Ron Brown is back at Dir of Player Development

[timnsun]

I honestly don’t remember what Ron said, short of not agreeing with the lifestyle, calling it a sin.

I have no problem with people who live alternative lifestyles. Nor do I have a problem with them having the same rights. People are people and deserve the same rights.

However, I don’t agree with people telling me my bible is wrong or promotes hatred. There is right and wrong. The problem is that we define right and wrong differently.

 

[c2o]

My goodness.
You guys got facebook for this kinda stuff.
Some people up in arms over Ron Brown returning.

STOP

 

[F5Tornado]

My goodness.
You guys got facebook for this kinda stuff.
Some people up in arms over Ron Brown returning.

STOP

Indeed. The Ron Brown run him out of town crowd. Hilarious.

 

[Captain Nick]

I appreciate your post. Don't have any negative comments about it, Just want to add - let's not forget that the media has plenty of blame in Brown's "controversial remarks about homosexuality". They know where a man like Coach Brown stands on an issue like that already, but still ask questions like "How do you feel about the gay lifestyle?" He probably would prefer to keep his opinions/beliefs private, but now feels shoved into a corner, and he's no coward to stand on the principles he believes in, so he answers it instead of saying, "Next question." And the media is predominantly liberal, and they like to paint conservatives as legalistic/judgmental.

The media is to blame? What the heck are you talking about? Nobody went to his house and shoved a microphone in his face. He chose to go to a Lincoln city council meeting and speak on record under his own accord. It's probably on YouTube if you want to watch it. The local media had nothing to do with it. If anything the they probably gave him more of a pass than anything.

 

[mwulf]

The Bible is a pre-science myth, written by Middle Eastern goat herders who didn’t know where the sun went at night. and tired of people using ancient nonsense to justify homophobia.

 

[otismotis08]

The Bible is a pre-science myth, written by Middle Eastern goat herders who didn’t know where the sun went at night. and tired of people using ancient nonsense to justify homophobia.

So sorry.

 

[Redondo]

The Bible is a pre-science myth, written by Middle Eastern goat herders who didn’t know where the sun went at night. and tired of people using ancient nonsense to justify homophobia.

I have the equivalent of about 400 semester hours of college credit with almost all of them in hard sciences and some behavioral sciences--all with very good to excellent grades. I have, also, read science fairly extensively outside of the classroom, I have found over time that most people who claim to know a lot about science, in reality, don't.

I, personally, don't see a great conflict between religion and science, and that includes the physics of cosmology, quantum physics, and mathematics. In fact, I find them to be quite, remarkably compatible. I don't, necessarily take the Bible literally, but do believe it. I find that it is greatly misunderstood on whichever side of the belief issue one finds themselves.

Should I and others like me or even less academically studied than I am, be called bigots, haters, ignorant, stupid, backward, or any other derogatory name? If anyone believes I should, then I think they should objectively examine themselves for those criticized traits.

Isn't that what a guy with a small, dark mustache named adolf kind of started with, who killed handicapped individuals, gypsys, slavs, Jews, Jehovah's witnesses, and homosexuals, etc., alike? Please, I am not trying to say anyone here is going to be another hitler, but get the point.

Think about this. If the big bang (theory) is reality (and I don't disagree that it is), who lit the fuse? The theories of what happened before the bang and cause of it are much, much closer to philosophical opinions than the so called, self professed "scientists" would ever think to admit. Isn't that what many claim would be along the lines of religion?

It is amazing to me to continually hear amateur (and many professional) so-called "scientists" give their "informed" opinions. Even Degrass-Tyson(spelling?) proves to me, when he is asked a question about the THEORY, yes theory, of evolution that he doesn't SEEM very well versed in the biological sciences, (although is is a good cosmologist, it might seem). By the way, Darwin was intelligent, but he only had a snapshot of life on the Galapagose islands in the same year, or thereabouts, I think, that the germ theory was first proposed--1868. His knowledge was pretty limited. In case some haven't studied the theory much, there are a very lot of holes in the theory. (I do believe there are evolutionary mechanisms occurring, but don't, necessarily, think, from a biochemical and genetic standpoint, that those mechanisms equate to total proof of the theory.) The phenomenon of entropy continually countering complex development seems overwhelmingly powerful.

So, IMO, most scientists are very good in their particular chosen specialty but, as a result, have a tendency to see things down a narrowly defined tunnel resulting in a lot of far reaching extrapolation. Much as in specialties of medicine, they, as I have observed, have a tendency to interpret other areas of academia from narrow, less informed viewpoints.

They, however, along with all of us, are all entitled to our own opinions, whether based on real knowledge or not. It's a free country isn't it? But, people should be careful about a false sense of knowledge and inflated sense of intelligence and enlightenment. That can sometimes backfire and have the opposite effect by making themselves look foolish.

I am not a homophobe. I have friends that are homosexual. The problem I have had as a health professional has been the result of what I observed in the height of the aids epidemic back in the 80's. Because of a very vocal, narrow part of the homosexual community with the cause, HIV and aids, instead of being treated as a life threatening, sexually transmitted, communicable disease somehow became some sort of civil right in a category of privacy, which put many, many more people in imminent danger and gave many a death sentence. A few of my friends, thus, died as innocent victims. Therefore, through sad experiences, that is the problem I have had with this issue. It was not just sexually transmitted. It was in the blood supply. Many deaths could and should have been prevented.

