Over the last few years there has been a a growing amount of fake or misleading information spread online, usually through social media. I am not talking about the kind of things that Democrats and Republicans , in the US are claiming to be fake news. Here in the US there are those that think CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc are "fake news" depending on your political bias, but I am talking about utter nonsense that goes beyond politics. There are people who actually believe that "insert politician name" are involved in a massive child smuggling ring. There are people who believe that Jews are running the world's banks. People believe the world is flat. I recently have seen things saying that certain foods are man made, but are not. Cures to diseases are suppressed by governments and big pharma. The list is endless. People are promoting "facts" that are not supported by anything or any credible source. Not so long ago if you wanted to propagate nonsense it was difficult to do. One would have to have the wherewithal to publish books and magazines. Today you need a computer and you can make up whatever you want.

I find it difficult to argue with this stuff because the usual response by people who believe this nonsense is "You're brainwashed", "Dont't believe the liberal/conservative media", "The government doesn't want you to know" My usual response is "If you don't believe mainstream sources or peer reviewed scientific journals then why do you believe these people?".

I am a high school teacher and even though I teach Automotive Technology this stuff comes up.

With online social media not going away and only growing, how should we combat false information? I feel all this made up nonsense is dangerous because more and more people only read online info and any idiot can publish anything and look professional.

I'd love to hear DocLightning's thoughts on this subject. I'm sure as a pediatrician he hears all kinds nonsense from parents that probably think they know better than the legit medical community.

falstaff wrote:

I am a high school teacher and even though I teach Automotive Technology this stuff comes up.

I'm sure it does! The government in collusion with big oil and car companies has suppressed hyper-efficient fuel systems for decades. First carburetors then electronic fuel injection systems, that could have saved people millions driving cars that got 50 to 100 miles per gallon!

And now the government is covering up new discoveries in battery technology to reward Tesla so they will reduce the cost of SpaceX launches!

It is all out there if people just look.




As to how to stop it? I really don't know. So many people seem to not care to do even basic review of information they hear or learn of. They are perfectly happy passing info on or saying things as fact, and it can be because the believe it, want to believe it, think it is funny to tell people like its true. It drives me nuts. I don't want to make it political because it really is not but Trump is kind of the ultimate expression of this.

And with billions in the world and many poorly educated but coming "online" it is only going to get worse.

Tugg

falstaff wrote:

Over the last few years there has been a a growing amount of fake or misleading information spread online.

Growing, Maybe.

New - definitely not.

Fake Information has been a tool of people in power to keep power since Christ was a corporal. Heck, his execution was largely based on 'fake news'.

I grew up with people who could provide you documentation that people of African descent were genetically incapable of higher order thought. Their brains were simply inferior. That John F. Kennedy took direct orders from the Pope. That the holocaust did not happen. The first fight I ever saw was between a part-time fundamentalist preacher and a former WWII POW in Germany over the "Holocaust Myth" in a small café in my hometown of 500 people. I was four or five. The former POW, married to a second cousin of my father, was emphatic - I was there, I saw what those ....... did to Jews, Catholics, N......, Russians, prisoners. The part-time preacher was a third cousin of my father and just as emphatically certain of the information in various pamphlets he had as proof.

I have a son-in-law who firmly believes man has never gone to the moon, and didn't believe people actually went into space until the Columbia disaster. And that is only because he knew some classmates of Kalpana Chawla.

My ex-son-in-law has convinced two of my grandson's that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy.

You are in a position as a teacher to require your students to use valid sources. Don't allow bland internet searches. My granddaughter did one paper like that just to prove her HS history teacher didn't really look at the work the kids did. She proved the South won the Civil War. Got an A- for the paper.

rfields5421 wrote:

falstaff wrote:

Over the last few years there has been a a growing amount of fake or misleading information spread online.

Growing, Maybe.

New - definitely not.

Fake Information has been a tool of people in power to keep power since Christ was a corporal. Heck, his execution was largely based on 'fake news'.

I grew up with people who could provide you documentation that people of African descent were genetically incapable of higher order thought. Their brains were simply inferior. That John F. Kennedy took direct orders from the Pope. That the holocaust did not happen. The first fight I ever saw was between a part-time fundamentalist preacher and a former WWII POW in Germany over the "Holocaust Myth" in a small café in my hometown of 500 people. I was four or five. The former POW, married to a second cousin of my father, was emphatic - I was there, I saw what those ....... did to Jews, Catholics, N......, Russians, prisoners. The part-time preacher was a third cousin of my father and just as emphatically certain of the information in various pamphlets he had as proof.

