tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6757815169322712137..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Orac responds to my post on teaching the controveryLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72099469986028999902015-08-07T11:42:24.022-04:002015-08-07T11:42:24.022-04:00liesforthedevil said:
"Prokaryotic cells (ba...liesforthedevil said:<br /><br />"Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) are much simpler than the eukaryotic cells; they lack many complex structures. Dead end for evolution to eukaryotic cells and the rest of the evolutionary theory without an intervention of intelligent designer."<br /><br />Why don't you religious zealots stop playing your childish, dishonest games and refer to your imaginary sky daddy by the name(s) that you believe is/are correct? Instead of "intelligent designer", call it god or yhwh-yeshua-holy-ghost or allah or whatever name is applied to your imaginary Dom. You don't want to piss off your Dom, do you, or are you hoping to be punished for being a disrespectful, disobedient Sub? <br /><br />"In order for the theory of evolution to be maintained on a respirator past prokaryotes, an endosymbiosis hypothesis has been invented. But this hypothesis is only an object of evolutionary imagination."<br /><br />In order for you delusional, narcissistic, authoritarian, reality denying, Dom/Sub loons to impose and maintain your autocratic/theocratic agenda you invent and perpetuate an imaginary god and associated, despicable fairy tales. <br /><br />"Endosybiosis supposedly happened when 1 prokaryote swallowed another and “decided” not to digest it against its nature of its digestive enzymes. Then the insider decided to evolve by an unknown mechanism and after some more additional swallowing and evolution, the eukaryotic cell somehow emerged."<br /><br />Your imaginary god allegedly just <b>is, always has been, and always will be</b>. How, when, where, and why did your god 'emerge', and by what mechanism? And with what mechanism did/does it design-create-assemble-guide everything that it allegedly designs-creates-assembles-guides? <br /><br />"Never has the prokaryotic swallowing ever been observed in real life or lab even if some claim that they did, one bacteria cell preserved inside another bacteria cell has never been documented."<br /><br />Never has your imaginary god ever been observed in real life (including a lab). <br /><br />"All the above means nothing when one considers this fact: <br /><br />“Many eukaryote genes are totally unlike those seen in the prokaryotes and archaea. They seem to come from nowhere”. So even if one has a great imagination and faith to believe in endosymbiosis without any scientific evidence, he needs to face the fact that for endosymbiosis to take place, some genes have to be imported from somewhere, possibly from space."<br /><br />You need to face the fact that many thousands of so-called gods have been invented and seem to come from nowhere. Where did the so-called god that you believe in come from? Nowhere, or somewhere? Space? And what scientific evidence can you provide to support your great imagination and faith? <br /><br />"Evolutionists have to believe in this fairytale or a similar so-story or the entire theory of evolution is dead without this fundamental process. The alternative to their current beliefs makes them terrified and nervous. So, they have no choice."<br /><br />God pushers like you believe in and preach fearful, threatening, murderous, impossible, Dom/Sub fairy tales because any realistic alternative to your beliefs makes you feel terrified and nervous. Religion is your crutch and your weapon. You use it as a crutch to assuage your fears/insecurities and/or as a threatening weapon to dominate whoever will submit. <br /><br />Do <b>you</b> have a choice? <br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46178815423378314362015-08-07T11:20:07.657-04:002015-08-07T11:20:07.657-04:00Suggestion. Every time liesforthedevil "adds&...Suggestion. Every time liesforthedevil "adds" to the discussion, just paste his 5 point screed. We can quickly refer to the nonsense, laugh and point fingers at liesforthedevil, and quickly move on to more interesting topics. As Larry said, "Best from the horse's mouth."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05785623292290048038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32696353259291539992015-08-07T10:21:00.987-04:002015-08-07T10:21:00.987-04:00Assuming you mean 3-5 from you post from August 06...Assuming you mean 3-5 from you post from August 06, 2015 12:34:00 PM; <br /><br />3) Answered by John Harshman (Thursday, August 06, 2015 4:28:00 PM)<br />"...<i>This is one reason why the phagocytosis hypothesis is unlikely while the intracellular parasite hypothesis makes more sense.</i>..."<br /><br />4) You are wrong. Bacteria-in-bacteria has been observed in the gut of an extant mealybug (The Other Jim Thursday, August 06, 2015 5:47:00 PM and TheOtherJim Wednesday, August 05, 2015 2:14:00 PM). <br /><br />5) refers to 3 and 4 which are incorrect assertions, so 5) is meaningless. If you mean the "new genes" part, read http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/02/1421379112.long<br /><br />The Other Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17570666738076378921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82863312559337493082015-08-07T10:18:46.145-04:002015-08-07T10:18:46.145-04:00Isn't that funny. liesforthedevil strawmanned...Isn't that funny. liesforthedevil strawmanned himself. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10745596911605102382015-08-07T10:13:40.794-04:002015-08-07T10:13:40.794-04:00liesforthedevil,