Some of you on here weren't around or don't remember that period. and yes, I realize there were reasons that there were many concerns about privacy and prejudice, but there was plenty of blame to go around, and not particularly only from religious groups or people. Many religions accepted people with the lifestyle. I don't want to debate that as its been done enough. My viewpoint was from an epidemiological and disease prevention aspect to prevent suffering and death. I think it could have been done in privacy like other communicable diseases and could have saved many more lives.

Correct me if I am wrong about Ron Brown as I didn't memorize what he said, but I don't remember him saying he hated anyone. I thought he just didn't agree with a lifestyle.

I am just writing all this trying to deal with my insomnia. Good luck to all. GBR

 

[Redondo]

The Bible is a pre-science myth, written by Middle Eastern goat herders who didn’t know where the sun went at night. .

As I thought about it, I wanted to add an experience to the diatribe I typed, above.

When I was on active duty, I had all my tires slashed and derogatory names painted on my car with several SWASTIKAS spray painted on my car. I called the police and they told me they couldn't come out right away and called them twice more over a six hour period, but they couldn't come out till the next day.

I got to work the next day and intended to call the police, again, after work, but the police did come out that day while at work--to give me a parking ticket as an inoperable vehicle.

The next week, my church was broken into and had names and swastikas spray painted in it along with much other damage from the vandals.

There is much more to the story, but to make it shorter, I was subsequently, victimized by the court system much more than I was by the vandals.

Years earlier I was teaching in a professional college of a university and lost my job, partly due to some rumors started by some bigoted people saying I was favoring students who shared my religion. I was relieved of some of my teaching responsibilities but was never told why, and given a phony reason. I later, investigated and found the reason was false as I had eventually seen a letter from my department head to the executive faculty during the time I was being evaluated for promotion and/or retention, which stated the real reason I had been relieved. .

I did some further investigation and found beyond a doubt, the allegations were not only false and fabricated, but, in fact, the opposite was true, I had been the most critical of these students' work. However, the damage had been done.

The school, eventually, had some money problems due to some loss of federal grant money and I was the first to go. I know it wasn't the only reason as the money situation was a large impetus, nevertheless, I failed to be promoted BEFORE I found the letter and real reasons. Please, don't lecture me that there must have been more to it as I know this is a very brief synopsis of what happened, but I was there living through this nightmare and nobody else on here was. I had a good case to file suit and should have as I looked back, but I was so sick of the place by then, I was ready to leave.

I am stating these things to show some critical folks may not see it, but prejudice and bigotry and injustice go both ways. I know as I have experienced them and yeah, they aren't fun. My son experienced some, also.

Again, good luck and GBR

 

[PeliniTheCrutch]

I have the equivalent of about 400 semester hours of college credit with almost all of them in hard sciences and some behavioral sciences--all with very good to excellent grades. I have, also, read science fairly extensively outside of the classroom, I have found over time that most people who claim to know a lot about science, in reality, don't.

I, personally, don't see a great conflict between religion and science, and that includes the physics of cosmology, quantum physics, and mathematics. In fact, I find them to be quite, remarkably compatible. I don't, necessarily take the Bible literally, but do believe it. I find that it is greatly misunderstood on whichever side of the belief issue one finds themselves.

Should I and others like me or even less academically studied than I am, be called bigots, haters, ignorant, stupid, backward, or any other derogatory name? If anyone believes I should, then I think they should objectively examine themselves for those criticized traits.

Isn't that what a guy with a small, dark mustache named adolf kind of started with, who killed handicapped individuals, gypsys, slavs, Jews, Jehovah's witnesses, and homosexuals, etc., alike? Please, I am not trying to say anyone here is going to be another hitler, but get the point.

Think about this. If the big bang (theory) is reality (and I don't disagree that it is), who lit the fuse? The theories of what happened before the bang and cause of it are much, much closer to philosophical opinions than the so called, self professed "scientists" would ever think to admit. Isn't that what many claim would be along the lines of religion?

It is amazing to me to continually hear amateur (and many professional) so-called "scientists" give their "informed" opinions. Even Degrass-Tyson(spelling?) proves to me, when he is asked a question about the THEORY, yes theory, of evolution that he doesn't SEEM very well versed in the biological sciences, (although is is a good cosmologist, it might seem). By the way, Darwin was intelligent, but he only had a snapshot of life on the Galapagose islands in the same year, or thereabouts, I think, that the germ theory was first proposed--1868. His knowledge was pretty limited. In case some haven't studied the theory much, there are a very lot of holes in the theory. (I do believe there are evolutionary mechanisms occurring, but don't, necessarily, think, from a biochemical and genetic standpoint, that those mechanisms equate to total proof of the theory.) The phenomenon of entropy continually countering complex development seems overwhelmingly powerful.

So, IMO, most scientists are very good in their particular chosen specialty but, as a result, have a tendency to see things down a narrowly defined tunnel resulting in a lot of far reaching extrapolation. Much as in specialties of medicine, they, as I have observed, have a tendency to interpret other areas of academia from narrow, less informed viewpoints.