I have a son-in-law who firmly believes man has never gone to the moon, and didn't believe people actually went into space until the Columbia disaster. And that is only because he knew some classmates of Kalpana Chawla.

My ex-son-in-law has convinced two of my grandson's that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy.

You are in a position as a teacher to require your students to use valid sources. Don't allow bland internet searches. My granddaughter did one paper like that just to prove her HS history teacher didn't really look at the work the kids did. She proved the South won the Civil War. Got an A- for the paper.

To quote the late Issac Asimov. “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Not just in the US.

I've seen a tendency to take any information which supports one's own opinions as valid, and discount any information that is opposed to a person's opinions as fake or invalid.

When I lived in Japan in the 80s, I saw young Japanese taking anything as proof that Japan was never an aggressor and never committed 'horrible' acts in WWII as valid.

I've seen that my opinions, back by my fake news, is better than yours on this forum today.

falstaff wrote:

I am a high school teacher and even though I teach Automotive Technology this stuff comes up.

With online social media not going away and only growing, how should we combat false information? I feel all this made up nonsense is dangerous because more and more people only read online info and any idiot can publish anything and look professional.

Does your high school have a mandatory class for all students along the lines of "Logic, Reality and the Internet" in which a number of nonsensical themes are discussed and evaluated, and students are taught how to discover the truth?

What percentage of your school's student do you think might be aware that Snopes.com exists?

False information must be combated with the truth. But people, especially our youth, must be taught how and where to find the truth.

BobPatterson wrote:

What percentage of your school's student do you think might be aware that Snopes.com exists?

Probably less than 10%, but that really isn't the problem. A lot of the young people I run into that do know about snopes don't believe it. I have had students tell me it's part of the government, media or Jewish conspiracy. I guess you can't win with those people.

BobPatterson wrote:

False information must be combated with the truth. But people, especially our youth, must be taught how and where to find the truth.

I teach young people that all time. One of the things I do is tell them about is asking the some basic questions. The classic who, what, when, where and how is a good rule of thumb. A couple of examples would be: when an article says "A prestigious scientist says" I would want those students to ask who that is and what are his credentials. If the article says "university researches discovered" ask what university?

I had a teacher in high school tell me that you should form opinions by using three sources. I have always found that to be useful.

BobPatterson wrote:

Does your high school have a mandatory class for all students along the lines of "Logic, Reality and the Internet" in which a number of nonsensical themes are discussed and evaluated, and students are taught how to discover the truth?

That would be great, but you couldn't make it mandatory because it wouldn't fit in with the state requirements. In Michigan you would have to have legislative action to make that happen.

LMP737 wrote:

The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Some of these knuckleheads don't think they are ignorant. Many of these people believe they are better educated than others. A common come back is "you need to get educated to know the truth". You can't argue with that logic very easily. Most of the adults that I run into that buy all this nonsense generally are the least educated. The young people I run in to who generally believe it are usually poor students in school with poorly educated parents.

rfields5421 wrote:

My ex-son-in-law has convinced two of my grandson's that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy.

I get that more and more often, especially from students who weren't alive when it happened or were too young to remember it. Some of the 9-11 conspiracy theories are so wacked out anyone with basic knowledge of aircraft, metallurgy or physics can debunk them. I usually have to do a yearly demonstration with plate steel and oxy acetylene to demonstrate that you don't have to melt steel to make it soft and pliable. That is to combat the "jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel crowd".

First of all, I would like to make clear that I don't think that this is the sort of thing that politicians should attempt to introduce legislation to combat. I think that this, generally speaking, comes down to individual responsibility. Check the article you're reading for accuracy before you plaster it all over Facebook or Twitter. Make sure that your news can be corroborated by more than one source before you accept it as truth. If a story smells fishy, it doesn't take long to conduct a Google search and find other sources to either support or disprove what you just read.

Teaching young people to do just that is largely the responsibility of parents. They need to step up and take responsibility in order to instruct their child with regards to this sort of thing. It cannot be expected that schools will do the work for them.

