Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it possible to be an intellectual and disbelieve the evidence that proves the existence of evolution?

Well, I don't grant the premise of your question.

First, nothing proves the existence of evolution. It's a theory that has been refined and will continue to be refined until a theory that works better replaces it.

Second, disbelieving evidence is an act of delusion. Evidence is facts and data, that can't be simply disbelieved away.

Now, if you're asking if an intellectual can have concerns as to the certainty of evolution as the mechanism for the development of species, then I think they can. Some of the current ways the science is taught fails to emphasize the procedural and dynamic nature of science and seems to imply that evolution is a known fact, much like the capitals of european countries are facts. Additionally, I think many intellectuals are still theists, and may see evolution simply as the tools used by god to change species.

On the other hand, the idea that evolution is not nearly well supported enough to supplant the idea that an intelligent creator designed all species is a pretty weak position. It overlooks the divided between reason and faith, science and theology, and empiricism and conjecture.

What I mean, by this, is that it's not required that you agree that evolution is the mechanism for speciation, but the way in which you articulate your beliefs is going to determine if it's an intellctual position based an inadequete evidience, or simply a knee jerk application of faith.

Well said.

Evolution is a theory in the exact same sense that gravity is a theory. "Not proven" in the sense that nothing in science is ever proven. But still a bedrock concept in our understanding of the universe.

Mannahnin wrote:Evolution is a theory in the exact same sense that gravity is a theory. "Not proven" in the sense that nothing in science is ever proven. But still a bedrock concept in our understanding of the universe.

Of course it is. That doesn't mean it's holy writ. Certainly the vast majority of anti-evolutionists are, if not ignorant, certainly not highly intellectual. I would make sure to clarify that it's not a question of "believing" or "proving" evolution, but rather the extent to which you find it a useful model for explaining the data you have.

A few decades back, whales were a bit of a leap of faith for evolutionary biologists. It was assumed that we would find the fossil evidence for semi-marine mammals, but there wasn't much evidence. Of course, with the opening of fields in both Pakistan and the central asian former Soviet Republics (not the first places I'd look for anything) there has been a full range of fossils in intermediate steps.

Now, there are plenty of areas for which evolution does not have a solid answer, but history has shown us that problems with evolutionary theory keep getting resolved. My point was merely that it's possible for an intellectual to not have a slavish faith in the theory. It is, I should also make clear, very difficult to argue successful that evolution has not been a great way of interpreting the data accumulated over the centuries.

Frazzled wrote:Because its the only big news outlet with a right wing slant.

Ah, so it's only okay to violate the purpose and credibility of the industry if you do it with a left wing slant.

Got it.

I guess I'd like to point out that most traditional media aren't necessarily partisan.

You're kidding, right?

I mean, I'm not a Republican, but even to me the the partisanship is so strong it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Because its the only big news outlet with a right wing slant.

Ah, so it's only okay to violate the purpose and credibility of the industry if you do it with a left wing slant.

Correct.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Because its the only big news outlet with a right wing slant.

Ah, so it's only okay to violate the purpose and credibility of the industry if you do it with a left wing slant.

Got it.

Also because Fox is demonstrably inaccurate on an epic scale. This may only be Wikipedia, but read the section on studies and reports.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I'd like to point out that most traditional media aren't necessarily partisan.

You're kidding, right?

I mean, I'm not a Republican, but even to me the the partisanship is so strong it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Again, choosing a side doesn't have to be partisan. If I write an article about how the espoused beliefs of the GOP are destructive it doesn't mean that I'm siding with the Democrats. Similarly, if I write an article about how I find the Democrat economic position to be beneficial it doesn't mean I am supporting them.

A good portion of media 'partisanship' is founded in the heavily delineated idea of what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Because its the only big news outlet with a right wing slant.

Ah, so it's only okay to violate the purpose and credibility of the industry if you do it with a left wing slant.

Got it.

I guess I'd like to point out that most traditional media aren't necessarily partisan.

You're kidding, right?