They've been answering your ...liesforthedevil,<br /><br />They've been answering your "points" all this time. It's obvious that you can't read for comprehension and that you are too incompetent to understand the answers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41025712874285907172015-08-07T09:36:19.020-04:002015-08-07T09:36:19.020-04:00Can you ALL abandon strawman and actually answer m...Can you ALL abandon strawman and actually answer my points especially 3-5?<br /><br /> I'm going to emphasize again that I'm talking about the evolution of prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic (endosymbiosis) and not some nonsense symbiosis examples not related to the theme. Strawman will not do it.Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91850660933298218382015-08-07T00:41:37.693-04:002015-08-07T00:41:37.693-04:00You seem uncivilized eh. These forums should nurtu...You seem uncivilized eh. These forums should nurture loads of posters. Why not? Unless people feel confident they won't get involved. There are too few creationists but the ones who post are confident.<br />Why afraid to rumble?? Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33236748468845919262015-08-06T17:58:26.119-04:002015-08-06T17:58:26.119-04:00These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35045542260776148322015-08-06T17:47:43.582-04:002015-08-06T17:47:43.582-04:00liesforthedevilThursday, August 06, 2015 12:34:00 ...liesforthedevilThursday, August 06, 2015 12:34:00 PM<br /><br /><i>4. Never has the prokaryotic swallowing ever been observed in real life or lab even if some claim that they did,<b> one bacteria cell preserved inside another bacteria cell has never been documented.</b> </i><br /><br />Interesting... yet on August 05, 2015 6:15:00 PM you re-posted an abstract to a link that I provided, stating;<br /> <i>Here we show that mealybug host cells do indeed harbour both beta- and gamma-subdivision Proteobacteria, but they are not co-inhabitants of the spheres. Rather, we show that the symbiotic spheres themselves are beta-proteobacterial cells. <b>Thus, gamma-Proteobacteria live symbiotically inside beta-Proteobacteria.</b></i><br /><br />Are you lying or just very bad at reading comprehension?The Other Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17570666738076378921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26457828052202651342015-08-06T16:28:32.368-04:002015-08-06T16:28:32.368-04:00Actually, the double membranes of mitochondria are...Actually, the double membranes of mitochondria are all bacterial; none of the host's membrane is present. This is one reason why the phagocytosis hypothesis is unlikely while the intracellular parasite hypothesis makes more sense. But Lies isn't interested in any of that. He invited me to reply to him, which I did, and that whole thing has been ignored in favor of him posting that little pointless screed above. He really doesn't want to think about it.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16688190577563122712015-08-06T14:20:48.913-04:002015-08-06T14:20:48.913-04:00The clear relationship between evidence and theory...The clear relationship between evidence and theory was what impressed me when I learned about the endosymbiosis theory for the origin of eukaryotes, as it first became well known in the early 1970's. The hypothesis was based on observations that I knew about as an undergraduate. Wow! It must be true! (Even I understood it!) <br /><br />As undergrads, we already knew that mitochondria and chloroplasts were unusual organelles because they had their own DNA and they had double membranes. What did they look like? Prokaryotes! Prokaryotes engulfed by another cell and surrounded by a bit of that's cell's membrane! I even felt a bit of "I should have thought of that" although I didn't and never would have. (It was so obvious, in fact, that the idea was first proposed in the 1880's, even before the double membranes were detected.)<br /><br />Since the 1970's, abundant evidence has been found to support the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes, including DNA comparisons that have found the prokaryote "cousins" of both mitochondria and chloroplasts. <br /><br />These studies lead to new studies and new questions. Some bacteria penetrate other prokaryotic cells and digest them from the inside; did the ancestor of eukaryotes arise from a desperate attempt by the host to control an invader, rather than the host's attempt to eat the cell that was ancestral to the mitochondrion? Was the original "host" perhaps a third type of prokaryote, neither Archean nor Bacterial, that lacked a cell wall? <br /><br />Liesforthedevil has no interest in evidence about the evolution of endosymbiosis or even about how the theory grew, but to me that interaction of evidence and ideas is the fascinating, fun part of this theory.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54083737950033904742015-08-06T13:20:06.339-04:002015-08-06T13:20:06.339-04:00There are numerous examples of symbionts living in...There are numerous examples of symbionts living inside the cells of the host (intracellular endosymbionts). These include prokaryotes inside prokaryotes, prokaryotes inside eukaryotes, eukaryotes inside eukaryotes, and even prokaryotes inside prokaryotes inside eukaryotes (see above).