They, however, along with all of us, are all entitled to our own opinions, whether based on real knowledge or not. It's a free country isn't it? But, people should be careful about a false sense of knowledge and inflated sense of intelligence and enlightenment. That can sometimes backfire and have the opposite effect by making themselves look foolish.

I am not a homophobe. I have friends that are homosexual. The problem I have had as a health professional has been the result of what I observed in the height of the aids epidemic back in the 80's. Because of a very vocal, narrow part of the homosexual community with the cause, HIV and aids, instead of being treated as a life threatening, sexually transmitted, communicable disease somehow became some sort of civil right in a category of privacy, which put many, many more people in imminent danger and gave many a death sentence. A few of my friends, thus, died as innocent victims. Therefore, through sad experiences, that is the problem I have had with this issue. It was not just sexually transmitted. It was in the blood supply. Many deaths could and should have been prevented.

Some of you on here weren't around or don't remember that period. and yes, I realize there were reasons that there were many concerns about privacy and prejudice, but there was plenty of blame to go around, and not particularly only from religious groups or people. Many religions accepted people with the lifestyle. I don't want to debate that as its been done enough. My viewpoint was from an epidemiological and disease prevention aspect to prevent suffering and death. I think it could have been done in privacy like other communicable diseases and could have saved many more lives.

Correct me if I am wrong about Ron Brown as I didn't memorize what he said, but I don't remember him saying he hated anyone. I thought he just didn't agree with a lifestyle.

I am just writing all this trying to deal with my insomnia. Good luck to all. GBR

I’m quite certain it will help anyone else who has insomnia too!

 

[Sinomatic]

I could respond in length but in the interest of saving time ill just say that treating people with dignity and respect is something we all should and can do.

Feelings are not objective. Just because I feel like a cat, those feelings do not make me a cat. Even if I get my hands surgically altered to look like paws.

Logically we can all be wrong however logically we cannot all be correct.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

Redondo, I don't understand your emphasis on theory, yes theory. You seem to be indicating that a theory is something unproved or untested, when in science a theory is something that is considered as established.

 

[mwulf]

I was too harsh in my Bible post but holy hell did it produce some great responses . I genuinely mean that.. Good discussion

 

[Sinomatic]

Redondo, I don't understand your emphasis on theory, yes theory. You seem to be indicating that a theory is something unproved or untested, when in science a theory is something that is considered as established.

This is incorrect a theory has not been proven otherwise it would be fact.

Scientific theory is just that....theory....not scientific fact.

I have been to 3 schools-- US Navy NTC GREAT LAKES, JCCC, and Norman OK all for electrical theory-----and while we use the heck out of it and can prove it's existance, it is still a theory about how it works in its entirety.

Evolution for example is not a scientific fact, evolution is a theory.

Thankfully not all scientists blindly follow what you cannot positively prove as truth.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

This is incorrect a theory has not been proven otherwise it would be fact.

Scientific theory is just that....theory....not scientific fact.

I have been to 3 schools-- US Navy NTC GREAT LAKES, JCCC, and Norman OK all for electrical theory-----and while we use the heck out of it and can prove it's existance, it is still a theory about how it works in its entirety.

Evolution for example is not a scientific fact, evolution is a theory.

Thankfully not all scientists blindly follow what you cannot positively prove as truth.

That is simply not true. You are going with an ignorant, layman's definition of "theory". For scientists, there is no such thing as scientific "fact", as everything is subject to future revision. A scientist starts out with an hypothesis. Say, an hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system rather than a geocentric solar system. He then designs experiments to test his hypothesis. He conducts a number of experiments, maybe dozens, to see if the heliocentric theory holds water. If it does, he then goes to other scientists, whether through publication or more informal means. They replicate his experiments or devise and conduct new experiments to test the heliocentric hypothesis. If these other experiments continue to support the heliocentric hypothesis, then they go back to the geocentric hypothesis and attempt to falsify it. If they can falsify the geocentric hypothesis, that is more support for the heliocentric hypothesis. It is only after hundreds, maybe thousands of experiments testing the heliocentric hypothesis and falsifying the geocentric hypothesis that the heliocentric hypothesis becomes a theory. That is the highest level of proven "fact" in scientific methodology. Sure, someone may refer to scientific "fact" as a shorthand reference to something that has made it to the theory level. But under the scientific method there is no such thing as "scientific fact", since everything is subject to revision based on future evidence.

 

[DudznSudz]

That is simply not true. You are going with an ignorant, layman's definition of "theory". For scientists, there is no such thing as scientific "fact", as everything is subject to future revision. A scientist starts out with an hypothesis. Say, an hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system rather than a geocentric solar system. He then designs experiments to test his hypothesis. He conducts a number of experiments, maybe dozens, to see if the heliocentric theory holds water. If it does, he then goes to other scientists, whether through publication or more informal means. They replicate his experiments or devise and conduct new experiments to test the heliocentric hypothesis. If these other experiments continue to support the heliocentric hypothesis, then they go back to the geocentric hypothesis and attempt to falsify it. If they can falsify the geocentric hypothesis, that is more support for the heliocentric hypothesis. It is only after hundreds, maybe thousands of experiments testing the heliocentric hypothesis and falsifying the geocentric hypothesis that the heliocentric hypothesis becomes a theory. That is the highest level of proven "fact" in scientific methodology. Sure, someone may refer to scientific "fact" as a shorthand reference to something that has made it to the theory level. But under the scientific method there is no such thing as "scientific fact", since everything is subject to revision based on future evidence.