I mean, I'm not a Republican, but even to me the the partisanship is so strong it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I think if you read my whole post, you'd see me spend four paragraphs explaining the difference between a partisan lean and an ideological lean. I think the last liberal republican was Sen Jafee from Rhode Island, and while there are plenty of Blue Dogs left, nearly all tend to be more centrist than right wing. Newspapers are run and written by well educated people. Well educated people are more likely to be liberal. Liberals are more likely to be Democrats. That's a chain of causation that is different from "media = democrat."

I always find it funny when the nature of media bias and the failure of objectivity is brought up. Both sides do it, to be sure, and it always sounds so weak. The media is going to cover McCain and his missteps every second from here on out because Obama has the lead with the clock winding down, and is just running his ground game. McCain needs a turnover and a great two minute drill, to continue the football analogy. Imagine there are two football games on TV. Both have 4 minutes left with one team up by a score. In on, the winning team has the ball, while in the other, the losing team has the ball. Absent any stake in one or the other teams, which are you going to focus on? The one that matters, right?

Let's also not forget that the press is not barred from bias or partisanship. The ideal of journalistic objectivity is a mostly theoretical ideal that is hard to meet. It's also a self imposed goal. People are stupid, but they know that there is bias, and they know to look out. Once you leave hard news, the gloves completely come off. Look at talk radio: it's dressed as news but is little more than a platform for conservativism. Same thing with the blogosphere, only for liberals. The goal of the media is to sell advertising. Getting people to read/watch their media is how they do it, and they're not going to lose revenue to simply beat the drum for one candidate. If the people like a series of stories, then the media will give them more of it.

Additionally, the idea that the only reason there are more negative stories about one candidate or more positives about the other is due to bias ignores the possibility that one of the candidates simply is correct on more issues or has been involved in fewer scandals. Does anybody seriously think journalists wouldn't break a story that could hurt Obama if they found it? The free press is part of the marketplace of ideas. The idea is that with no restrictions, the best (or at least most popular) ideas will become best known. It's why we have free speech, and it's practiced by the press by having hundreds of media outlets all trying to scoop each other. No matter how many stories are written, what really matters is what stories are read, and what stories are believed.

First up, Orson Scott Card is an absolute loon. Utterly bonkers, obsessed with homosexual conspiracies, completely contradicts himself from moment to moment, and not only is it enough to disregard anything he says, extra scrutiny should be put into anything he does say, even if you otherwise agreed with the argument. He’s just that nutty.

Second up, the central argument he makes here is pathetic. The media disagrees with my personal view on the issue therefore the media is biased and pro-democrat and that’s why my side isn’t winning. Childish, really. Impossible to reconcile with the coverage of the Iraq war, for a start. Also impossible to reconcile with the coverage given to Wright, in contrast to the almost non-existant coverage of McCain’s connection to figures such as Falwell and other ultra-conservative religious figures, or his connection to Charles Keating.

Third up, his argument that the banking failure was the result of loans given out entirely by Freddie and Fannie. To his credit Card hasn’t run the ‘bad loans were to them blacks’ angle this story first had when it debuted on New Republic, but that’s not really good enough, because it’s still quite wrong. As the article posted by Mannahin points out, this is the product of the financial sector developing and using financial instruments with reckless enthusiasm, and this came to control their lending practices, as loans could be on-sold in tranched packages to free up more money up-front for lending.

gorgon wrote:Here's a free hint from a copywriter -- perhaps you shouldn't have gone negative 24/7 during a national crisis? Maybe it alienated swing voters at a time they were looking for answers and leadership? Maybe a crisis isn't a time to whip up the base, but a time to be a calming influence and reach out to the middle?

It isn't just running the attack ads in the middle of a crisis. Bush ran a strong series of attack ads on Kerry in the midst of the low-point of Iraq. The difference is the swiftboat campaign and flipflop liberal stuff was well crafted political sleaze. McCain's stuff has been poorly crafted political sleaze.

