My attention was recently drawn to an article regarding a Primary School headteacher who had a chunk of abuse thrown at her for stating her belief that there is more evidence for the Bible's creation story than for modern science's evolution theory.
The article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3428056/Church-England-primary-school-headteacher-sparks-online-ridicule-claiming-evolution-theory-evidence-Bible-true.html#ixzz3zKPbxAba
A few things to note:
- It's a Church of England school.
- Teachers have views about the world too.
- We're meant to live in a society of free speech.
Things people said include:
1. She is 'stupid and ignorant.'
2. She should quit her job.
3. Her comments are tantamount to 'child abuse.'
I want to go through these.
1. Many people hold to 'scientific fact' when they don't actually know the facts themselves. They essentially think, "Someone more intelligent than me has done some research and says it's true, so it must be true." Any non-science-literate person who accepts scientific theory as fact is themselves 'ignorant' and (therefore) essentially 'stupid.' This is because it is hypocritical to claim that 'religious people' are 'brainwashing' people into their belief system ('preying on the weak-minded,' as it were) because they believe such a belief system is delusional, when in actual fact they are believing a number of things to be true that they do not actually hold the evidence for or can prove to be true. What we essentially have in the UK education system is 'scientific brainwashing' whereby children are told, "This is what the scientists say, so it must be true."
We also need to be careful that we are not ignorant of the assumptions made when people talk. From a mathematical point of view, we accept that 1+1=2. If I were to suggest that 1+1=10, people would call me a fool. However, 1+1 does indeed equal 10. What you may not have realised up until now is that my first statement was using the decimal number system, and the second using binary. What's the boiling point of water? 100 degrees, 373.15 degrees or 212 degrees? All are correct. The first answer is Celsius, the second Kelvin, the third Fahrenheit.
It wasn't so long ago that 'evolution' meant evolving from apes. Now the scientific community suggest it is more likely from a 'common ancestor.' Given that scientific research, theory and experiementation requires the tweaking of pre-existing theories as new evidence is found, how we ever say that it is 'fact'?
When people talk, especially when science is involved, we need to know the assumptions they are making. Unfortunately, many assumptions are not stated. The hearer 'fills in the blanks' and may well come away thinking that something was said that really wasn't.
A nice, recent example was with an article stating, "NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars." When this (and many such articles) emerged, I was intrigued. Careful reading actually showed that there are some streaks on some of the slopes which contain some minerals that have been found in water on Earth. This is not evidence. This is one hypothesis after another. It is an assumption that water would be the same on every planet (unless they actualy refer to the water of Earth when they talk of water on Mars). It is an assumption that the identification of certain minerals demands a conclusion of water. It is an assumption that the streaks on the slopes were formed by liquid water. The evidence might 'point in that direction,' and it may well be proved sometime in the future (or proved false), but at the moment it certainly isn't a scientific 'fact.' And yet I heard people saying, "Isn't it amazing that they've actually found water on Mars?!"
So who is 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science?
Not only this, but most of the common people who like to hold tightly to the infallibility of scientific theory ridicule people who believe religious texts such as the Bible. The irony is that such people have not often read the Bible, and those who have often have only read it once, not realising that a single reading cannot possibly give the fullness of understanding that they claim to have. They do not fully realise the difference between poetic, historical, and prophetic writing. They do not fully understand the cultural significance of the laws that were given (instead, claiming it is just a 'primitive' society), nor that parables appear in many places, not just when Jesus speaks.
Many people call religious people 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science, but these people could be considered 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to religious texts.
Just have a look around to see what 'science' has done for the moral standards of society.
2. Forcing someone to quit their job because of their views... isn't that called 'intolerance'?! What a civilised society we are!
3. It could be considered 'tantamount to child abuse' to allow young people to experiment with ouija boards and tarot cards. Just because some people choose not to believe in the existence of demonic influence, is that really sufficient evidence to prove it is not real?
What about parents shouting angrily at each other in the presence of their children? What example are they setting for their children?
What about people who encourage their children to accept scientific 'facts' without detailed scrutiny of them?
To suggest that expressing views to children is 'tantamount to child abuse' is a very risky position to hold.
Sunday, 7 February 2016
Wednesday, 20 January 2016
Brainwashing by alienation?
I continue to hear many things regarding the increased acceptance of homosexuality, especially the hatred thrown at those who hold fast to traditional marriage.