Years ago parents were telling kids to NOT TRUST ANYTHING ON TEH INTERNETS

Now these same parents have aged and will trust a meme on Facebook to believe Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop.

KLDC10 wrote:

First of all, I would like to make clear that I don't think that this is the sort of thing that politicians should attempt to introduce legislation to combat. I think that this, generally speaking, comes down to individual responsibility. Check the article you're reading for accuracy before you plaster it all over Facebook or Twitter. Make sure that your news can be corroborated by more than one source before you accept it as truth. If a story smells fishy, it doesn't take long to conduct a Google search and find other sources to either support or disprove what you just read.

Teaching young people to do just that is largely the responsibility of parents. They need to step up and take responsibility in order to instruct their child with regards to this sort of thing. It cannot be expected that schools will do the work for them.

Dream on. In a country (USA) where a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science, and are incapable of informing their kids about the mysteries of sex, talking about parental responsibility for education in logic is almost laughable.

Do we depend on parents to educate our kids in maths, sciences, geography, second languages? Why not?

Teaching students how to think, how to distinguish wheat from chaff, is too important to be left only to parents.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dream on. In a country (USA) where a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science, and are incapable of informing their kids about the mysteries of sex, talking about parental responsibility for education in logic is almost laughable.

Do we depend on parents to educate our kids in maths, sciences, geography, second languages? Why not?

Teaching students how to think, how to distinguish wheat from chaff, is too important to be left only to parents.

That's why I said they need to step up and take responsibility. Because right now too many of them are abdicating their responsibility and expecting that someone else will step up and fill the gap they left. If it means schools running parental classes on an evening then so be it, but parents need to parent properly.

No, of course not, but I think there's a significant difference between subjects like Math and History and basic life skills. Children rely on their teachers because they are experts in their field (OK, usually Elementary education is broader, but High School teachers, generally speaking, specialize in one subject). With a well-designed curriculum, analytical skills etc. can be instilled in children at the same time. But in my view that doesn't mean that parents can just sit back and do nothing.

I agree that teaching students how to think is important, but to counter your point, I don't think it should be left solely to the government either.

KLDC10 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dream on. In a country (USA) where a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science, and are incapable of informing their kids about the mysteries of sex, talking about parental responsibility for education in logic is almost laughable.

Do we depend on parents to educate our kids in maths, sciences, geography, second languages? Why not?

Teaching students how to think, how to distinguish wheat from chaff, is too important to be left only to parents.

That's why I said they need to step up and take responsibility. Because right now too many of them are abdicating their responsibility and expecting that someone else will step up and fill the gap they left. If it means schools running parental classes on an evening then so be it, but parents need to parent properly.

No, of course not, but I think there's a significant difference between subjects like Math and History and basic life skills. Children rely on their teachers because they are experts in their field (OK, usually Elementary education is broader, but High School teachers, generally speaking, specialize in one subject). With a well-designed curriculum, analytical skills etc. can be instilled in children at the same time. But in my view that doesn't mean that parents can just sit back and do nothing.

I agree that teaching students how to think is important, but to counter your point, I don't think it should be left solely to the government either.

So you would have schools hold night classes on parenting, but resist teaching kids what poor parents fail to teach them?

I am not suggesting that the job of teaching children should be left to government alone.

But many kids get NO teaching from parents, except by poor example.

Our schools should teach at least a basic amount of a wide variety of subjects.

I suggest that a class on how to navigate the Internet, with sufficient training in logic and the recognition of false, fake and biased material, should be prominent among class offerings at appropriate ages.

coolian2 wrote:

Years ago parents were telling kids to NOT TRUST ANYTHING ON TEH INTERNETS

Now these same parents have aged and will trust a meme on Facebook to believe Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop.

Or that trump colluded with Russians even though 7 months later we still have no evidence.

Freakysh wrote:

[
Or that trump colluded with Russians even though 7 months later we still have no evidence.

Do you know what Mr. Mueller knows?

BobPatterson wrote:

I suggest that a class on how to navigate the Internet, with sufficient training in logic and the recognition of false, fake and biased material, should be prominent among class offerings at appropriate ages.

Bob, what would that entail?

What signs would class a website as accurate?

What signs would lead you to believe a website as having fake news?

Do you have some examples of websites that can be trusted?

