posted
The Bush administration is very anti-science... or rather, they want to suppress science that doesn't support their policy views, and promote instead pretend-science that will. Scientific American has documented it and described it in editorials.
Religion and Science are not pawns of politics. They exist independently of it. Truth is not something that's malleable for the sake of winning power. Truth is just truth. Again and again we see this administration failing to understand that.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously we're not going to agree, Dagonee.
However, I would like to continue the discussion on another tangent: were the book included, what section would you consider it best to place it in (assuming this bookstore has some rudimentary sections on various categories of books)? What sections would it be acceptable to place it in?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since having religious books and scientific books in a private book store doesn't mean that the book store is advocating either view point why is it assumed that when the book store is in the public sector a viewpoint is being advocated?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
who says that the entire bookstore is to 'educate'
I have not been to the grand canyon, but I have been to the bookstores of many museums and other landmarks...and much of what is in the bookstores is not educational. They are mostly full of crap that they know parents will buy their kids.
I'd say the primary goal of any bookstore at monuments and museums is to provide extra funding to supplement what the government gives the museum/monument to operate.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the purposes is to educate, but its larger purpose is to inspire interest and raise money. Besides a book about a belief as to how the Grand Canyon was created is education.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A book stating scientific ideas about how the grand canyon formed are completely unreasonable is anti-educational.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I don't think its any more anti-educational than a book saying that scientific ideas about how human speech derived from hand signals instead of mothers communicating with their babies are wrong.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between saying an idea is wrong and saying an idea is completely unreasonable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Grand Canyon bookstore is not entirely educational. Unless stuffed animals have an obviously educational purpose.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. This isn't exhaustive, but it doesn't have to be.
If a work says another work (or a body of work) which may be considered scientific under the standards laid out in Edwards vs Aguillard is prima facie ridiculous, it may be considered anti-educational.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think less dangerous than the restrictions on plaques put up we already have in place -- and the plaques have far more places they could go than books could be put, because park bookstores must necessarily be kept small to prevent environmental contamination.
Note that my objection is primarily based on that the NPS has abundant regulations which state quite clearly the goals of the park system and its book stores. Education, education, education. Money factors in as well, but the ultimate goal of the system is always education.
Books which not only are not part of but operate against informed education do not have a place in such a book store any more than a plaque claiming a site was where george washington was born (when he wasn't) has a place in a park.
If the purpose changed, what would be appropriate in such a bookstore would change as well.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tolerate error in abundance, and am generally a champion of private free speech. This is not, however, private speech. This is my speech, and the speech of all of our government. A government over all of us should hold itself to high standards, and one of those standards is as to what constitutes good educational material.
We already have a several frameworks for discerning between things which are and aren not educational in certain subject areas; it is also very possible to discern those things which dismiss things found to be educational under those frameworks.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual, Kipling has something appropriate to say :
quote:GALLIO’S SONG
All day long to the judgment-seat The crazed Provincials drew— All day long at their ruler’s feet Howled for the blood of the Jew. Insurrection with one accord Banded itself and woke: And Paul was about to open his mouth When Achaia’s Deputy spoke
“Whether the God descend from above Or the man ascend upon high, Whether this maker of tents be Jove Or a younger deity— I will be no judge between your gods And your godless bickerings, Lictor, drive them hence with rods— I care for none of these things!
“Were it a question of lawful due Or a labourer’s hire denied, Reason would I should bear with you And order it well to be tried But this is a question of words and names And I know the strife it brings, I will not pass upon any your claims. I care for none of these things.
“One thing only I see most clear, As I pray you also see. Claudius Caesar hath set me here Rome’s Deputy to be. It is Her peace that ye go to break Not mine, nor any king’s, But, touching your clamour of ‘conscience sake,’ I care for none of these things!”
posted
Did any of you see the recent Slashdot article that talked about how journalists address scientific issues with regards to "balancing" their articles?
Here's the link they provided. I thought it was an interesting read, and somewhat pertinent to this discussion.
posted
I don't agree with it being lumped in with the scientific books.
But I don't have a problem with them selling it, not when the government in many locations sells thing that refer to Indian Mythology and their creationist ideas. I think it needs to be separated, so that there is less chance of it being mistaken as a scientifically proven theory, though.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
