Election predictions

[Aimless]

Do they even WANT to increase voter turnout?

[Lewkowski]

Do they even WANT to increase voter turnout?

We want to increase our base turnout. I am actually irritated at the bipartisan "everyone should vote" mantra. I don't want the uninformed stupid people to vote. The message shouldn't be "Vote!" It should be "research the issues, understand the political positions and then vote."

[Hazir]

We want to increase our base turnout. I am actually irritated at the bipartisan "everyone should vote" mantra. I don't want the uninformed stupid people to vote. The message shouldn't be "Vote!" It should be "research the issues, understand the political positions and then vote."

That's funny coming from somebody who thinks ID is science.

[Steely Glint]

I think we need to make a distinction between what is science and what is not science and between what is horseshit and what is not horseshit.

Just because something is 'scientific' in the sense we've been using it here, doesn't mean it's not also horseshit. early theories about the æther were scientific in that they proposed a hypothesis, made testable predictions and so on. They were also horseshit. There is no scientific evidence for the æther because it doesn't bloody exist, but that doesn't mean the theory of the æther wasn't science. It was. It was just wrong science.

And the reason we don't teach kids about the æther in science class isn't that it's not a scientific theory, it's that it was wrong.

The reason ID is not science isn't the lack of 'scientific evidence', the reason is that it's not falsifiable - there is no conceivable evidence that could possibly prove it wrong, and it is therefore useless. It is, in the words of a well known physicist (well known to other physicists, anyway), "not even wrong". It thus belongs under the purview of philosophy/religion.

However, even if ID were scientific it also has to prove itself to be of some value to earn it's place in a science class room. It has to show itself to be not horseshit, which is where the lack of evidence, predictions and so on comes in.

[Aimless]

The reason ID is not science isn't the lack of 'scientific evidence', the reason is that it's not falsifiable - there is no conceivable evidence that could possibly prove it wrong, and it is therefore useless. It is, in the words of a well known physicist (well known to other physicists, anyway), "not even wrong". It thus belongs under the purview of philosophy/religion.

However, even if ID were scientific it also has to prove itself to be of some value to earn it's place in a science class room. It has to show itself to be not horseshit, which is where the lack of evidence, predictions and so on comes in.

Various versions of ID come with specific claims/predictions/arguments that are demonstrably wrong, gotta give 'em that much at least.

[Nessus]

It is, in the words of a well known physicist (well known to other physicists, anyway), "not even wrong".

To be fair to the for some reason anonymous man, that's not exactly what he was talking about

[Steely Glint]

Aren't those just old skool creationism, though, which was blown out the water the second anyone with a relevent education took the trouble to refute it?

[GGT]

Do they even WANT to increase voter turnout?

We want to increase our base turnout. I am actually irritated at the bipartisan "everyone should vote" mantra. I don't want the uninformed stupid people to vote. The message shouldn't be "Vote!" It should be "research the issues, understand the political positions and then vote."

Firstly, voting is a Right enshrined with Constitutional protections. It doesn't come with any "test" for literacy, or even intellectual capacity. We don't turn low IQ or marginally IQ people away from the polls, and we don't demand a minimal education or language requirement. Legal age and citizenship is the minimum requirement. (We do restrict voting status by legal felony status, but that's a different can of worms.)

Secondly, if all you want to do is increase "your" base turnout.....it's no wonder "you" lost the election.

[Enoch the Red]

Firstly, voting is a Right enshrined with Constitutional protections. It doesn't come with any "test" for literacy, or even intellectual capacity. We don't turn low IQ or marginally IQ people away from the polls, and we don't demand a minimal education or language requirement. Legal age and citizenship is the minimum requirement. (We do restrict voting status by legal felony status, but that's a different can of worms.)

Secondly, if all you want to do is increase "your" base turnout.....it's no wonder "you" lost the election.

This is true, but it also doesn't mean everyone should vote. I know several people who don't have the time or inclination to focus on politics, and they make the conscious decision not to vote because they recognize that their opinion isn't informed.

[GGT]

This is true, but it also doesn't mean everyone should vote. I know several people who don't have the time or inclination to focus on politics, and they make the conscious decision not to vote because they recognize that their opinion isn't informed.

So what? There are probably thousands who should vote, but don't. They've either decided the process is contaminated or that their vote "doesn't count"....and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby political operatives convince people NOT to vote. That's fucked up.

[Enoch the Red]

So what? There are probably thousands who should vote, but don't. They've either decided the process is contaminated or that their vote "doesn't count"....and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby political operatives convince people NOT to vote. That's fucked up.

So what? I was directly addressing your point that because it is a constitutionally enshrined right that somehow makes it a good idea for everyone to vote. I don't think limitations should be placed on voting, but I certainly don't want everyone to vote. I don't particularly think it's responsible to vote if you don't know the candidates, their positions, your positions, or what role they will be playing in office.

[Hazir]

Well, you know that all is not entirely relevant to people who think that a theory is a random set of ideas that not have been proven yet. People who consider science to be empirical only. For them it's entirely acceptable to throw some hogglygoggly in a big bowl and serve it once cooked as 'science'.

[Loki]

Lewk, aren't you always preaching about how science will fix all the problems the US is facing? Surely making a mockery of the science education in the country would keep that from happening? Are there no goals you're not willing to abandon for the sake of pleasing some ignorant fundies?

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, aren't you always preaching about how science will fix all the problems the US is facing? Surely making a mockery of the science education in the country would keep that from happening? Are there no goals you're not willing to abandon for the sake of pleasing some ignorant fundies?

I honestly don't care that much (as mentioned earlier in this thread) about the issue. Kids really don't care if its ID or evolution - 95% of them won't pay attention. And the ones that do only a fraction will enter that field. I think school education should be decided by parents not the federal government.

