PDA

View Full Version : Misc Which do you trust more, science or faith/religion?


jAZ
06-05-2009, 03:48 PM
I don't intend this to be a debate. Just curious the split. I fall on the side of science without a doubt. I'm sure some tinker on the edge. Others fall on the side of faith/religion.

Where do you fall?

Fence sitters have to pick one or the others if you want to vote.

Donger
06-05-2009, 03:49 PM
Science.

|Zach|
06-05-2009, 03:50 PM
http://www.scienceacross.org/media/Primary_science_Image.jpg

Demonpenz
06-05-2009, 03:56 PM
I trust both of them equally.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 04:07 PM
Question is too general. Some things fall under trusting science more....except that's been a history of mistakes. Religion for other things like how to treat others, living life ethically, where we go after this life etc. Can be just personal philosophical beliefs or official system. Whatever one prefers.

stevieray
06-05-2009, 04:11 PM
science and religion are man made and therefore are tangible and/or fallable...

..only faith is worthy of crediblity.

Simply Red
06-05-2009, 04:15 PM
science and religion are man made and therefore are tangible and/or fallable...

..only faith is worthy of crediblity.

this

Zebedee DuBois
06-05-2009, 04:42 PM
science and religion are man made and therefore are tangible and/or fallable...

..only faith is worthy of crediblity.

I would suggest that 'faith' is also a product of man.

And you are correct - man is inherently fallible.

Zebedee DuBois
06-05-2009, 04:44 PM
for the record, I voted science.

Both are often politicized or warped for personal gain.

patteeu
06-05-2009, 04:45 PM
Question is too general. Some things fall under trusting science more....except that's been a history of mistakes. Religion for other things like how to treat others, living life ethically, where we go after this life etc. Can be just personal philosophical beliefs or official system. Whatever one prefers.

This is my answer too.

On the one hand we have Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the Inquisition while on the other hand we have Josef Mengele, Shiro Ishii, and climate change "experts".

jAZ
06-05-2009, 05:06 PM
I would suggest that 'faith' is also a product of man.

And you are correct - man is inherently fallible.

Faith is an action of man, faith in *what*? The *what* is a <s>product</s> determination of man.

alnorth
06-05-2009, 05:20 PM
Science.

Faith is a delusional fantasy created by men to cope with death and/or the unknown.

Science is not infallible, but at least does not have an inherent bias. An answer derived through the scientific method is either right or unavailable without brilliant insight and more data.

stevieray
06-05-2009, 05:21 PM
I would suggest that 'faith' is also a product of man.

And you are correct - man is inherently fallible.
..and I believe that faith (in the context of this converation} comes from God.

Adept Havelock
06-05-2009, 05:28 PM
Science.

Faith is a delusional fantasy created by men to cope with death and/or the unknown.

Science is not infallible, but at least does not have an inherent bias. An answer derived through the scientific method is either right or unavailable without brilliant insight and more data.

That's my perspective as well. Nicely said, alnorth.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 05:33 PM
Science.

Faith is a delusional fantasy created by men to cope with death and/or the unknown.

Science is not infallible, but at least does not have an inherent bias. An answer derived through the scientific method is either right or unavailable without brilliant insight and more data.

What about an answer to a question on how to live a good life? Or how to treat one's fellow man? Or any other issue dealing with good/bad right/wrong or even aesthetics? Those are all spiritual questions that science cannot answer.

Science is for physical matter.

irishjayhawk
06-05-2009, 05:47 PM
Science.

Faith is a delusional fantasy created by men to cope with death and/or the unknown.

Science is not infallible, but at least does not have an inherent bias. An answer derived through the scientific method is either right or unavailable without brilliant insight and more data.

Couldn't be said more accurately.

alnorth
06-05-2009, 05:47 PM
What about an answer to a question on how to live a good life? Or how to treat one's fellow man? Or any other issue dealing with good/bad right/wrong or even aesthetics?

Those are not quantitative issues. Faith could be used to answer that, but is not at all necessary. Ethics, Morality, and plain old personal preference can exist just fine without believing in the invisible man in the sky.

irishjayhawk
06-05-2009, 05:48 PM
What about an answer to a question on how to live a good life? Or how to treat one's fellow man? Or any other issue dealing with good/bad right/wrong or even aesthetics? Those are all spiritual questions that science cannot answer.

Science is for physical matter.

Ethics need not be spiritual or supernatural.

Thig Lyfe
06-05-2009, 05:50 PM
..and I believe that faith (in the context of this converation} comes from God.

And God comes from man.

This question is like asking the type of treatment you'd want for an illness, medicine or a four-leaf clover.

***SPRAYER
06-05-2009, 05:53 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TrKzfYl3hgI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TrKzfYl3hgI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

stevieray
06-05-2009, 05:53 PM
And God comes from man.

This question is like asking the type of treatment you'd want for an illness, medicine or a four-leaf clover.

this isn't a debate thread..

irishjayhawk
06-05-2009, 05:53 PM
And God comes from man.

