrangements of pixels THAT YOU SEE ON YOUR DISPLAY?"
batfark, you aren't - if you'll excuse the humor - paying attention. Yes, yes, yes. The anatomy of the eye is fairly well documented.
DeleteMany things are going on there, including edge enhancement (which, by the way, is not compression). You should learn something about modulation transfer functions and dynamic range. I can't help you with that in a comment thread.
You know, it wouldn't hurt you to read something technical for a change instead of these pop science books. Compression is a technical term, batfark, and you're using it incorrectly. I'm not the one who looks stupid to people who know something about compression so it's no skin off my ass. Your views won't affect my consulting fees one red cent, and I'm tired of arguing about it with a voluntary ignoramus. Look it up. Maybe you can impress some kids in high school science class.
batfark: "It's possible that the 'gorilla' might have reached working memory, but not eventually transferred to long term memory. And then when the experimenters asked the students whether they saw anything unusual after the experiment, the 'gorilla' wasn't in long term memory."
In one sense I suppose anything is possible, but not all possible things are equally probable.
At any rate, you just made that up. It's not a bad try, but as you are wont to say, "where's your evidence"? It certainly wasn't in the focused attention experiments.
Stop being perseverant. You know what that means clinically, batfark.
Hoots, don't even remember your own comments?
Delete"An ANALOG videocamera has no software."
"There goes your essential difference between a DIGITAL camera and an eye."
There is an essential difference between an analog videocamera and a digital camera. To wit: one is analog, the other is digital.
Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Obviously, you can't answer this:
If software is not present, "What is it that is causing the specific arrangements of pixels that YOU see on YOUR display?"
I understand that why you can't. Because you are wrong.
Hoots: "Dumb old fuck."
You know, a guy once said, if
"You can't address the argument... you attack the person."
--- A Hoots Toot(7/21/13)
My lovely old fart,
DeleteEnigma was a digital, not analog, machine. It still didn't need no stinkin' software.
XOXOXO!
Hoo
Georgie,
DeleteWho's the farking idiot? The retina throws away information. If that's not compression...
A photoreceptor at the edge of the retina detects an object at the periphery of the visual field, but almost all of the information is thrown away, unless it's changing by moving. Static objects don't register.
The brain then puts in details based on memory and expectation.
The analogy with a digital camera is just an analogy. The pixels in a digital camera are real and physical. The visual field of an animal is virtual, not real. It's an illusion.
You remain typically clueless about how the brain works.
“If software is not present, "What is it that is causing the specific arrangements of pixels that YOU see on YOUR display?"
DeleteProvided a schematic diagram and the component data sheets the answer to that question becomes trivial for an analog system.
-KW
The difference between an eye and digital camera, if we are contrasting the complexity of each system, could be compared to the difference between a cigarette lighter and a stellar nursery.
ReplyDeleteThere is no comparison.
Crusader Rex,
DeleteYeah, you're right, there's no comparison between the complexity of a digital camera and an eye. Digital cameras can be constructed that detect and record every single photon of light. Can see far beyond the visible spectrum (in both directions). Record the images with high fidelity and make the images available for reexamination decades later.
Eyes, on the other hand, produce substandard images, and the brain has to 'guess' to fill in the details, which often turn out to be wrong.
And eyes vary vastly in complexity, ranging from simple eyespots which are able to detect just the presence of light to avian eyes such as in the falcon which are much more sensitive than humans'.