[Timbuk2]

Kids really don't care if its ID or evolution - 95% of them won't pay attention. And the ones that do only a fraction will enter that field.

This is just too bizarre.

This implies that you are happy for maths teachers to teach that 1 + 1 = 3, simply because 95% of kids don't pay attention in class, and even less will enter the mathematical field.

Regardless of the fact that your ridiculous 95% is obviously picked out of thin air. What citation could you bring that has a figure remotely close to that?

I remember quite a lot of detail from my school biology lessons, as I do my chemistry and physics lessons, yet I didn't enter any of those fields. Such lessons help me understand the natural world in which I live, and that is an understanding to which every child should be party. Every child. As such, school education is not just about setting up young adults for their careers.

The problem here, Lewk, since it needs spelling out, is peddling known falsehoods. We don't teach that 1 + 1 = 3 because it is false, and we don't teach ID, because it is false.

Worse than that, it's peddling known falsehoods to further a particular agenda.

[Lewkowski]

This is just too bizarre.

This implies that you are happy for maths teachers to teach that 1 + 1 = 3, simply because 95% of kids don't pay attention in class, and even less will enter the mathematical field.

Regardless of the fact that your ridiculous 95% is obviously picked out of thin air. What citation could you bring that has a figure remotely close to that?

I remember quite a lot of detail from my school biology lessons, as I do my chemistry and physics lessons, yet I didn't enter any of those fields. Such lessons help me understand the natural world in which I live, and that is an understanding to which every child should be party. Every child. As such, school education is not just about setting up young adults for their careers.

The problem here, Lewk, since it needs spelling out, is peddling known falsehoods. We don't teach that 1 + 1 = 3 because it is false, and we don't teach ID, because it is false.

Worse than that, it's peddling known falsehoods to further a particular agenda.

I thought the beef with ID was that its not science because its not falsifiable. How can it therefore be false.

[Timbuk2]

I thought the beef with ID was that its not science because its not falsifiable. How can it therefore be false.

lol, well that's just one among a multitude of reasons why ID isn't science, but if you want to play semantics, insert made up and untrue in place of false.

[Aimless]

I honestly don't care that much (as mentioned earlier in this thread) about the issue. Kids really don't care if its ID or evolution - 95% of them won't pay attention. And the ones that do only a fraction will enter that field. I think school education should be decided by parents not the federal government.

I think that's a cop-out. It's also a truly bizarre approach to education let's be honest, the reason you say you "honestly don't care that much" is because you actually care very much but also happen to be wrong.

[Lewkowski]

I think that's a cop-out. It's also a truly bizarre approach to education let's be honest, the reason you say you "honestly don't care that much" is because you actually care very much but also happen to be wrong.

No - I honestly don't care. I remember science class. It was fairly bland and boring and no one paid attention to the kind of entry level discussion evolution and the origin of the species is. On principal I dislike the notion that the federal government gets to make these kinds of choices. Its just another symbolic issues both sides get riled up about. On a larger scale its a fundamental reinterpretation of the 1st amendment. But specifically to what's being taught in science class? Don't really care.

[Aimless]

No - I honestly don't care. I remember science class. It was fairly bland and boring and no one paid attention to the kind of entry level discussion evolution and the origin of the species is. On principal I dislike the notion that the federal government gets to make these kinds of choices. Its just another symbolic issues both sides get riled up about. On a larger scale its a fundamental reinterpretation of the 1st amendment. But specifically to what's being taught in science class? Don't really care.

It's okay, you're always free to get an F and a lower score on standardised tests. The point is that you care enough to aid in the devaluing of science education at the expense of safeguarding idiocy.

[Loki]

What happens if 51% of parents in a school want to teach ID and 49% don't?
What if parents decide that math and English should no longer be taught (to be replaced by Spanish)?

[Lewkowski]

What happens if 51% of parents in a school want to teach ID and 49% don't?
What if parents decide that math and English should no longer be taught (to be replaced by Spanish)?

That's whats so amazing about school vouchers! The parent gets to choose!

[RandBlade]

If Lewk doesn't care - and SCOTUS and the rest of us does - then we can all just agree to accept that science should be taught in the science class, religion can be taught in Church and move along. Afterall Lewk doesn't care so no reason to overturn the status quo by trying to force religion into the science class.

[GGT]

We want to increase our base turnout. I am actually irritated at the bipartisan "everyone should vote" mantra. I don't want the uninformed stupid people to vote. The message shouldn't be "Vote!" It should be "research the issues, understand the political positions and then vote."

I know while that must have sounded very "meaningful," it doesn't really have much "meaning."

And perhaps you could show me where exactly I "said" that? In fact, I seem to remember suggesting the exact "opposite."

Now if you'd care to address what I actually "wrote," we might be able to have a "discussion."

I was initially replying to Lewk before you jumped in.

And goddammit....this "election predictions" thread has taken so many turns I can't get answers about what seemed like a related issue: how/why the GOP got their predictions so horribly wrong.

[GGT]

Why should our federal tax dollars go toward school vouchers if that means teaching Creationism or ID as "science"?

[Lewkowski]

Why should our federal tax dollars go toward school vouchers if that means teaching Creationism or ID as "science"?

Why should the federal government wishes supersede those of the parents?

[Loki]

Why should the federal government wishes supersede those of the parents?

Because the government is paying for it?

[Lewkowski]

Because the government is paying for it?

You mean the people who pay the taxes pay for it.

[Loki]

Not 47% of them.

[Lewkowski]

Not 47% of them.

Most of them don't pay property taxes which is where the bulk of the money comes from.