What I find interesting is that most homosexuality supporters (abbreviated to HS for this post) label the traditional supporters (TS, for this post) as 'intolerant' and 'bigots.' But, if we are to understand 'intolerance' as a feeling or act of hatred towards those who disagree to our own view, then surely - by the very act of calling a TS a 'bigot' - the HS group are displaying strong signs of intolerance and bigotry?
How is it 'tolerant' to say, "You don't agree with me, so you're a bigot"? Or, in its most ironic form, "I can't tolerate your intolerance!" Surely 'tolerance' would be to say, "We accept people, regardless of their view"?
It seems to me that this whole issue is a very clever piece of social peer pressure - brainwashing, if you will. People don't like being called names, especially to be labelled as something like a 'bigot.' For a TS, the options are to either change their thinking to become a HS, or to be irrationally and intolerantly labelled and insulted.
The HS agenda is moved forward, not with logical reasoning or scientific evidence, but with schoolyard bully tactics. The TS group are made to feel alienated by their own people unless they change their view. The feeling of alienation is unpleasant, and it doesn't require much conversation to find that many people (in UK, at least) do not have enough foundation to their beliefs, that many will move from a TS to a HS (still without solid conviction).
To top it off, 'tolerance' laws are then added to society, jeopardising the jobs of the TS if they should voice their opinion in the wrong environment. How is this equality? How is this tolerant?
It seems - to me at least - the hallmark of a society that does not really know what it wants to be. An act of people-pleasing that only results in confusion, anarchy and alienation.
What I also find ironic is the offence caused by turning the name-calling around: the next time a HS calls a TS a bigot, tell them that such a statement is a sign of intolerant bigotry and see what happens!
What I find interesting is that most homosexuality supporters (abbreviated to HS for this post) label the traditional supporters (TS, for this post) as 'intolerant' and 'bigots.' But, if we are to understand 'intolerance' as a feeling or act of hatred towards those who disagree to our own view, then surely - by the very act of calling a TS a 'bigot' - the HS group are displaying strong signs of intolerance and bigotry?
How is it 'tolerant' to say, "You don't agree with me, so you're a bigot"? Or, in its most ironic form, "I can't tolerate your intolerance!" Surely 'tolerance' would be to say, "We accept people, regardless of their view"?
It seems to me that this whole issue is a very clever piece of social peer pressure - brainwashing, if you will. People don't like being called names, especially to be labelled as something like a 'bigot.' For a TS, the options are to either change their thinking to become a HS, or to be irrationally and intolerantly labelled and insulted.
The HS agenda is moved forward, not with logical reasoning or scientific evidence, but with schoolyard bully tactics. The TS group are made to feel alienated by their own people unless they change their view. The feeling of alienation is unpleasant, and it doesn't require much conversation to find that many people (in UK, at least) do not have enough foundation to their beliefs, that many will move from a TS to a HS (still without solid conviction).
To top it off, 'tolerance' laws are then added to society, jeopardising the jobs of the TS if they should voice their opinion in the wrong environment. How is this equality? How is this tolerant?
It seems - to me at least - the hallmark of a society that does not really know what it wants to be. An act of people-pleasing that only results in confusion, anarchy and alienation.
What I also find ironic is the offence caused by turning the name-calling around: the next time a HS calls a TS a bigot, tell them that such a statement is a sign of intolerant bigotry and see what happens!
Saturday, 2 January 2016
Increase in modern mental health problems
Is it clear that recent years have shown an increase in mental health issues such as depression. There is also a massive increase in people being diagnosed with things such as ADD, ADHD, ODD, many other acronyms, as well as Asperger's syndrome and the fairly recent conclusion that autism is a 'spectrum' that we are all on at some point.
Perhaps we have just managed to come up with more names to label the behaviour of various people (especially as it is now considered offensive and politically incorrect to call someone 'retarded', a 'delinquent' or an 'idiot'), or perhaps there is a reason behind it - an inconvenient reason, given the state of modern British society.
Scientists are slowly convincing the Western world that they have (or, are developing) the answers and understanding to everything pertaining to life on earth. Religions are more commonly being described as primitive belief systems, for people with limited understanding (some staunch atheists thrive off such name-calling).
However, could it be that since 'tampering with the supernatural', such as playing with ouija boards and tarot cards, has now been described as innocent and harmless play (by those very same academically advanced 'professionals'), their effects are no longer being treated in the correct manner?
'Primitive' peoples would look to witch doctors or spiritualists if there was something happening in their life that they couldn't understand. In earlier Christian societies, people would turn to the priests for deliverance from the negativity they encounter.
But now, in an age where spirituality is increasingly brushed off as nonsense, we are seeing an increase in mental and behavioural disorders...
