Creating Communities. Connecting People
Welcome, Guest      Bookmark and Share
Tell a friend about this site Invite    
  • All Blogs
  • Messenger
  • Member Search
  • Who's Online
    WebRing Bloggers: 9271

    Members: 0
    Guests: 0

    Today: 3

  • Comment List
    Ah yes, the whole religion in schools thing.

    Maybe I just came from a more progressive high school so many years ago; maybe the high school in our town that offers "Religious Studies" as an optional AP course is a little liberal. All I know is that I've never actually witnessed high schools that don't teach evolution and creationism side by side, at least to present the history of the controversies surrounding both.

    Even in ninth-grade World History, we studied the influence (albeit mostly negative) that the main religions have had in the world. We certainly didn't go into any in-depth studies of the dogma, but we studied the overriding philosophies that enabled the darker sides of religions to manifest themselves upon the world.

    As for the Big Bang / Evolution issue: compare the first part of Genesis with the Big Bang Theory or "The Origin of Species" and you'll find that only the words are different, not the essence.

    Science, I agree, is the modern myth. It isn't tied to any gods, mind you, but it is yet another attempt to explain our existence, explain why things are the way they are. It has been argued that humans have an innate need to explain everything in their lives. This drive has been coined "The Mythopoeic Drive."

    Is science really any different than religion? Sure, it offers many more forms of validation and falsification, but aren't those just vacuum tests?

    What is most amazing about humans is our immense creative capacities. Is there some force that actively guides creativity? I think not, at least no purposeful, self-directed guide.

    I think if anything needs further instruction or guidance in schools, it's not dogma; it's creative thinking, the ability to think outside the box, to ask hard questions and to see the whole picture, a worldview as it were.
    2007-12-17 10:10:16 Posted by roguewriter ()

    Charles Moffat wrote quite an opinionated if not flawed article on Wikipedia. I would have liked to have commented directly on the article page, but alas you have no way to do so. So, I leave my reply to "Crapapedia" here.

    "It is utter and complete crap."
    Your use of "complete" is a bit overboard. Much of what's available on Wikipedia is not only accurate, but backed up with credible citations from major universities and organizations.

    On obscure topics, I have found entries on some of the most obscure topics possible, stuff that is only found on Wikipedia and nowhere else on the internet.

    When you say that self-education implies "gaping holes in a person's knowledge and that knowledge can be narrowly focused and/or flawed"... oh my, this has me scratching my head and wondering if you've ever truly gone through any higher education. (No need to answer, I've seen your bio and know you have.) Universities are flawed in their approach to teaching knowledge, teaching only the accepted thought and coming slow to changes in our knowledge based on the studies of those actively working in their fields.

    I found that as I went through the university, I wanted to learn more about specific topics but wasn't allowed the time. Instead, I had to move on to some other topic that would never relate to the industry I was working toward entering. Don't knock the self-educated; they dive into their subjects with more passion and more depth than those who are forced to gloss over the topics.

    "We should only be letting the best and brightest out there contribute: Namely university professors." Are you serious? You really believe this statement. Look, university professors are most certainly not the best and brightest. In fact, those who shape our society, our cultures, our technologies, most are college drop outs. Just look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the Google Guys. All college drop-outs. Why? Because the university was too narrow minded to see the vision of the future, too narrow to see the potential that existed, too tight-reigned. University professors are merely those who had the perserverance to claim their Masters or PhD, those who were willing to jump through the right hoops.

    As for the Wiki-Trolls, oh, they definitely get caught. That's the irony of wikis; anyone can post inaccuracies, but a hoard of editors/researchers lie in wait to correct the inaccuracies and the trolls are eventually banned from posting anything whatsoever.

    As for the brevity of entries, Do you really believe that print encyclopedias are any longer? I've compared entries between print versions of one topic and those found on Wikipedia. Guess which contained more information?

    As for the statement of removing "scholarly external links," that is possibly one of the most inaccurate statements you made in your article. Most of the entries I run across abound in scholarly links, to places like Oxford, Stanford, Yale, etc. I almost feel as though you might feel slighted about having links to Lilith Gallery rejected? Did you know that Wikipedia has a policy against companies/organizations from writing about or promoting themselves? That's why, if you did try to submit your own links, that they were rejected.

    Then there is your example of famous people not being deemed worthy or famous enough to be included in Wikipedia. That's interesting as Lilith Gallery states that they are a showcase for "worthy artists." How does one judge worth? Highly subjective to say the least.

    Oh, as for flawed information, you stated that Lorna Simpson has been deleted on Wikipedia. This is a highly flawed piece of information that you just spread across the internet. When I searched Wikipedia, what did I find? An entry for Lorna Simpson that has been there since 23:11, 18 October 2006... 14 months prior to your posting your article. What's more, there's no mention in the history of the entry ever being deleted. That's what makes Wikipedia so not "Crapapedia"; anyone can point out and fix inaccuracies, unlike the article on your site which is closed and opinionated. You offer no way for people to comment or feedback on what you wrote.

    Knowledge in this day and age moves fast, and yes, it can be prone to inaccuracies. Yet, is the knowledge that's taught in accredited institutions of learning any different? Think of the things you learned while in school that have changed. The most notable example from last year's news has to be the recategorizing of Pluto. As we attended school, our planet had 9 planets. Now, we only have 8. The information was switched to reflect current "knowledge" on Wikipedia within a couple weeks of the change. Encyclopedia Brittanica won't release the change in information until their supplement comes out early in 2008, and even then, someone has to make sure to pore through every addendum after the year they bought the original set of encyclopedias to see if the information in the original is even still valid.

    In summary, Wikipedia is not "complete crap." Yes, it contains accuracies, but just as with any scholarly journal, all content is refereed. The trick in using Wikipedia, or any information no matter the source, is to check for credibility via the citations.
    2007-12-20 11:29:04 Posted by muck_raker1981 ()

    Need to advertise your website? Want to improve your image online?

    Need quality content to promote your business?

    Get proven techniques and reliable advertising opportunities.
    2011-04-19 14:30:18 Posted by December 2007 ()

    What's New | Popular | Auctions | Blogs | Webspace | Discuss | ShopDragon | Newsletter | Powered by R360 | Contact Us
    Copyright © 2001-2012 WebRing®, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Service - Help - Privacy Policy