Please be specific with your answers

BobPatterson wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

[
Or that trump colluded with Russians even though 7 months later we still have no evidence.

Do you know what Mr. Mueller knows?

Sweet FA? No I know more than sweet FA

I suggest that a class on how to navigate the Internet, with sufficient training in logic and the recognition of false, fake and biased material, should be prominent among class offerings at appropriate ages.

Freakysh wrote:

Bob, what would that entail?

What signs would class a website as accurate?

What signs would lead you to believe a website as having fake news?

Here is a course outline: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/tutor ... et-content

Freakysh wrote:

Do you have some examples of websites that can be trusted?

Debunking: http://www.snopes.com/
Evolution: http://darwiniana.org/
Moths: http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/
National Pastime: http://mlb.mlb.com/
Liberal News Reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/?cache=false See NOTE below.
When Lights Go Out: https://outagemap.bge.com/ Requires emergency electric generator.

NOTE: All websites, even those of reputable scientific organization, require careful consideration with respect to accuracy. There is a difference for instance between a scientific site that posts only peer reviewed material and permits criticism and rebuttals, vs. a site that does not.

Even excellent sites such as Wikipedia do contain errors, so judgment in required when using them as sources.

All "news" websites are suspect until confirmation of stories are overwhelmingly accepted as accurate.

BobPatterson wrote:

I suggest that a class on how to navigate the Internet, with sufficient training in logic and the recognition of false, fake and biased material, should be prominent among class offerings at appropriate ages.

Freakysh wrote:

Bob, what would that entail?

What signs would class a website as accurate?

What signs would lead you to believe a website as having fake news?

Here is a course outline: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/tutor ... et-content

Freakysh wrote:

Do you have some examples of websites that can be trusted?

Debunking: http://www.snopes.com/
Evolution: http://darwiniana.org/
Moths: http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/
National Pastime: http://mlb.mlb.com/
Liberal News Reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/?cache=false See NOTE below.
When Lights Go Out: https://outagemap.bge.com/ Requires emergency electric generator.

NOTE: All websites, even those of reputable scientific organization, require careful consideration with respect to accuracy. There is a difference for instance between a scientific site that posts only peer reviewed material and permits criticism and rebuttals, vs. a site that does not.

Even excellent sites such as Wikipedia do contain errors, so judgment in required when using them as sources.

All "news" websites are suspect until confirmation of stories are overwhelmingly accepted as accurate.

Thanks, you have listed Washington post as reputable.

I'm not sure there would be too many fake news sites trying to discredit moths or put out misinformation about blackouts.

You're certainly a quirky guy bob, I appreciate your unique view of reality

Freakysh wrote:

What signs would class a website as accurate?

That they quote and identify their sources.

That they are not promoting their writers/ reporters/ news presenters as 'stars'.

Journalism in the US, and much of the world, has lowered the standards of reporting news to a level that would get most of them thrown out of Journalism 101 in 1965.

The reporter is NOT the story, the story is told by people involved.

That is why FoxNews list Hannity, Fox and Friends, The Five as entertainment programs in their official paperwork.

When news media types 'discuss' an issue/ a story and give their 'insight' or opinion or view - that isn't NEWS it is OPINION.

Some of the best reporting on US politics that I find is BBC/ Reuters.

Frankly I can't find a 'major' news outlet in the US which isn't engaged primarily in entertainment and opinion.

Freakysh wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

Years ago parents were telling kids to NOT TRUST ANYTHING ON TEH INTERNETS

Now these same parents have aged and will trust a meme on Facebook to believe Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop.

Or that trump colluded with Russians even though 7 months later we still have no evidence.

Thank you for your insight, Mr Mueller. OH WAIT A SECOND.

(But her emails!)

Education is the key, enlighten people so they are able to judge for themselves what is true news and isn't. And there needs to be a new system in place which rewards real news.

BobPatterson wrote:

falstaff wrote:

I am a high school teacher and even though I teach Automotive Technology this stuff comes up.

With online social media not going away and only growing, how should we combat false information? I feel all this made up nonsense is dangerous because more and more people only read online info and any idiot can publish anything and look professional.

Does your high school have a mandatory class for all students along the lines of "Logic, Reality and the Internet" in which a number of nonsensical themes are discussed and evaluated, and students are taught how to discover the truth?