To top it off, churches and other religious gatherings can be subject to accusations of preying on the weak and needy when people with such disorders search for spiritual help with their problems. In other words, the very people needing spiritual help/deliverance are prevented from such treatment due to the accusations and assumptions of people who believe such things to be nonsense.
Some people would even go so far as to calling such help a form of 'brainwashing', despite such people having essentially 'brainwashed' society into believing that spirituality is just nonsense.
The irony is that 'serious academics' wouldn't 'tarnish' their career by properly researching the possibility of such connections, and anyone who would dare to put forward research which would suggest such a connection would be labelled as unprofessional or a supporter of 'pseudoscience'.
Perhaps we have just managed to come up with more names to label the behaviour of various people (especially as it is now considered offensive and politically incorrect to call someone 'retarded', a 'delinquent' or an 'idiot'), or perhaps there is a reason behind it - an inconvenient reason, given the state of modern British society.
Scientists are slowly convincing the Western world that they have (or, are developing) the answers and understanding to everything pertaining to life on earth. Religions are more commonly being described as primitive belief systems, for people with limited understanding (some staunch atheists thrive off such name-calling).
However, could it be that since 'tampering with the supernatural', such as playing with ouija boards and tarot cards, has now been described as innocent and harmless play (by those very same academically advanced 'professionals'), their effects are no longer being treated in the correct manner?
'Primitive' peoples would look to witch doctors or spiritualists if there was something happening in their life that they couldn't understand. In earlier Christian societies, people would turn to the priests for deliverance from the negativity they encounter.
But now, in an age where spirituality is increasingly brushed off as nonsense, we are seeing an increase in mental and behavioural disorders...
To top it off, churches and other religious gatherings can be subject to accusations of preying on the weak and needy when people with such disorders search for spiritual help with their problems. In other words, the very people needing spiritual help/deliverance are prevented from such treatment due to the accusations and assumptions of people who believe such things to be nonsense.
Some people would even go so far as to calling such help a form of 'brainwashing', despite such people having essentially 'brainwashed' society into believing that spirituality is just nonsense.
The irony is that 'serious academics' wouldn't 'tarnish' their career by properly researching the possibility of such connections, and anyone who would dare to put forward research which would suggest such a connection would be labelled as unprofessional or a supporter of 'pseudoscience'.
Saturday, 12 December 2015
The hardships of a teenager
Having just come across the following article, I find myself again asking questions along the lines of, "How stupid have we become?!"
The article: Sleepy teens could mount legal challenges against morning exams
If you can't be bothered to read it, the article essenitally says that 'experts have discovered' that teenage boys are not at their most alert at 9am, and therefore they could claim that they are being discriminated against for having to sit such a 'potentially life-changing test' at such an unreasonable time.
Now, the way I understand it, in the world of work you get told what time to be at work and when you will be working until. It would be ridiculous for a shop manager to annouce, "Tomorrow, we'll be opening at 11am, to make sure the younger members of staff are able to cope properly."
Thinking a little more about the wider picture...
- The average modern teenage boy spends a lot of time playing computer games.
- Spending time in front of 'screens' just before bed makes sleeping more difficult.
- The online community for computer gaming is at its peak at 9pm-1am.
- Many teenagers do not go to bed as early as they should.
- As people grow up, they become less attached to computer games.
- As people grow up, their priorities change due to having a job and making sure they are not tired for the morning work.
Perhaps, if teenagers saw their school life as an opportunity to get into a good routine which would greatly benefit them for adult working life, then 9am lessons, lectures and exams wouldn't be a problem.
Perhaps, the reason adults can better cope with those early mornings is because they can prioritise better.
Perhaps, 'rights of the child' has gone too far and some good discipline is needed: discipline to get oneself to bed at a sensible time so as to be able to get oneself out of bed at a suitable time the next morning.
Responsibilities need to come before rights.
'Experts' need to learn to take the wider picture into consideration before making their conclusions.
Parents need to take seriously their responsibility to properly parent their children (late nights and hours on computer games is not good).
UK policy makers need to get a grip on what things need to be enforced on teenagers to prepare them for adult life, rather than trying to make those school years more comfortable by pandering to the pathetically selfish wants of teenagers.
If I was told that in order to get the job I really desired, I would have to sit an exam at 3am, then I would do everything possible to make sure I was ready for it.
Let's take this a step further. Responsible people need to be ready for anything:
- If your house is on fire at 3am, you don't wait until 8am to put it out.
