" I don't think I give as much credence to my own mind, because I see myself as being very limited and very flawed, and lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding. So, I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. "
- Log in to post comments
More like this
(Apologies to John Hodgman for swiping his nifty title.)
There has been some discussion in these parts about just who ought to be allowed to talk about scientific issues of various sorts, and just what kind of authority we ought to grant such talk. It's well and good to say that a journalism major…
I heard this morning on the news that Sir Arthur C. Clarke has passed. NPR did a nice piece on him, if a bit focused on 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clarke was a big influence on me and my interest in science and science fiction, and I thought it would be nice to have a permanent memorial of sorts,…
The following is the (approximate) text of the speech I gave Friday night at the Whitney Point High School graduation. Or, at least, this is what I typed out for myself Thursday night-- what actually comes out of my mouth on Friday might be completely different. That's why they do these things live…
After you've been blogging as long as I have, you inevitably wind up on a lot of mailing lists. Publicity companies, for instance, long ago discovered that getting a buzz going in the blogosphere is every bit as important as trying to get coverage from the "traditional" media. If you're as…
Like we didn't notice Michelle?
To which I respond, "Michele, we know you are not a deep thinker, or any kind of thinker."
Straight from the horse's, ah, mouth *ahem*
Heh. A little bit of self-knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Is this a fresh statement by her, or something found in the archives? Yesterday, I hope.
It's amazing that people can know they don't know much, but still be so sure they're right. People who know a lot more are generally more tentative.
Darn! She said it when "Interviewed by Todd Fiel at KKMS in 2003" -- too old to be really useful. She can claim (against the evidence) to have learned something in the past 7 years, plus as "ancient history" this will not get any news coverage. Too bad.
Those might be the only honest words I've ever heard her say.
" I don't think I give as much credence to my own mind, because I see myself as being very limited and very flawed, and lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding. "
And yet everyone is supposed to listen to her and do what she says? This is nothing but false humility from a very arrogant idiot.
Ms Bachmann says that she is "lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding". Fine, this is true, BUT this condition is curable.
I would prescribe a course of SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION.
A psychiatrist/psychologist might prescribe a course in learned humility first, but that is outside my area of professional expertise.
Chances of this happening? Sadly, I suspect zero.
Sounds like the oath Fox viewers have to take before they can start chanting "we are fair and balanced."
So, she's basically proclaiming she is an igonrant idiot? Isn't that like announcing that water is wet?
A compendium of iron-age myths and poetry?
MacTurk, I'm not sure a course in science education (however extensive) would help. She might just end up parroting other views, with equal lack of comprehension.
What Bachmann (and many, many others) need is instruction on rational thinking - how to differentiate the nonsensical from the plausible, how to analyze evidence and data, how to reconcile contradictory claims using an evidence-based approach, how to process logic, and most importantly how to be wrong and admit to it.
While science backgrounds often provide some or all of the foregoing, it's not a guaranteed element of a science-based education, and religion doesn't preclude any of these traits either. Some surprisingly reality-based and logical views come from religiously-centered individuals, after all.
Of course, Bachmann is not one of those individuals.
Warren, you wrote that "What Bachmann (and many, many others) need is instruction on rational thinking - how to differentiate the nonsensical from the plausible, how to analyze evidence and data, how to reconcile contradictory claims using an evidence-based approach, how to process logic, and most importantly how to be wrong and admit to it."
I agree totally.
However, she would then loose her job, and die under a bridge.