What percentage of your school's student do you think might be aware that Snopes.com exists?

False information must be combated with the truth. But people, especially our youth, must be taught how and where to find the truth.

logic 101 is taught at the university level, if it was taught in high school it would backfire on the teachers. The professor i had, would have us take our favorite newspaper and pick one article a day and point out all the obvious fallacies in the article we did that each day for a full semester. Needless to say, you become really good at detecting flawed logic.

Anyway it's easy to do, when the writer isn't in your face. If you use logic principles in person, say face to face all you are going to do is end up getting someone really angry at you. Anyway, i gave up trying to use it, people want to believe what they want to believe. That's part of human nature.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Does your high school have a mandatory class for all students along the lines of "Logic, Reality and the Internet" in which a number of nonsensical themes are discussed and evaluated, and students are taught how to discover the truth?

logic 101 is taught at the university level, if it was taught in high school it would backfire on the teachers. The professor i had, would have us take our favorite newspaper and pick one article a day and point out all the obvious fallacies in the article we did that each day for a full semester. Needless to say, you become really good at detecting flawed logic.

Thanks for your comments. That sounds like a really good Logic 101 course.

I don't understand why you think a similar course would backfire at the high school level.

Can you tell us why you think that?

BobPatterson wrote:

I don't understand why you think a similar course would backfire at the high school level.

Can you tell us why you think that?

Hope you don't mind if I jump in, I know you were asking DLFREEBIRD, but the one major difference I could see is that college is a choice while high is compulsory. So you are dealing with people who have no choice but to be there and any topic you choose to use to guide people on learning critical thought could be seen as you trying to influence them, their thoughts. I can see parents (or someone wanting to disrupt things) taking issue for any way a teacher might guide critical thought and review process.

Tugg

BobPatterson wrote:

Dream on. In a country (USA) where a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science, and are incapable of informing their kids about the mysteries of sex, talking about parental responsibility for education in logic is almost laughable.

Do we depend on parents to educate our kids in maths, sciences, geography, second languages? Why not?

Teaching students how to think, how to distinguish wheat from chaff, is too important to be left only to parents.

Bob, it seems to me that you are interpreting some very healthy cultural characteristics of the USA as mass stupidity. I think this diminishes your arguments. What you call the "rejection of normative science" I call a very healthy distrust of the people who make policy in our many levels of government. We should debate this topic.

My premise is that the majority of people do not reject what you call "normative science". They reject the selective use of "normative science" in the pursuit of whatever political agenda that whoever is in power has at any moment in time. In my opinion the current version of "scientist" has become such a political animal that most people reject them as scientists altogether. Most "scientists" today don't actually do real science. Take for example, the scientific icon of the left - Bill Nye the Science Guy - not a scientist. http://www.dailywire.com/news/13954/9-r ... exit-modal. This casual approach to knowledge and science has done great damage to the reputation of scientists by the public, IMO.

Anyway, I invite you to debate this. Pick a topic where as you say, "a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science". Lets talk about a specific instance and see if we can agree on the reason the "science is being rejected"

Cheers

socalgeo wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dream on. In a country (USA) where a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science, and are incapable of informing their kids about the mysteries of sex, talking about parental responsibility for education in logic is almost laughable.

Bob, it seems to me that you are interpreting some very healthy cultural characteristics of the USA as mass stupidity. I think this diminishes your arguments. What you call the "rejection of normative science" I call a very healthy distrust of the people who make policy in our many levels of government. We should debate this topic.

Anyway, I invite you to debate this. Pick a topic where as you say, "a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science". Lets talk about a specific instance and see if we can agree on the reason the "science is being rejected"

The words "mass stupidity" are yours, and I am happy to agree with you.

No, I will not agree to a formal debate on the matter. I have previously spent about 8 years doing so and I realize that the chance of swaying a deluded mind is infinitesimal.

The rejection of science in the USA (in varying degree) with regard to biological evolution, climate change and global warming, and GM foods/crops for political or religious reasons has been well documented. I see no need to debate that.

I have witnessed at first hand the crime (yes, a crime) of parents teaching their children to reject all teaching of evolutionary biology because they deemed it in opposition to the teachings of the Bible. This is principally a phenomena in the USA. Virtually all other first-world nations accept evolutionary theory and, while the fundamentalist opposition to evolution exists everywhere, it is but a minor annoyance in most of the world. The other major opposition to evolution is found in the world of fundamentalist Islam, particularly in Turkey.