- Hospitals are open all hours in case of emergencies, and you would expect the staff to be fully alert if you were in a state of medical emergency.
- In the army, recruits don't expect wars to be fought only in the afternoons.
- The police don't close up for the night at 10pm because they feel a little tired and won't be at their best.
In the words of Andrew Wommack, "How dumb can you get and still breathe?!"
The article: Sleepy teens could mount legal challenges against morning exams
If you can't be bothered to read it, the article essenitally says that 'experts have discovered' that teenage boys are not at their most alert at 9am, and therefore they could claim that they are being discriminated against for having to sit such a 'potentially life-changing test' at such an unreasonable time.
Now, the way I understand it, in the world of work you get told what time to be at work and when you will be working until. It would be ridiculous for a shop manager to annouce, "Tomorrow, we'll be opening at 11am, to make sure the younger members of staff are able to cope properly."
Thinking a little more about the wider picture...
- The average modern teenage boy spends a lot of time playing computer games.
- Spending time in front of 'screens' just before bed makes sleeping more difficult.
- The online community for computer gaming is at its peak at 9pm-1am.
- Many teenagers do not go to bed as early as they should.
- As people grow up, they become less attached to computer games.
- As people grow up, their priorities change due to having a job and making sure they are not tired for the morning work.
Perhaps, if teenagers saw their school life as an opportunity to get into a good routine which would greatly benefit them for adult working life, then 9am lessons, lectures and exams wouldn't be a problem.
Perhaps, the reason adults can better cope with those early mornings is because they can prioritise better.
Perhaps, 'rights of the child' has gone too far and some good discipline is needed: discipline to get oneself to bed at a sensible time so as to be able to get oneself out of bed at a suitable time the next morning.
Responsibilities need to come before rights.
'Experts' need to learn to take the wider picture into consideration before making their conclusions.
Parents need to take seriously their responsibility to properly parent their children (late nights and hours on computer games is not good).
UK policy makers need to get a grip on what things need to be enforced on teenagers to prepare them for adult life, rather than trying to make those school years more comfortable by pandering to the pathetically selfish wants of teenagers.
If I was told that in order to get the job I really desired, I would have to sit an exam at 3am, then I would do everything possible to make sure I was ready for it.
Let's take this a step further. Responsible people need to be ready for anything:
- If your house is on fire at 3am, you don't wait until 8am to put it out.
- Hospitals are open all hours in case of emergencies, and you would expect the staff to be fully alert if you were in a state of medical emergency.
- In the army, recruits don't expect wars to be fought only in the afternoons.
- The police don't close up for the night at 10pm because they feel a little tired and won't be at their best.
In the words of Andrew Wommack, "How dumb can you get and still breathe?!"
Friday, 11 December 2015
I recently overheard someone letting off a bit of steam regarding their inability to do maths.
The part I heard went like this: "Humans aren't naturally good at maths. I mean, that's why we built computers. We get the computers to do the maths because we're just not naturally good at it."
I had to chuckle to myself as I walked on past. They obviously struggled with maths at school (like many people) and wanted to justify their inadequacy.
Here's why they're wrong:
Humans invented the computer (and the calculator). A computer/calculator is simply a machine that takes the inputs (the buttons you press) and gives you an output (the answer on the display). The actual process of converting the inputs to outputs requires programming. It involves compex algorithms which must be set up by... a human.
These algorithms will work for every input. It's not that the calculator somehow 'knows the answer,' but go through a process to reach the solution shown. For example, I have a few algorithms which help me multiply numbers together. I do not know the answer to every possible multiplication problem, but with pen and paper I could (if I so desired) figure out the answer. With time, I can use algorithms and other methods to figure out square roots of awkward numbers, and I could even develop methods to calculate the value of pi to however many decimal places.
But a computer can do it faster! This is the only benefit to using a computer/calculator. The human brain is capable of performing every operation that a calculator can do, but (in general) the calculator will be faster.
However, we do need a human brain to interpret the answer that is given by a computer. We need to use a 'test of reasonableness' to make sure the answer is in the region we expect. If I input 5x6 and get an answer of 300, I'd need to double-check I entered the inputs correctly. However, those people who struggle with maths often expect a calculator to always give them the correct answer, attempting to relieve themselves of the responsibility to check the resonableness of the answer they get.
In short, using a calculator still requires more than just the ability to punch numbers in. You still need a logical brain, or you end up with (more) problems!
To conclude, a computer will only ever have mathematical talent as good as the person who programmed it... it's just that the computer will do it faster. Mathematics helps you to develop logical reasoning. It seems that the person who said the quote above struggled with maths, and it shows through their lack of logical reasoning in their statement!