Lemartes wrote:If you want the right wing watch FOX if you want the left version MSNBC. It's sad that when you watch the so called news you have to put an internal filter on. I briefly glimpsed a Palin interview with Hannity on FOX and you talk about groveling I was half expecting him to go over and give her a back rub. At least when Wolf Blietzer? interviewed McCain he asked some tough questions and McCain acknowledeged that at the end of the interview. CNN is the only news station I can stand to even watch these days and even then you have to keep a low filter on.

MSNBC is pretty mediocre, but it isn't really comparable to FOX. If something were to go badly wrong in my life and I found myself watching MSNBC I could still come away with more information than not, although I'd have to filter the commentators a little. That isn't possible with FOX.

To put it another way, Huffington Post has a marked left wing bias, but it's hardly DailyKos. FOX is more biased than even DailyKos, and is likely lying to you as well.

His timing has been poor. Though not necessarily in the context of advertising. It will be interesting to see if he takes advantage of the weekend reprieve he's been given by the development with Obama's grandmother. Would be a great time to reinvent, or at least explain his tax policies. Especially since I suspect Obama is going to use that 30-minute prime time slot he bought for that exact purpose.

However, I also suspect that there aren't many left in the McCain camp who really know how to cope with the failure of their ideology. At least not in a way which doesn't hand Obama the election.

Polonius wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Evolution is a theory in the exact same sense that gravity is a theory. "Not proven" in the sense that nothing in science is ever proven. But still a bedrock concept in our understanding of the universe.

Of course it is. That doesn't mean it's holy writ. Certainly the vast majority of anti-evolutionists are, if not ignorant, certainly not highly intellectual. I would make sure to clarify that it's not a question of "believing" or "proving" evolution, but rather the extent to which you find it a useful model for explaining the data you have.

A few decades back, whales were a bit of a leap of faith for evolutionary biologists. It was assumed that we would find the fossil evidence for semi-marine mammals, but there wasn't much evidence. Of course, with the opening of fields in both Pakistan and the central asian former Soviet Republics (not the first places I'd look for anything) there has been a full range of fossils in intermediate steps.

Now, there are plenty of areas for which evolution does not have a solid answer, but history has shown us that problems with evolutionary theory keep getting resolved. My point was merely that it's possible for an intellectual to not have a slavish faith in the theory. It is, I should also make clear, very difficult to argue successful that evolution has not been a great way of interpreting the data accumulated over the centuries.

To belief in evolution because of the supporting evidence is not faith and does not preclude changing one's mind if the facts should change.

Let's also be honest that old white guy as candidate is not nearly as interesting as young (half)black candidate. It has the allure of being an anomaly in presidential politics at this level. His winning or losing is certainly going to be something watched and studied for awhile.

sebster wrote:

gorgon wrote:Here's a free hint from a copywriter -- perhaps you shouldn't have gone negative 24/7 during a national crisis? Maybe it alienated swing voters at a time they were looking for answers and leadership? Maybe a crisis isn't a time to whip up the base, but a time to be a calming influence and reach out to the middle?

It isn't just running the attack ads in the middle of a crisis. Bush ran a strong series of attack ads on Kerry in the midst of the low-point of Iraq. The difference is the swiftboat campaign and flipflop liberal stuff was well crafted political sleaze. McCain's stuff has been poorly crafted political sleaze.

Perhaps, but Iraq in 2004 wasn't the instant crisis that the world economy is now. The credit crisis was a gigantic blowup during the campaign. Iraq was a pre-existing grind.

People can say the crisis made things an auto-lose for McCain, but I have to believe a Clinton or Reagan (and their respective staffs, obviously) would have turned the tables on a less experienced opponent in that situation.

dogma wrote:However, I also suspect that there aren't many left in the McCain camp who really know how to cope with the failure of their ideology. At least not in a way which doesn't hand Obama the election.

The GOP's approach to the mid-terms in 2010 will be interesting. They might actually go farther right. But eventually I have to think the GOP's going to have to move toward the center again. As I've said before, the demographics in coming years are favorable for the Dems.