A few links on the subject:

My out-of-date website on Evolutionary Biology: http://darwiniana.org/

Guardian Article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -us-survey about American rejection of science

Theodosius Dobzhansky: http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/ ... lution.pdf
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution - American Biology Teacher 35:3 (1973)

BobPatterson wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dream on. In a country (USA) where a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science, and are incapable of informing their kids about the mysteries of sex, talking about parental responsibility for education in logic is almost laughable.

Bob, it seems to me that you are interpreting some very healthy cultural characteristics of the USA as mass stupidity. I think this diminishes your arguments. What you call the "rejection of normative science" I call a very healthy distrust of the people who make policy in our many levels of government. We should debate this topic.

Anyway, I invite you to debate this. Pick a topic where as you say, "a majority of parents reject at least some aspects of normative science". Lets talk about a specific instance and see if we can agree on the reason the "science is being rejected"

The words "mass stupidity" are yours, and I am happy to agree with you.

No, I will not agree to a formal debate on the matter. I have previously spent about 8 years doing so and I realize that the chance of swaying a deluded mind is infinitesimal.

The rejection of science in the USA (in varying degree) with regard to biological evolution, climate change and global warming, and GM foods/crops for political or religious reasons has been well documented. I see no need to debate that.

I have witnessed at first hand the crime (yes, a crime) of parents teaching their children to reject all teaching of evolutionary biology because they deemed it in opposition to the teachings of the Bible. This is principally a phenomena in the USA. Virtually all other first-world nations accept evolutionary theory and, while the fundamentalist opposition to evolution exists everywhere, it is but a minor annoyance in most of the world. The other major opposition to evolution is found in the world of fundamentalist Islam, particularly in Turkey.

A few links on the subject:

My out-of-date website on Evolutionary Biology: http://darwiniana.org/

Guardian Article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -us-survey about American rejection of science

Theodosius Dobzhansky: http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/ ... lution.pdf
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution - American Biology Teacher 35:3 (1973)

Bob,

I looked at your web sites and they are very interesting. I personally believe in the THEORY of evolution. But thats actually the thing. You passionately assert it as fact, and the hard truth is that while the evidence is strong, it has never actually been scientifically proven. From this NY Times opinion piece:

"Contrary to popular belief, many people disagree with the theory of general evolution, and the idea that all opponents base their views on religious belief is groundless. Michael Denton is neither a creationist nor an evangelical Christian, and his book is one of several to challenge evolution on scientific terms. Moreover, having religious beliefs does not preclude the ability to reason scientifically. Many great scientists - Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier and Louis Pasteur, to name a few -were devoutly religious.

Even in Darwin's day, scientists who opposed evolution were charged with irrationality and religiosity. But they did not attack evolution on religious grounds; rather, they protested its lack of scientific proof and pointed to the evidence that supported a typological nature. The creationists were attacked as scientific heretics, while supporters of evolution - refusing to admit the lack of evidence - became the true heretics, replacing scientific foundations with metaphysics."

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/opini ... 51289.html

I understand that you aren't up for a debate on this, and that's fine, but my point is not that any of the issues you support aren't important or real, it is that they have become POLITICAL issues, and thus non-scientific. in my opinion the lack of trust in the political class to manage these political issues is justified.

socalgeo wrote:

it is that they have become POLITICAL issues, and thus non-scientific.

So when a school politically/religiously REQUIRES that creationism be taught alongside evolution in science class you feel that is the political class that is wrong and should be opposed?

Tugg

socalgeo wrote:

I personally believe in the THEORY of evolution. But thats actually the thing. You passionately assert it as fact, and the hard truth is that while the evidence is strong, it has never actually been scientifically proven. From this NY Times opinion piece:

By stating that you BELIEVE in the theory of evolution, you merely demonstrate that you do not know what a scientific theory is.

One does not believe in a theory (which is an explanation for a body of facts), rather one accepts the facts as currently understood.

In biology, one does not PROVE a theory or even a fact. One attempts to disprove claims and, when they repeatedly withstand attempts at disproof, they are accepted, provisionally, as facts or the truth. But they always, ALWAYS, are in danger of being refuted by better or newer evidence.

