Please click below on the "comments" hypertext to start or join our online conversation!
VVV
IN THE FIRST LINE OF YOUR COMMENT
PLEASE MENTION
THE DATE, PRESENTER'S NAME AND TOPIC
advTHANKSance
The VilPhil Blog is intended for courteous discussion of Topics selected for Presentation at our meetings in The Villages, FL. Do not post extraneous material such as "chain letters" or political or religious diatribes.
The VilPhil Blog is intended for courteous discussion of Topics selected for Presentation at our meetings in The Villages, FL. Do not post extraneous material such as "chain letters" or political or religious diatribes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete5/17/19 -Barry Robbins - “Meet Your Ancestors”
ReplyDeleteHaving given a presentation to the Philosophy Club last year called “How Humans Evolved” I was deeply disappointed in his lecture. I learned little from his lecture and thought his title was misleading and not honest to the subject. No one really cares about simple one celled animals that lived 600 million years ago. They care about how humans or human-like people changed and looked over time. No mention was ever given about ancient diets, teeth, hips, sweating, walking gaits or anything concrete.
There were way too many stick figures used and made his talk seem childish, clumsy and amateurish. Certainly there are many good professional illustrations out there to make a point instead of Kindergarten drawings.
Repeated references were made to “your grandfather” and “he”. Only one sentence mentioned female ancestors. The more appropriate word would have been “your grandparents”. Since half the people present in the audience were female, his presentation excluded half of them. It was a male only themed presentation, which was a real turn off to my wife.
The talk really concerned a brief history of life on earth. Nobody cares how many generations removed we are from a sponge. Plus there was mention of cells and nucleus but no actual pictures. Most of us haven’t seen a real picture of a cell since biology class 50 years ago.
Since Lucy was mentioned, an artist’s rendition of what she would have looked like would have been a good slide. Certainly the 40% of her skeletal remains could have been shown.
Regarding Barry’s vision of the future for humans was for “Gee whiz” rich white privileged kids with fancy capitalist toys. Remember, not everyone in the world has access to a cell phone. Half the people on the planet have never even made a cell phone call and can’t afford a computer with internet access. Most of the people in the world are farmers, who do not have clean water to drink, getting by making a few dollars a day. They can’t afford a cell phone.
In the future be true to your title of your show, present information to the public they have a keen interest in, dump the stick figures; and lastly, people care about people not sponges and amoebas.
Drake Shepard
pensadad@yahoo.com
From my perspective, Barry’s talk was witty, clever, and exactly what I would expect from Barry—a humorous and thoughtful look at an interesting topic. I found the “Kindergarten” stick figures funny; I guess I should go back to Kindergarten. When people give presentations at Philosophy Club, there is no criteria of a professional academic expectation. On the contrary, we expect the presenter to give his or her thoughts on a topic that matters to them. Sometimes talks are academic, and sometimes it’s just someone willing to share their learning from their perspective. And Barry always does just that with his very special touch of humor—he doesn’t just Stoically read “canned” jokes.
ReplyDeleteBarry’s humor entertains; and from what I saw, a substantial number of attendees were thoroughly entertained and did learn something new. It’s (in my opinion) just unfair to level this kind of criticism in this kind of format. We’ve all been to talks that did not meet our expectations (especially if we have a background in the topic), but we should always remember presenters are volunteers who put themselves out there so that all of us can enjoy these weekly talks and times together for reflection.
I’d also be curious about Mr. Shepard’s evidence for his “no one cares” claims. I cared, does that make me “no one”? Here’s a basic lesson of logic and critical thinking—be very careful when you generalize and assume you know what people care about because those kinds of assumptions are “very unscientific.” Unless of course, Mr. Shepard took a survey as people were leaving.
Finally, I’d note the very animated discussion that followed Barry’s talk. It sure seemed to me like a lot of people were drawn into an interesting discussion about his presentation. And isn’t that the point?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAugust 9, 2019. Scott Fenstermaker will present "SHOULD THE FIRST AMENDMENT EXPEL GOD FROM SCHOOL?
ReplyDeleteAugust 11, 2019 My comment:
I did want to participate in the civil face off between the atheists and theists at The Philosophy Club late Friday afternoon; but, I am slow to express my ideas or they be ill thought.