<br /><br />The ciliate <i>Mesodinium chamaeleon</i> (derived from heterotrophic ancestors) ingests photoautotrophic algae (cryptomonads) and stores their cells almost intact inside its food vacuoles, using them as photosynthetic units. Another related ciliate, <i>Myrionecta rubra</i>, keeps the nuclei and the plastids of the cryptomonads it has eaten. They nuclei remain "alive" (genetically active) inside its cell for about a month, so that they can produce the enzymes needed for the functioning of the plastids. But that's not the end of the story. The plastids themselves originated from an old endosymbiont of the cryptomonad -- a red alga, whose vestigial nucleus (nucleomorph), with its own tiny genome, can still be found between the membranes of the plastids. So here we have an eukaryote inside an eukaryote inside an eukaryote. And of course the plastid itself <i>ultimately</i> derives from an endosymbiotic cyanobacterium.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60399256764065437232015-08-06T13:19:27.011-04:002015-08-06T13:19:27.011-04:00I'd say far more vexing than entertaining.I'd say far more vexing than entertaining. Uncivilized Elkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12876539220615373258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17270952079112814002015-08-06T13:05:31.298-04:002015-08-06T13:05:31.298-04:00Keep calm Lies. One day, like everyone else, you w...Keep calm Lies. One day, like everyone else, you will die and your life sentence in this terrible world of scientific facts and rationality will be over.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81889515760742448912015-08-06T13:00:42.910-04:002015-08-06T13:00:42.910-04:00Dead end for evolution to eukaryotic cells and the...<i>Dead end for evolution to eukaryotic cells and the rest of the evolutionary theory without an intervention of intelligent designer.</i><br /><br />So if I'm understanding correctly, it's impossible for the Universe to create so much as a fungus, but an intelligent being capable of designing all life on Earth, no problem!judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36617813564652334152015-08-06T12:34:50.183-04:002015-08-06T12:34:50.183-04:00Endosybiosis facts:
1. Prokaryotic cells (bacteri...Endosybiosis facts:<br /><br />1. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) are much simpler than the eukaryotic cells; they lack many complex structures. Dead end for evolution to eukaryotic cells and the rest of the evolutionary theory without an intervention of intelligent designer.<br /><br />2. In order for the theory of evolution to be maintained on a respirator past prokaryotes, an endosymbiosis hypothesis has been invented. But this hypothesis is only an object of evolutionary imagination. <br /><br />3. Endosybiosis supposedly happened when 1 prokaryote swallowed another and “decided” not to digest it against its nature of its digestive enzymes. Then the insider decided to evolve by an unknown mechanism and after some more additional swallowing and evolution, the eukaryotic cell somehow emerged. <br /><br />4. Never has the prokaryotic swallowing ever been observed in real life or lab even if some claim that they did, one bacteria cell preserved inside another bacteria cell has never been documented. <br /><br />5. All the above means nothing when one considers this fact: <br /><br />“Many eukaryote genes are totally unlike those seen in the prokaryotes and archaea. They seem to come from nowhere”. So even if one has a great imagination and faith to believe in endosymbiosis without any scientific evidence, he needs to face the fact that for endosymbiosis to take place, some genes have to be imported from somewhere, possibly from space. <br /><br />Evolutionists have to believe in this fairytale or a similar so-story or the entire theory of evolution is dead without this fundamental process. The alternative to their current beliefs makes them terrified and nervous. So, they have no choice. <br /><br /><br /> <br />Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76203964869580794262015-08-06T12:29:53.589-04:002015-08-06T12:29:53.589-04:00Larry, you are right that I don't trust Vivek ...Larry, you are right that I don't trust Vivek Goel's analysis. I've had too many interactions with University of Toronto administration to trust much of anything that emerges from it, no matter how noble the individuals concerned may be. (Ironically, I always found Rick Halpern to be one of the better of the bunch.) My personal suspicion is that the university found itself in an embarrassing position and chose the easy way out. As a sessional teaching a special topics course, Landau-Halpern had little job security and could be let go by the simple expedient of not posting the course to the sessional unit again. Goel's analysis then lets everyone off the hook, and by finding nothing wrong with the course content, avoids any question of an academic freedom complaint. Matter buried, never to be discussed again - until some pesky busybody found and publicized the whitewash. I understand why you might be unwilling to go along with this line of speculation, for which I admittedly lack any direct evidence.<br /><br />Re: academic freedom. The limits I note on academic freedom are probably just those you cover by your last remark. Academic freedom allow you to question cherished beliefs, and defend controversial views. But it does not give license to do so without regard for basic standards of academic scholarship and integrity, and without regard for curricular needs. An instructor who fails to abide by established scholarly standards, in their teaching as much as in their research, cannot expect to be reappointed. And a course that does not meet these academic standards has no place in the university.Iainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09376945981386467046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21449932657337480092015-08-06T12:00:11.755-04:002015-08-06T12:00:11.755-04:00Iain says,