Biological evolution, is unlike the Bible. It requires no belief.

Evolution is a fact (a very large body of them).

Tugger wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

it is that they have become POLITICAL issues, and thus non-scientific.

So when a school politically/religiously REQUIRES that creationism be taught alongside evolution in science class you feel that is the political class that is wrong and should be opposed?

Tugg

If the school is requiring that creationism be taught as fact then yes, the political class should be opposed. If it is being taught as an alternative theory that has less scientific evidence than the theory of evolution then it would be a reasonable lesson to teach, in my opinion. A potentially valuable lesson on the scientific method and how it has been applied to these two, not necessarily incompatible theories.

socalgeo wrote:

being taught as an alternative theory that has less scientific evidence than the theory of evolution then it would be a reasonable lesson to teach, in my opinion.

And here you and I diverge drastically. There has been no theory with scientific basis (i.e. direct repeatable observation in the real and natural world) that has been presented that holds equivalent status to evolution. It may be a theory, but a theory is not just something someone says or that has been written down as suppostion stated as fact, theory is based on real observations.

Evolution is not to speak against religion or god, it is religionists that have the issue and appear to fear that anything taught against their written word, their faith, will weaken or lessen said faith. If this was not so then why do religion's not teach other religious teachings as alternative to their teachings? It appears to be only a one way street.

To me and to many (most) it is not reasonable to teach such as "alternative".

Tugg

I fight fake information by asking questions and checking multiple sources.

BobPatterson wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

[
Or that trump colluded with Russians even though 7 months later we still have no evidence.

Do you know what Mr. Mueller knows?

[/quote]

Here's a person that has the slightest idea what collusion is..

D. Jr certainly colluded, that's not necessarily illegal...but what he did was deceptive and lying on his security clearance forms (along with Kushner, Manafort as well as Trump) as to meeting Russians Re:the 2016 Election. His story went from...

"It was about adoption..." to..
"Okay, it was about the dirt on Hillary" to
"okay there was only four people there.." to
"okay there was only five people there.." to
"okay there was only six people there.." to
"okay there was only seven people there.." to
"Okay, Okay there were EIGHT people there.." ...

...and you'd still trust this guy? PT Barnum has a mantra that fits people who over look liars like that... like a glove.

I could go on with this collusion/Russiagate tragedy..but I'll leave to one analyst.

Instead of Pearl Harbor...imagine if Santa Monica, Malibu residents woke up on Dec. 7th 1941 and saw the entire Japanese fleet strewn along Santa Monica bay...

The 2016 Election, the hack damage that was done...is that metaphor in the cyberworld except, they actually went on to come aground and stormed the beaches!

BN747

BobPatterson wrote:

Do you know what Mr. Mueller knows?

Here's a person (Freakish) that has the slightest idea what collusion is..

D. Jr certainly colluded, that's not necessarily illegal...but what he did was deceptive and lying on his security clearance forms (along with Kushner, Manafort as well as Trump) as to meeting Russians Re:the 2016 Election. His story went from...

"It was about adoption..." to..
"Okay, it was about the dirt on Hillary" to
"okay there was only four people there.." to
"okay there was only five people there.." to
"okay there was only six people there.." to
"okay there was only seven people there.." to
"Okay, Okay there were EIGHT people there.." ...

...and you'd still trust this guy? PT Barnum has a mantra that fits people who over look liars like that... like a glove.

I could go on with this collusion/Russiagate tragedy..but I'll leave to one analyst.

Instead of Pearl Harbor...imagine if Santa Monica, Malibu residents woke up on Dec. 7th 1941 and saw the entire Japanese fleet strewn along Santa Monica bay...

The 2016 Election, the hack damage that was done...is that metaphor in the cyberworld except, they actually went on to come aground and stormed the beaches!

BN747

rfields5421 wrote:

falstaff wrote:

Over the last few years there has been a a growing amount of fake or misleading information spread online.

Growing, Maybe.

New - definitely not.

Fake Information has been a tool of people in power to keep power since Christ was a corporal. Heck, his execution was largely based on 'fake news'.

For starters...one MUST accept that 'Power & Conspiracy' are like a solid and permanently married couple, Husband & Wife or Husband & Husband or Wife & Wife...choose your pairing.