Nailed it!

 

[prag_grenade]

This discussion is starting to feel like a Tarantino movie. I need a white board to keep track of arguments and rebuttals.

 

[Sinomatic]

That is simply not true. You are going with an ignorant, layman's definition of "theory". For scientists, there is no such thing as scientific "fact", as everything is subject to future revision. A scientist starts out with an hypothesis. Say, an hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system rather than a geocentric solar system. He then designs experiments to test his hypothesis. He conducts a number of experiments, maybe dozens, to see if the heliocentric theory holds water. If it does, he then goes to other scientists, whether through publication or more informal means. They replicate his experiments or devise and conduct new experiments to test the heliocentric hypothesis. If these other experiments continue to support the heliocentric hypothesis, then they go back to the geocentric hypothesis and attempt to falsify it. If they can falsify the geocentric hypothesis, that is more support for the heliocentric hypothesis. It is only after hundreds, maybe thousands of experiments testing the heliocentric hypothesis and falsifying the geocentric hypothesis that the heliocentric hypothesis becomes a theory. That is the highest level of proven "fact" in scientific methodology. Sure, someone may refer to scientific "fact" as a shorthand reference to something that has made it to the theory level. But under the scientific method there is no such thing as "scientific fact", since everything is subject to revision based on future evidence.

Everything is subject to revision, but not everything will change and so therefore there are facts such as if I throw a rubber ball into the air it comes back down, unless another counter force is introduced, this is gravity. HOW it works is still theory. Not the fact that it exists.

Evolution kind to kind such as whales to cows cannot be proven. It has not been observed. Electricity, or many electrons moving(we believe) can be observed when I walk across my floor in the winter and touch a light switch. The fact is it exists, but HOW it exactly works is still theory.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

Nailed it!

Thank you. With all due respect, I can't believe that someone who claims he has all this technical background has such a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific methodology. A scientific fact is nothing but an observable and quantifiable data point. For example, going back to my geocentric/heliocentric example, a scientific fact is that the sun appears to rise in the east every morning, rather than wandering over to the west some days. That is a single observable and measurable data point. it is a scientific fact. But it supports both the heliocentric and geocentric hypotheses. In order to test an hypothesis you have to get thousands of scientific data points or "facts". Once all of those facts support a single hypothesis and falsify all other competing hypotheses, you have a theory.

 

[Metalfan]

Let's just all hope he directs these kids towards paths of greatness in the future. Religion, politics and other stuff aside. Just hope for the best.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

^^^^^^^
Thanks for getting us back on track. And guilty as charged.

 

[timnsun]

Let's just all hope he directs these kids towards paths of greatness in the future. Religion, politics and other stuff aside. Just hope for the best.

Agree. His track record gives us all hope.

 

[Redondo]

Redondo, I don't understand your emphasis on theory, yes theory. You seem to be indicating that a theory is something unproved or untested, when in science a theory is something that is considered as established.

Not necessarily. It depends what one wants to use or believe, much like philosophy, it appears.

the·o·ry
(thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has beenrepeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods ofanalysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theorythat criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

[Redondo]

I’m quite certain it will help anyone else who has insomnia too!

You are very kind for your empathy.

 

[Sinomatic]

Thank you. With all due respect, I can't believe that someone who claims he has all this technical background has such a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific methodology. A scientific fact is nothing but an observable and quantifiable data point. For example, going back to my geocentric/heliocentric example, a scientific fact is that the sun appears to rise in the east every morning, rather than wandering over to the west some days. That is a single observable and measurable data point. it is a scientific fact. But it supports both the heliocentric and geocentric hypotheses. In order to test an hypothesis you have to get thousands of scientific data points or "facts". Once all of those facts support a single hypothesis and falsify all other competing hypotheses, you have a theory.

The person I quoted used the word "proved", yo.

Proved being set in stone or observed fact as far as I know the English language.

 

[CC_Lemming]

I could respond in length but in the interest of saving time ill just say that treating people with dignity and respect is something we all should and can do.

Feelings are not objective. Just because I feel like a cat, those feelings do not make me a cat. Even if I get my hands surgically altered to look like paws.

Logically we can all be wrong however logically we cannot all be correct.

If treating others with respect and dignity is something we should all do, then it is a no-brainer that one should treat homosexuals as a class, and thus that their representation as such is "merited" and "warranted"--the point you began by expressing doubt about in the previous post and proceeded to defend. You should also agree, and certainly be able to see, that homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

To question these things is utterly baffling, and yes, it's hard to see how one could hold such a view without prejudice. It is even more baffling that only two people on here took exception to those comments, as if it would be commonplace to suggest we discuss the "merits" and "warrants" of Jews, Christians, Latinos, or women as a class and whether they are deserving of the same rights as others from the "500 mile view."