I agree that academic freedom is vital...Iain says,<br /><br /><i>I agree that academic freedom is vitally important - indeed, I was on the bargaining team that negotiated strong academic freedom language for sessional lecturers like Landau-Halpern. But even when negotiating that collective agreement, we acknowledged that academic freedom had its limits.</i><br /><br />Really! That's news to me since I'm very familiar with the defense of academic freedom at the university of Toronto having served on UTFA's grievance committee for 13 years. Tell me more about those limits to academic freedom that you negotiated. <br /><br />Here's the <a href="http://www.utoronto.ca/about-uoft/mission-and-purpose" rel="nofollow">Mission Statement</a> of the University of Toronto. <br /><br />"<i>Within the unique university context, the most crucial of all human rights are the rights of freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom of research. And we affirm that these rights are meaningless unless they entail the right to raise deeply disturbing questions and provocative challenges to the cherished beliefs of society at large and of the university itself.<br /><br />It is this human right to radical, critical teaching and research with which the University has a duty above all to be concerned; for there is no one else, no other institution and no other office, in our modern liberal democracy, which is the custodian of this most precious and vulnerable right of the liberated human spirit.</i>"<br /><br />Tell me about the limits that need to be incorporated into this statement. <br /><br />Perhaps you are confusing academic freedom with the right to teach whatever you want in an undergraduate course? That second "right" doesn't exist and it's not covered by academic freedom. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33448964759175396382015-08-06T11:40:45.306-04:002015-08-06T11:40:45.306-04:00@ Iain
I understand where you are coming from. Yo...@ Iain<br /><br />I understand where you are coming from. You are quite confident that you know what happened in the course from reading the online syllabus. Vivek Goel looked at the entire program and the preparation of the students. He interviewed the lecturer and members of the department. He concludes that the course wasn't as bad as you imagine. He judges from the student responses (and other sources) that students mostly got the appropriate benefit from the course in spite of the fact that the lecturer was unqualified.<br /><br />You don't trust Vivek Goel's analysis.<br /><br />I know Vivek Goel and I trust his judgement in this matter. I don't think you have enough information to pass judgement. <br /><br /><i>Students are poorly treated by being taught, essentially, to treat random YouTube videos as of equal evidential worth to scholarly research papers by qualified academics. </i><br /><br />Nobody in that course was taught any such thing, according to Vivek Goel. <br /><br />We need to teach students how to deal with all kinds of information other than that which comes from scientific papers. That other kind of information (e.g. books, Facebook, newspapers, YouTube, Ted Talks) is what needs to be effectively refuted or challenged in the real world outside of the university. As an aside, we also need to teach students to be very skeptical of stuff that's published in the scientific literature—especially in the medical literature. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92232311143715447202015-08-06T11:19:32.879-04:002015-08-06T11:19:32.879-04:00The difference is clear by applying the usual stan...The difference is clear by applying the usual standards of evaluation for academic quality. These do not depend on whether the views defended are considered correct or not, or even on how strong the evidence is for them, but on such things as grasp of the subject matter, engagement with the full breadth of scholarship on a topic, publication in reputable sources and citation of such publications, logical coherence, and so on. Papers defending homeopathy are almost universally abysmally shoddy, showing poor understanding of research methods, basic science, and simple reasoning skills. Students are poorly treated by being taught, essentially, to treat random YouTube videos as of equal evidential worth to scholarly research papers by qualified academics. Iainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09376945981386467046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2740824303092936212015-08-06T10:54:12.439-04:002015-08-06T10:54:12.439-04:00There is a difference between standing up for some...<i>There is a difference between standing up for someone using scholarly sources to defend Marxism in an economics classroom, or to uphold Catholic ethics in a philosophy class, and someone using third-rate materials to one-sidedly defend demonstrably incoherent nonsense.</i><br /><br />And what is that difference? Is there stronger evidence supporting Catholicism than homeopathy?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60265325027392321332015-08-06T10:46:49.517-04:002015-08-06T10:46:49.517-04:00The course syllabus (link dead, but still on the i...The course syllabus (link dead, but still on the internet archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150324215841/https://ahautsc.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/hltd04-alternative-health-practice-and-theory.pdf) is a lot more detailed than a reading list, and makes clear that this course was exactly as bad as I imagine. Vivek Goel focussed only on the section on vaccination, but the quantum mechanics part is clearest in showing that we are dealing with sheer quackery. Anybody who actually knows anything about QM can see that the claims made here are rank bullshit, and that there is no intent to assess them critically. <br />The key here is what counts as critical assessment. Goel accepts reassurances from the instructor that these topics would be addressed critically, but "critical" means something very different to the Alt Med community than to academics - in this case, it means there will be plenty of criticism of conventional medicine, but very little actual critical analysis of the readings on offer.