Unless you've seen TRUE power up close and personal, you are already behind the curve - and perhaps too far back to ever catch on.

It comes in many forms, sometimes easily to spot..sometimes quite difficult to detect no matter how hard you scrutinize that 'what is known' to be fact.

My first observations came into view when as a young USAF Airman abroad working Protocol duties at 13th Air Force Command Post...and witnessing first hand Congressmen
on a fact finding mission abroad. Prior to this, I'd been a kid who read at least 2 newspapers daily. So here I was witnessing the conduct of people who I had only read about.
They were nothing like was expected...but carrying themselves like a bunch of 6year-olds on any playground around the globe.

Another time was when I owned my travel business and as one Eastern Airlines largest accounts out west, I found myself suddenly treated like royalty by the carrier - yep, I acted like a spoiled brat with (what seemed like) unlimited access. Did I manipulate some things and favor to my liking? Bet your ass I did.

It only grew from there...

After working for a major film studio, I could not believe I was able to make one call and have several First Class passengers jostled about so that my group of people could
be seated to their liking. (Damn sure could not do that as an Agency owner, maybe Eastern would have obliged if I had requested such).

But it went further as I was exposed to more and more of the realm of the truly influentials.

Bottom line, honesty doesn't always pay and it isn't always the best policy - but in the world of common people, 'honesty & valor will definitely get you farther than the adverse, by a galactic mile! But as you rise, you now choose a divide between when and where to displays 'honesty and/or valor'...or omit it OR outright lie.

Because as you excel, the number of people on your heels (or after what you have, only increases...that number will not decrease) - that's capitalism for you.

So Fake News, well is only just the first bite of a giant sh*t sandwich, there's more to come, MUCH more. But as someone said about misinformation predates Jesus Christ (if you believe in that sort of thing. Humans have been lying when ever there is a group of more than two since the cave man days.

Sometimes, people don't want to hear the truth.

I had a good friend who once dated a girl I knew a lot about. When he told me he had been dating her and that had asked her to marry her and she accepted...I pulled him aside
and told him, Bro, she like does guys for cash.. I even had hooked her up with a few pals. Yes, I had a few rounds too. Abruptly took off and NEVER spoke to me again.

Well, my logic was...I'd wanna know! But he didn't need to hear that and proceeded down the aisle. I hope they are still happily married. She was an awesome girl but he was my bro!
She may have slammed him like he had never been rocked before...and that's all the convincing he needed. Women CAN DO THAT! Good for her! In retrospect with wisdom added,
I should have kept my mouth shut! But that could have easily yielded in a "Why didn't you tell me" explosion after the fact. The perfect 'Damned if you do and Damned if you Don't 'scenario!


BN747

BN747 wrote:

Here's a person (Freakish) that has the slightest idea what collusion is..

May I offer a gentle criticism?

Learning how to quote properly is important if you wish to quote others.

Patience may be required. Your posts don't improve by posting them twice.

Try to be brief. It helps against posting a confusion of ideas.

Cheers.

Bob,

I have no idea how that occurred! I simply attempted to edit my original and zap! Dual posts!

I've been posting here since my membership...like 15 years and never had that happen .. my two posts above were to be all in one,
But it keep joining my comments with the quoted text...

Mods? Wassup with that?

Might I add, I tried to delete the dual post TWICE...and met with the reply, 'you cannot delete this post'

BN747

BN747 wrote:

Bob,

I have no idea how that occurred! I simply attempted to edit my original and zap! Dual posts!

I've been posting here since my membership...like 15 years and never had that happen .. my two posts above were to be all in one,
But it keep joining my comments with the quoted text...

Mods? Wassup with that?

Might I add, I tried to delete the dual post TWICE...and met with the reply, 'you cannot delete this post'

BN747

I've had it happen a couple of time, I think because the system was very slow and I hit the submit button a second time.

If you catch it quickly enough you can hit the "edit" button, blank out the lengthy message, and just type "duplicate post".

Not that it really matters a great deal. It happens to a lot of people. I've seen triples!

Fake info as in ''stalone died'' or as in ''the earth is flat'' or as in ''the crashed plane was a 737'' (turns out to be md80 or sth). There are always gonna be fake news, and the big channels are gonna take real stories as far as they can if they are headline worthy.