David Frum made similar comments on Colbert the other night. The GOP needs to refocus, and stop driving younger voters and minorities away.

gorgon wrote:Perhaps, but Iraq in 2004 wasn't the instant crisis that the world economy is now. The credit crisis was a gigantic blowup during the campaign. Iraq was a pre-existing grind.

People can say the crisis made things an auto-lose for McCain, but I have to believe a Clinton or Reagan (and their respective staffs, obviously) would have turned the tables on a less experienced opponent in that situation.

Certainly, for a more skilled campaigner like Clinton or Reagan this wouldn't have been the disaster its been for McCain. That's where I was saying that one key difference has been in the woeful nature of McCain's attack ads. Credit should go to Obama as well, as he's proven hard to knock off message.

Interestingly, all the ads I see on Direct are Obama ads linking McCain to Bush. I don't see any McCain ads. I guess "negative campaigning" is in the eye of the beerholder.

That's a fairly legitimate criticism, given McCain's "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" comment.

Well they show different adds in different places. That makes me think that McCain is spending money in other media markets than yours.

We seem to get more McCain mail and ads. The Dems have a bigger warchest, so that says to me that they're spending their money elsewhere. Heck, I would too, as Obama is up almost double-digits in PA. But McCain's camp insists they can win in PA and are still spending a lot of resources here.

I dunno if they're trying to give the down-ballot people a boost or if they somehow think all the polls are wrong and they're legitimately in striking distance. It's hard to know what they're looking at if it's the latter.

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, all the ads I see on Direct are Obama ads linking McCain to Bush. I don't see any McCain ads. I guess "negative campaigning" is in the eye of the beerholder.

I'm a wineholder at the moment.

Everyone judges from their own perspective and they are often wrong. It's what social psychology calls making attributions -- which means we attribute motives and characteristics to people based on our observation of their behaviour without account for the situation.

On DISH Network Obama has a 24 hour ad loop channel. It's all positive- talking about his economic plans, healthcare, and his background.

There are regular ads too, and they give you the option to hit a button for more information, which switches you to that channel.

I don't think the media is always taking sides. If they're on any side, it's their own. Nowadays, news is just entertainment. They want you to watch/read so their advertisers get their ads in front of you and they make more money. Therefore, they only report on things that will make people watch. So, they paint the bleakest picture possible because the general public will only turn on CNN if they think the sky is falling.

Yes, news is a form of entertainment these days.

In the 1920s when BBC news announcers wore evening dress (even though it was radio) they often started the evening news and said, "There is no news, today so instead here is a programme of light music."

Funny or scary?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, all the ads I see on Direct are Obama ads linking McCain to Bush. I don't see any McCain ads. I guess "negative campaigning" is in the eye of the beerholder.

There's two things.

Obama's got a lot more money and is comfortably leading. As a result he's spending a lot of his money on positive Obama ads in states he's already won to help drive up Democrat voters on the 4th and get more Democrat Representatives and Senators into office. As a result the ratio of Obama to McCain 'negative' advertising looks bad for McCain but if you look at the battleground states they're about the same. So on one hand you're right, Obama is just as happy to use negative campaigning.

But there's another bigger point, not all negative ads are the same. You can run an ad contrasting your opponent's campaign promises with his legislative history, or you can run an ad talking about a former terrorist that was once on a board for a brief period with your opponent. These are both attack ads, but they're very different.

@Polonius: Given that the current economic crisis didn't start until the Dems took Congress, clearly, clearly *ALL* of our woes lie at their feet.

It's like when your computer breaks. You always go back to whatever you last changed out. Invariably, if you put things back the way they were before, everything is OK again.

Polonius wrote:First, nothing proves the existence of evolution. It's a theory that has been refined and will continue to be refined until a theory that works better replaces it.

All true. Although it does a damn good job of explaing how viruses, bacteria, and other short-lived things mutate and adapt to changes in the environment. Things like drug-resistant AIDS, drug-resistant bacteria, grey vs brown squirrels, etc are pretty good indicators of evolution, and most layfolk should be willing to accept that as "proof" that the theory holds true.