<br />I agree that academic freedom is vitally important - indeed, I was on the bargaining team that negotiated strong academic freedom language for sessional lecturers like Landau-Halpern. But even when negotiating that collective agreement, we acknowledged that academic freedom had its limits. There is a difference between standing up for someone using scholarly sources to defend Marxism in an economics classroom, or to uphold Catholic ethics in a philosophy class, and someone using third-rate materials to one-sidedly defend demonstrably incoherent nonsense. If none of the readings in your course would ever be considered for publication by even a half-way decent journal, that's a pretty good sign that your course is not up to the academic standards expected of a major university - whatever it is that you are defending.<br />One last point about Vivek Goel's response: I'm pretty unimpressed by the suggestion that everything must have been OK because the students seemed happy. This is a course advertised as defending alternative medicine, offered to students in a 'health-ish' major (from my recollection, most students in that program were not good enough to get into med school, and were looking for careers in healthcare that didn't require a medical degree). The student pool is therefore quite self-selecting for students who would be amenable to the message on offer. Add to that a hugely biased presentation of course material, and I would be surprised if the majority of students weren't at least partial converts to the cause by the end. The syllabus suggests very touchy-feely assignments, likely marked very easily, which is an almost universal way of guaranteeing good course evaluations. So unless Goel actually interviewed or tested the students, to determine how critically they really did assess the material, I wouldn't put any trust in positive student feedback. (The student/customer is not definitely not always right - as I know you would agree!)Iainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09376945981386467046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80196316911065062202015-08-06T09:55:54.596-04:002015-08-06T09:55:54.596-04:00I didn't intend that courses should explicitly...I didn't intend that courses should explicitly teach how to judge ordinary life claims. But they could teach critical thinking within their particular fields.I think at least some of my teachers taught thinking skills, and some others led by bad example.<br /><br />It would be a hoot if science fairs encouraged Consumer Reports style testing of various claims.Petrushkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343702725399620404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87287159186956761322015-08-06T06:51:51.906-04:002015-08-06T06:51:51.906-04:00You don't know anything about the course other...You don't know anything about the course other than the reading list that you saw online. Vivek Goel, whose opinion I value, investigated and found that the course wasn't as bad as you imagine and the students were not duped. <br /><br />He says that, even though he doesn't approve of the instructor or the way she was chosen. <br /><br />You object to the fact that students might ever be exposed to the idea that there is a legitimate controversy ("scholarly debate") or that there might be "evidence on both sides," That's wrong. There is a controversy whether we like it or not and we need to arm our students with the tools to think critically for themselves. You don't do that by presenting only one side of the argument and treating the other side as illegitimate and unworthy of being defended in a university classroom. That's just telling students what they should think based on your opinion of the truth. <br /><br />Don't you see why this is a dangerous position to defend? Universities are under attack from within and without because they are not teaching the "correct" version of the truth. It's relatively easy to defend critical thinking when you agree with what's being taught and disagree with those who would ban it (e.g. evolution, socialism, atheism). It's much harder, but just as important, to defend expression of those views you disagree with. <br /><br />Many people think I go too far in defending the rights of people I disagree with but I'd rather err on the side of freedom of expression than on the side of censorship. I'm not afraid that students will be easily swayed if they debate and discuss controversial ideas among themselves in a university course as long as they have been given the tools to think critically and they have been encouraged to do so from the day they enter university. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33953423133534725512015-08-06T06:47:12.806-04:002015-08-06T06:47:12.806-04:00Exactly. I read Martin Gardner's Fads and Fall...Exactly. I read Martin Gardner's <i>Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science</i> when I was about 14 years old, and it immunised me against pesudocience for the rest of my life. I couldn't read English at the time, and so had to do with a Polish translation, with the chapter on Lysenko scissored out by communist censorship, but it was effective anyway.<br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.com