Central to the civil discussion was the practical application of teaching and learning about God within the public education system. After the discussion, I am left with the impression that most atheists favor the use of a legal like insurance to ban the very idea of God from public schools; because, that idea of God – an idea believed to be wrong within the atheist mind set – might poison impressionable students. As for theists – persons expressing an attitude which I do not dismiss out of my mind as without evidence or as silly or as stupid – my impression is that, as difficult as it might be, it is worth teaching and learning that the very idea of God is at least an evolutionary artifact still having great impact – good and bad – upon the social development of mankind. These opposing impressions leave me wondering if fundamentalists on each side of the theist/atheist argument might harbor thoughts that the world would be better off if the other side did not exist.
No doubt there is history of religious ideas of God guiding evil personal behavior; for example, during the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and 9/11. Heck, religious sects have even tried to wipe each other out seeking proof of their superior ideal Gods. But, atheistic ideas also have been – dare I say, a religious guiding force – behind the activities of some very massive revolutionary movements killing many millions of people: as evidence, I point to Stalin and Mao; just two shining examples of persons powerful enough and willing enough to force all persons within their reach to believe their ‘right and true scientific Marxist ideology’ or die. Of course Stalin and Mao and Marx subscribed to the idea that God is not real and purely a figment of faulty imagination. And I am pretty certain that they felt so insecure in their non-belief in God that they acted in such a way as to eliminate persons with opposing ideals. For them, the very ‘false’ idea of God should be snuffed out and if that couldn’t be accomplished through some kind of re-education then they and their followers felt it just to snuff out the actual people still possessing the idea.
Thank Goodness we are only talking, civilly, about banning the teaching and learning of the idea of God in our public classrooms.
Honestly, when I reflect upon the existence or non-existence of God I haven’t found proof of either: And that is an important realization for me; for, I am certain there are many, many, many false religious beliefs held by both theists and atheists. Atheism, to me, is just as much a religious belief system guiding an atheist’s personal behaviors as any theistic belief system is. Atheism, to me, as I heard it expressed Friday, can be quite dogmatic with regard to its non-belief in God: that there is no evidence to support the God idea; that belief in God is childish or even stupid; that the very idea of God should be banned from public spaces.
Though my last statement is my simplified expression of the atheist position I do not find myself wanting atheistic ideas swept under the rug because I find atheism a necessary opposition arising amidst the false and the unreal in theism.
Great topic and discussion.
Thanks,
Maury Garvey
Regarding August 16, 2019 presentation of Peter Irwin on "Conscientious Objection and the Draft":
ReplyDeleteIf one asks a conscious objector, "What would you have done in WW2?" my response would be "On which side?" If we condemn German soldiers for "complicity" in carrying out the orders of their Nazi commanders, what is the basis of our claim? Since we judge that their Commander-in-Chief espoused heinous values, we expect each individual to bear responsibility for their own irrevocable ethical actions. They ought not have followed Hitler's orders. While the Nuremberg Trials brought only those who gave orders to account, many soldiers who carried out those orders (especially those in the death camps) felt guilty for having done so.
So, during the Vietnam War, if one did not accept the "domino theory" as sufficient justification for taking the lives of Vietnamese, what was one to do? In my case, I refused to relinquish responsibility for my irrevocable actions (e.g., taking a human life) to anyone else. I would not act as a trigger in another's hand. Yes, there is a practical problem of running an army with soldiers who do not obey (trust) the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. That is why we have all-volunteer armies. But it is also why, as I suggested, all members of a society might reasonably be conscripted to serve their nation for an equivalent period of time to that required of soldiers. Such service ought to be in the national health, safety, or interest, as is required of conscientious objectors. If insufficient numbers of individuals enlist in the army, it is up to the Commander-in-Chief to persuade recruits to believe that his/her judgment can be trusted. In that way, all who participate in a war can accept responsibility for their actions.
Peter Irwin
Peter: With all due Respect, the essence of Representative Democracy is that, for the sake of Preservation of Society, Members of the Minority accept decisions of the Majority as If they were their own.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your argument, see also: False Equivalence,
Trivialization of the Holocaust, and Godwin's Law.
Love, Ira
test comment
ReplyDelete