Also, you keep invoking facile distinctions to make complex points they do not support. For example, behaviors are choices (some behaviors are choices). "Feelings aren't objective." Emotions are feelings and emotions are objective. If I see a bear in front of me and I experience fear, the fear corresponds to a real threat, is appropriate, and so is not a figment of my imagination. I don't know how anyone could fail to see this feeling is "objective."

Yes, to your point, we do not infer from feelings alone that something is real. However, if I perceive a bear (see it in front of me) and do not merely feel fear at a bear which is not there, am I not warranted in inferring there is a bear, i.e., that the bear is real? The same goes for a gay man who, once he reached puberty, discovered he was attracted boys, began flirting with them, kissed them, realized that this made him feel warm and fuzzy, and has been in an intimate relationship with a man for the last 15 years. He is not confused about what he is. His "feeling" that he is attracted to other men is "objective"--it has persisted over time, it won't be going away tomorrow. Yes, all feelings are subjective in the obvious sense that they are experienced by a subject, but that does not make them fake or unreal.

Also, people do not, in general, go around feeling like cats. Over 10% of the population "feels" gay, lesbian, trans gendered, or queer. Why do you keep comparing homosexuality to a mental disorder?

Finally, your defining LGBTQ (and whatever other acronyms may have been added in the last 24 hours) persons in terms of their "feelings" is insulting and betrays a serious lack of empathy. I said it in a post I have since deleted, but when you express opinions like this, they do not deserve to be treated with kiddy gloves.

Finally, since some seem to have a difficult time keeping the two things separate. This is not a post about the Ron Brown hire and what he said years ago. I honestly do not remember what he said and I am not critical of the hire. It's a post about what happens when people express controversial and sometimes asinine and intolerant views in public, and the moral of the story is that they are often met with criticism and sometimes also deserve rebuke. I share the sympathies with many on here that there is a lot of faux outrage these days, and many things that are professed to be offensive should not be. For instance, if someone calls homosexuality a sin, that does not presume intolerance or bigotry. A sin is a description of the fallen human condition, and homosexuals are no different than anyone else in that respect. But when you try to deny other people rights based on what you think is a sin, then you create an unfair playing field and you're rightly questioned whether the view you hold is intolerant, bigoted, moral, or fair. (This is also separate from the issue of whether you are these things, because humans are capable of this amazing thing called reflection and sometimes we realize, "Hey, I hold a stupid opinion or belief. I should probably revise that." And when we do so we prove not to be stupid or intolerant persons.)

 

[Sinomatic]

Not necessarily. It depends what one wants to use or believe, much like philosophy, it appears.

the·o·ry
(thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has beenrepeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods ofanalysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theorythat criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Thank you, this was my next post.

 

[mwulf]

I honestly don’t remember what Ron said, short of not agreeing with the lifestyle, calling it a sin.

"The scriptures teach that blacks were created by God, that women were created by God, but that homosexuals ... that is not what God had in mind at all," Brown said.

Brown said his words should not be interpreted as an attack on homosexuals.

"I have simply said that based on the Bible, homosexuality, the lifestyle of homosexuality, is a sin," he said. "That has created a flame within itself. But I've decided I'm not going to be afraid of people calling me a bigot or a homophobic or narrow-minded out of a simple, gentle, compassionate expression of the truth of God's word. I'm not going to be bought off by that."

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

All those definitions of theory are interesting but all but one are non sequitors. In scientific methodology a theory means one thing and one thing only: When you have an hypothesis that has been proven through extensive experimental testing, has withstood challenge and all other competing hypotheses have been falsified, you have a theory. Non-scientific definitions of theory are irrelevant.

 

[Sinomatic]

If treating others with respect and dignity is something we should all do, then it is a no-brainer that one should treat homosexuals as a class, and thus that their representation as such is "merited" and "warranted"--the point you began by expressing doubt about in the previous post and proceeded to defend. You should also agree, and certainly be able to see, that homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

To question these things is utterly baffling, and yes, it's hard to see how one could hold such a view without prejudice. It is even more baffling that only two people on here took exception to those comments, as if it would be commonplace to suggest we discuss the "merits" and "warrants" of Jews, Christians, Latinos, or women as a class and whether they are deserving of the same rights as others from the "500 mile view."

Also, you keep invoking facile distinctions to make complex points they do not support. For example, behaviors are choices (some behaviors are choices). "Feelings aren't objective." Emotions are feelings and emotions are objective. If I see a bear in front of me and I experience fear, the fear corresponds to a real threat, is appropriate, and so is not a figment of my imagination. I don't know how anyone could fail to see this feeling is "objective."

Yes, to your point, we do not infer from feelings alone that something is real. However, if I perceive a bear (see it in front of me) and do not merely feel fear at a bear which is not there, am I not warranted in inferring there is a bear, i.e., that the bear is real? The same goes for a gay man who, once he reached puberty, discovered he was attracted boys, began flirting with them, kissed them, realized that this made him feel warm and fuzzy, and has been in an intimate relationship with a man for the last 15 years. He is not confused about what he is. His "feeling" that he is attracted to other men is "objective"--it has persisted over time, it won't be going away tomorrow. Yes, all feelings are subjective in the obvious sense that they are experienced by a subject, but that does not make them fake or unreal.