The part I heard went like this: "Humans aren't naturally good at maths. I mean, that's why we built computers. We get the computers to do the maths because we're just not naturally good at it."
I had to chuckle to myself as I walked on past. They obviously struggled with maths at school (like many people) and wanted to justify their inadequacy.
Here's why they're wrong:
Humans invented the computer (and the calculator). A computer/calculator is simply a machine that takes the inputs (the buttons you press) and gives you an output (the answer on the display). The actual process of converting the inputs to outputs requires programming. It involves compex algorithms which must be set up by... a human.
These algorithms will work for every input. It's not that the calculator somehow 'knows the answer,' but go through a process to reach the solution shown. For example, I have a few algorithms which help me multiply numbers together. I do not know the answer to every possible multiplication problem, but with pen and paper I could (if I so desired) figure out the answer. With time, I can use algorithms and other methods to figure out square roots of awkward numbers, and I could even develop methods to calculate the value of pi to however many decimal places.
But a computer can do it faster! This is the only benefit to using a computer/calculator. The human brain is capable of performing every operation that a calculator can do, but (in general) the calculator will be faster.
However, we do need a human brain to interpret the answer that is given by a computer. We need to use a 'test of reasonableness' to make sure the answer is in the region we expect. If I input 5x6 and get an answer of 300, I'd need to double-check I entered the inputs correctly. However, those people who struggle with maths often expect a calculator to always give them the correct answer, attempting to relieve themselves of the responsibility to check the resonableness of the answer they get.
In short, using a calculator still requires more than just the ability to punch numbers in. You still need a logical brain, or you end up with (more) problems!
To conclude, a computer will only ever have mathematical talent as good as the person who programmed it... it's just that the computer will do it faster. Mathematics helps you to develop logical reasoning. It seems that the person who said the quote above struggled with maths, and it shows through their lack of logical reasoning in their statement!
Thursday, 10 December 2015
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
Where to live?
Regarding the recent flooding in Cumbria, the question is again brought to my mind: how do we understand our 'right' to live where we want?
In UK, we have quite variable weather: hot and humid summers, cold and frozen winters, lots of rain... and of course the floods at times. Those of us who have lived in UK for a long time should surely be aware of such things?
So when it comes to looking for a house to move into, surely a flood plain is not the most logical choice? Sure, to some extent, we don't expect rivers to rise above those high water marks, but the possibility is always there. Why do people get angry at the government and councils for 'not providing adequate flood defences' when they have chosen to live in such a place?
If I chose to live at the base of an active volcano, do I have a right to be angry at the government if the volcano erupts and I lose my house?
Personally, I just don't understand it. I wouldn't choose to live in a valley, or on a volcano, or on a fault line with frequent earthquakes. I wouldn't want to live too close to a train track because of the noise. I wouldn't want to live too close to sewage works because of the smell. I wouldn't want to live too far in the country because of the travel expenses to get into town, to work or to do the shopping.
At what point do people say, "Oh, but I want to live in a nice (picturesque) place!" and then feel they have a right to moan and complain because of a natural consequence? Shouldn't practicality come first?
The only people who could be justified are those living in a designated council house which happens to be on a flood plain. Those people don't have a choice and yes, in that situation, the council should know better.
In UK, we have quite variable weather: hot and humid summers, cold and frozen winters, lots of rain... and of course the floods at times. Those of us who have lived in UK for a long time should surely be aware of such things?
So when it comes to looking for a house to move into, surely a flood plain is not the most logical choice? Sure, to some extent, we don't expect rivers to rise above those high water marks, but the possibility is always there. Why do people get angry at the government and councils for 'not providing adequate flood defences' when they have chosen to live in such a place?
If I chose to live at the base of an active volcano, do I have a right to be angry at the government if the volcano erupts and I lose my house?
Personally, I just don't understand it. I wouldn't choose to live in a valley, or on a volcano, or on a fault line with frequent earthquakes. I wouldn't want to live too close to a train track because of the noise. I wouldn't want to live too close to sewage works because of the smell. I wouldn't want to live too far in the country because of the travel expenses to get into town, to work or to do the shopping.
At what point do people say, "Oh, but I want to live in a nice (picturesque) place!" and then feel they have a right to moan and complain because of a natural consequence? Shouldn't practicality come first?
The only people who could be justified are those living in a designated council house which happens to be on a flood plain. Those people don't have a choice and yes, in that situation, the council should know better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)