Also, people do not, in general, go around feeling like cats. Over 10% of the population "feels" gay, lesbian, trans gendered, or queer. Why do you keep comparing homosexuality to a mental disorder?

Finally, your defining LGBTQ (and whatever other acronyms may have been added in the last 24 hours) persons in terms of their "feelings" is insulting and betrays a serious lack of empathy. I said it in a post I have since deleted, but when you express opinions like this, they do not deserve to be treated with kiddy gloves.

Finally, since some seem to have a difficult time keeping the two things separate. This is not a post about the Ron Brown hire and what he said years ago. I honestly do not remember what he said and I am not critical of the hire. It's a post about what happens when people express controversial and sometimes asinine and intolerant views in public, and the moral of the story is that they are often met with criticism and sometimes also deserve rebuke. I share the sympathies with many on here that there is a lot of faux outrage these days, and many things that are professed to be offensive should not be. For instance, if someone calls homosexuality a sin, that does not presume intolerance or bigotry. A sin is a description of the fallen human condition, and homosexuals are no different than anyone else in that respect. But when you try to deny other people rights based on what you think is a sin, then you create an unfair playing field and you're rightly questioned whether the view you hold is intolerant, bigoted, moral, or fair. (This is also separate from the issue of whether you are these things, because humans are capable of this amazing thing called reflection and sometimes we realize, "Hey, I hold a stupid opinion or belief. I should probably revise that." And when we do so we prove not to be stupid or intolerant persons.)[/QUOTEthi

This is you taking the gloves off?

Right on. I was inferring special treatment as say vets get for positions in govt. I am a vet by the way...so I know what I can get as opposed to the non vet US citizen. You choose to see what I was saying as we need to enslave all homosexuals or something to that nature.

Homosexuality isn't a design feature by God, nor does it really depopulate an area very effectively from any study(is there one?), that I am aware of.

But hey. You negligized all those people who feel like they're some kind of animal or something else by saying they have a mental disorder.

If you are so darn open minded, why would you do that?

Or are you just hypocritical all the time?

 

[Redondo]

That is simply not true. You are going with an ignorant, layman's definition of "theory". For scientists, there is no such thing as scientific "fact", as everything is subject to future revision. A scientist starts out with an hypothesis. Say, an hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system rather than a geocentric solar system. He then designs experiments to test his hypothesis. He conducts a number of experiments, maybe dozens, to see if the heliocentric theory holds water. If it does, he then goes to other scientists, whether through publication or more informal means. They replicate his experiments or devise and conduct new experiments to test the heliocentric hypothesis. If these other experiments continue to support the heliocentric hypothesis, then they go back to the geocentric hypothesis and attempt to falsify it. If they can falsify the geocentric hypothesis, that is more support for the heliocentric hypothesis. It is only after hundreds, maybe thousands of experiments testing the heliocentric hypothesis and falsifying the geocentric hypothesis that the heliocentric hypothesis becomes a theory. That is the highest level of proven "fact" in scientific methodology. Sure, someone may refer to scientific "fact" as a shorthand reference to something that has made it to the theory level. But under the scientific method there is no such thing as "scientific fact", since everything is subject to revision based on future evidence.

But, why is it then referred to and called the solar system, and not the solar system theory? The pieces of the puzzle are pretty much known in your example. Evolutionary theory, (which doesn't state that we evolved from completely different species, but that we only had, somewhere along the line, common ancestors) is lacking all but a few intermediary fossils, for instance. And evolution theory is very lacking in the explanation as to how biochemical pathways have become extremely complex, again, while universally being acted upon by the power of entropy.

For instance, there are certain carnivore species that produce their own vitamin C, while humans don't. It would seem in the process of natural selection that evolution would have maintained that ability for such a necessary substance to be produced in our bodies, if lower species retained that ability.

Same thing with all the essential amino acids. Some species produce them, we don't. And if evolutionary selection is so exact, why does our immune system reject foreign proteins even within our own species, let alone those from other species without the use of immunosuppressive agents. Our immune systems are so powerful against those foreign proteins, it can literally kill us, which may actually be more proof negating some scientists theory of common genetics. (Degrass-Tyson in his comments that we share the number of chromosomes with apes.)

By the way, for anyone interested, the theory of how life, actually, began is extremely speculative and has yet to be even remotely duplicated, although attempts are being made. (Dr. Frankenstein says hi.)

 

[Sinomatic]

All those definitions of theory are interesting but all but one are non sequitors. In scientific methodology a theory means one thing and one thing only: When you have an hypothesis that has been proven through extensive experimental testing, has withstood challenge and all other competing hypotheses have been falsified, you have a theory. Non-scientific definitions of theory are irrelevant.

By experimental testing, I assume you mean to have been positively observed...

 

[bigboxes]

This is incorrect a theory has not been proven otherwise it would be fact.

Scientific theory is just that....theory....not scientific fact.

I have been to 3 schools-- US Navy NTC GREAT LAKES, JCCC, and Norman OK all for electrical theory-----and while we use the heck out of it and can prove it's existance, it is still a theory about how it works in its entirety.

Evolution for example is not a scientific fact, evolution is a theory.

Thankfully not all scientists blindly follow what you cannot positively prove as truth.

Not even remotely true.

 

[Cloud@Heart]

True or False: All living things are made of cells?

We, as a scientific community, know neither answer is currently acceptable. Therefore the word theory needs to be used. There is a 'cell theory' that is constantly being investigated and updated. I can assume however, that Ron Brown is made of replicating, nucleic acid rich, cells.

For the those that are confused or did not investigate what a 'scientific theory' is, I am attaching a link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

I have the equivalent of about 400 semester hours of college credit with almost all of them in hard sciences and some behavioral sciences--all with very good to excellent grades. I have, also, read science fairly extensively outside of the classroom, I have found over time that most people who claim to know a lot about science, in reality, don't.

I, personally, don't see a great conflict between religion and science, and that includes the physics of cosmology, quantum physics, and mathematics. In fact, I find them to be quite, remarkably compatible. I don't, necessarily take the Bible literally, but do believe it. I find that it is greatly misunderstood on whichever side of the belief issue one finds themselves.

Should I and others like me or even less academically studied than I am, be called bigots, haters, ignorant, stupid, backward, or any other derogatory name? If anyone believes I should, then I think they should objectively examine themselves for those criticized traits.

Isn't that what a guy with a small, dark mustache named adolf kind of started with, who killed handicapped individuals, gypsys, slavs, Jews, Jehovah's witnesses, and homosexuals, etc., alike? Please, I am not trying to say anyone here is going to be another hitler, but get the point.

Think about this. If the big bang (theory) is reality (and I don't disagree that it is), who lit the fuse? The theories of what happened before the bang and cause of it are much, much closer to philosophical opinions than the so called, self professed "scientists" would ever think to admit. Isn't that what many claim would be along the lines of religion?

It is amazing to me to continually hear amateur (and many professional) so-called "scientists" give their "informed" opinions. Even Degrass-Tyson(spelling?) proves to me, when he is asked a question about the THEORY, yes theory, of evolution that he doesn't SEEM very well versed in the biological sciences, (although is is a good cosmologist, it might seem). By the way, Darwin was intelligent, but he only had a snapshot of life on the Galapagose islands in the same year, or thereabouts, I think, that the germ theory was first proposed--1868. His knowledge was pretty limited. In case some haven't studied the theory much, there are a very lot of holes in the theory. (I do believe there are evolutionary mechanisms occurring, but don't, necessarily, think, from a biochemical and genetic standpoint, that those mechanisms equate to total proof of the theory.) The phenomenon of entropy continually countering complex development seems overwhelmingly powerful.

So, IMO, most scientists are very good in their particular chosen specialty but, as a result, have a tendency to see things down a narrowly defined tunnel resulting in a lot of far reaching extrapolation. Much as in specialties of medicine, they, as I have observed, have a tendency to interpret other areas of academia from narrow, less informed viewpoints.

They, however, along with all of us, are all entitled to our own opinions, whether based on real knowledge or not. It's a free country isn't it? But, people should be careful about a false sense of knowledge and inflated sense of intelligence and enlightenment. That can sometimes backfire and have the opposite effect by making themselves look foolish.

I am not a homophobe. I have friends that are homosexual. The problem I have had as a health professional has been the result of what I observed in the height of the aids epidemic back in the 80's. Because of a very vocal, narrow part of the homosexual community with the cause, HIV and aids, instead of being treated as a life threatening, sexually transmitted, communicable disease somehow became some sort of civil right in a category of privacy, which put many, many more people in imminent danger and gave many a death sentence. A few of my friends, thus, died as innocent victims. Therefore, through sad experiences, that is the problem I have had with this issue. It was not just sexually transmitted. It was in the blood supply. Many deaths could and should have been prevented.

Some of you on here weren't around or don't remember that period. and yes, I realize there were reasons that there were many concerns about privacy and prejudice, but there was plenty of blame to go around, and not particularly only from religious groups or people. Many religions accepted people with the lifestyle. I don't want to debate that as its been done enough. My viewpoint was from an epidemiological and disease prevention aspect to prevent suffering and death. I think it could have been done in privacy like other communicable diseases and could have saved many more lives.

Correct me if I am wrong about Ron Brown as I didn't memorize what he said, but I don't remember him saying he hated anyone. I thought he just didn't agree with a lifestyle.

I am just writing all this trying to deal with my insomnia. Good luck to all. GBR

 

[Redondo]

All those definitions of theory are interesting but all but one are non sequitors. In scientific methodology a theory means one thing and one thing only: When you have an hypothesis that has been proven through extensive experimental testing, has withstood challenge and all other competing hypotheses have been falsified, you have a theory. Non-scientific definitions of theory are irrelevant

Then when Darwin made certain observations in the Galapagos islands over a couple year period, which is merely a snapshot in the extremes of evolutionary time, why was it immediately called a THEORY, when no corroborating facts had been observed by others and no experimental attempts had yet been made or observed for many decades.

By using your narrow definition of theory, Darwin and everyone around during that time, apparently, were all mis-spoken by using that term in relation to evolution. Darwin had nothing to do with experimentation to prove his theory.

Please, read again, all the definitions of the term theory that I posted. They were from Merriam Webster, not me.

By applying your definition to Darwin at the time he made it, theory should not have been used at all because nothing had even remotely been by PROVEN by anyone, not even by Darwin himself. He had only observed and speculated and, thus, came up with his "theory".

Your selected definition of the term theory is your choice. That definition must have "evolved" over time in the last 150 years.

A theory can be a postulation made from a few observations, which can later be re-observed to examine the consistency of the observations, which may or may not lead to proof of the postulate or speculation. The theory can then evolve to greater understanding. It doesn't, necessarily, explain or prove anything in and of itself. It can be used to stimulate further research, but isn't the end all be all of any observation or speculation. Otherwise, if everything was definitive, it should "evolve" to be called the evolutionary "system" as, perhaps, a better name.

 

[TheBeav815]

Oh we're gonna solve Bible v Science on this board today? This should go about as well as all the other online classes we teach here at HOL

 

[Antwill]

Oh we're gonna solve Bible v Science on this board today? This should go about as well as all the other online classes we teach here at HOL

These online debates on religion are always really productive. Especially with all the experts on this topic who are posting on a Husker board.

 

[CC_Lemming]

This is you taking the gloves off?

Right on. I was inferring special treatment as say vets get for positions in govt. I am a vet by the way...so I know what I can get as opposed to the non vet US citizen. You choose to see what I was saying as we need to enslave all homosexuals or something to that nature.

Homosexuality isn't a design feature by God, nor does it really depopulate an area very effectively from any study(is there one?), that I am aware of.

But hey. You negligized all those people who feel like they're some kind of animal or something else by saying they have a mental disorder.

If you are so darn open minded, why would you do that?

Or are you just hypocritical all the time?

Ok, first, thank you for your service! I'm sorry, I was not civil in my response. And yes, I was "triggered" by your first comment, your subsequent comment, and this last comment. I will be more respectful moving forward.

Secondly, why was I triggered? Your exact words: "When did the discussion on homosexuality in our culture really take place to really investigate its merits to be warranted a class at all? I feel the same about veterans as a class, although vets have, in my opinion a greater claim to warrant special treatment."

What I took exception to is the first part of your statement, which you have to admit can be read as saying they do not deserve representation, i.e., do not deserve to be recognized as a class. The rest of your post can be read, and is naturally a read, as a defense of the idea that we should seriously question whether they deserve representation as a class because they are delusional and their “feelings” lack merit, e.g., like people who believe they are cats. I am sorry I went off half-cocked under the assumption that this was the idea being defended (though it’s also not clear to me how that is not the idea being defended).

Now you have clarified that you're talking about entitlements or privileges, and so now I can see how the reference to veterans makes sense in the context, since they do enjoy and are deserving of various entitlements and privileges. (Though, since veterans are also a class, it makes sense to speak of them also as ones who deserve representation; after all, a class is just a thing that is classified by someone and having some entitlement or privilege is not a prerequisite of being in a class--being different is). So, if you're not questioning whether homosexuals deserve representation as a class, then I am left wondering what special privileges they are asking for that you’re asking us to seriously question?

Also, I hardly think I am a hypocrite for having "negligized all those people" who think they are cats. I would have to think, first, that the feelings people have and the judgments they make about themselves are always authoritative and can never be questioned. I don’t think that. I think people who think they are cats are delusional. I would have to think, secondly, when delusional people ask for equal treatment as it pertains to their delusion, that we should accommodate them. I don’t. I also I don’t think homosexuals are delusional either, and that is why I think they are deserving of the same rights everyone else is.

A person in this country can be fired for being gay and there are virtually no repercussions. That is not OK. And when gay people or others point out that is not OK, they are not looking for special treatment and their being gay doesn’t make them deserving of special treatment. (As you are deserving of special treatment and deference, because of the commitments you have taken-on, as I would readily admit and extend.) It simply means they should get the same treatment as everyone else. It is unclear to me whether we disagree about this. I certainly hope not.

 

[TheBeav815]

These online debates on religion are always really productive. Especially with all the experts on this topic who are posting on a Husker board.

The things people THINK they know about science just blow me away. It's like if I went to a skyscraper construction in progress and told them how to do their jobs because I used to watch a lot of Mike Holmes.

Dunning Kruger effect is alive and well around here.

 

[DerHusker]

When I first started reading this thread I thought

Now I'm thinking it's more like this

 

[Redondo]

True or False: All living things are made of cells?

We, as a scientific community, know neither answer is currently acceptable. Therefore the word theory needs to be used. There is a 'cell theory' that is constantly being investigated and updated. I can assume however, that Ron Brown is made of replicating, nucleic acid rich, cells.

For the those that are confused or did not investigate what a 'scientific theory' is, I am attaching a link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

Interesting article with many interesting opinions, but, nevertheless, opinions.

As I previously stated, there are evolutionary forces at work, but when the lady says "overwhelming evidence" written by Tia Ghose, who doesn't identify herself as a scientist, just the author of the article. I disagree with the words overwhelming evidence when I consider all aspects of the states of living.

Does it take a cell be alive. I don't think so. Are viruses alive? Are prions? Are bacteriophages?

The definition I had learned and have always used always incorporates the ability to replicate itself. If it can't do that, is it really in a state of living?