This question is like asking the type of treatment you'd want for an illness, medicine or a four-leaf clover.

http://www.godispretend.net/wp-content/uploads/political-pictures-pope-benedict-xvi-faith-bulletproof.jpg

irishjayhawk
06-05-2009, 05:54 PM
this isn't a debate thread..

No one was debating.

stevieray
06-05-2009, 05:57 PM
No one was debating.
especially you..LMAO

irishjayhawk
06-05-2009, 05:59 PM
especially you..LMAO

:spock:

patteeu
06-05-2009, 06:19 PM
Those are not quantitative issues. Faith could be used to answer that, but is not at all necessary. Ethics, Morality, and plain old personal preference can exist just fine without believing in the invisible man in the sky.

Ethics need not be spiritual or supernatural.

It need not be, but the question is which do you trust more.

I can't think of many good reasons why I'd trust a dedicated man of science more than a devout man of religion, but I can think of some why I'd trust the MoR more than the MoS.

irishjayhawk
06-05-2009, 06:21 PM
It need not be, but the question is which do you trust more.

I can't think of many good reasons why I'd trust a dedicated man of science more than a devout man of religion, but I can think of some why I'd trust the MoR more than the MoS.

Why?

Adept Havelock
06-05-2009, 06:23 PM
http://www.godispretend.net/wp-content/uploads/political-pictures-pope-benedict-xvi-faith-bulletproof.jpg

Heh. Not bad.

blaise
06-05-2009, 06:30 PM
I find the statement that you didn't intend this to be a debate thread to be disingenuous.

***SPRAYER
06-05-2009, 06:34 PM
Among the targets of the Paperclip recruitment program were Hermann Becker-Freyseng and Konrad Schaeffer, authors of the study "Thirst and Thirst Quenching in Emergency Situations at Sea." The study was designed to devise ways to prolong the survival of pilots downed over water. To this end the two scientists asked Heinrich Himmler for "forty healthy test subjects" from the SS chief’s network of concentration camps, the only debate among the scientists being whether the research victims should be Jews, gypsies or Communists. The experiments took place at Dachau. These prisoners, most of them Jews, had salt water forced down their throats through tubes. Others had salt water injected directly into their veins. Half of the subjects were given a drug called berkatit, which was supposed to make salt water more palatable, though both scientists suspected that the berkatit itself would prove fatally toxic within two weeks. They were correct. During the tests the doctors used long needles to extract liver tissue. No anesthetic was given. All the research subjects died. Both Becker-Freyseng and Schaeffer received long-term contracts under Paperclip; Schaeffer ended up in Texas, where he continued his research into "thirst and desalinization of salt water."



Becker-Freyseng was given the responsibility of editing for the US Air Force the massive store of aviation research conducted by his fellow Nazis. By this time he had been tracked down and brought to trial at Nuremberg. The multivolume work, entitled German Aviation Medicine: World War II, was eventually published by the US Air Force, complete with an introduction written by Becker-Freyseng from his Nuremberg jail cell. The work neglected to mention the human victims of the research, and praised the Nazi scientists as sincere and honorable men "with a free and academic character" laboring under the constraints of the Third Reich.



One of their prominent colleagues was Dr. Sigmund Rascher, also assigned to Dachau. In 1941 Rascher informed Himmler of the vital need to conduct high-altitude experiments on human subjects. Rascher, who had developed a special low-pressure chamber during his tenure at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, asked Dimmer for permission to have delivered into his custody "two or three professional criminals," a Nazi euphemism for Jews, Russian prisoners of war and members of the Polish underground resistance. Himmler quickly assented and Rascher’s experiments were under way within a month.



Rascher’s victims were locked inside his low-pressure chamber, which simulated altitudes of up to 68,000 feet. Eighty of the human guinea pigs died after being kept inside for half an hour without oxygen. Dozens of others were dragged semi-conscious from the chamber and immediately drowned in vats of ice water. Rascher quickly sliced open heir heads to examine how many blood vessels in the brain had burst due to air embolisms. Rascher filmed these experiments and the autopsies, sending the footage along with his meticulous notes back to Himmler,



"Some experiments gave men such pressure in their heads that they would go mad and pull out their hair in an effort to relieve such pressure," Rascher wrote. "They would tear at their heads and faces with their hands and scream in an effort to relieve pressure on their eardrums."



Rascher’s records were scooped up by US intelligence agents and delivered to the Air Force.



The US intelligence officials viewed the criticism of people like Drew Pearson with disdain. Bosquet Wev, head of JOIA, dismissed the scientists’ Nazi past as "a picayune detail"; continuing to condemn them for their work for Hitler and Himmler was simply "beating a dead horse." Playing on American fears about Stalin’s intentions in Europe, Wev argued that leaving the Nazi scientists in Germany "presents a far greater security threat to this country than any former Nazi affiliation they may have had or even any Nazi sympathies which they may still have."



A similar pragmatism was expressed by one of Wev’s colleagues, Colonel Montie Cone, head of G-2’s exploitation division.



"From a military point of view, we knew that these people were invaluable to us," Cone said. "Just think what we have from their research all of our satellites, jet aircraft, rockets, almost everything else."

bango
06-05-2009, 07:54 PM
I trust both of them equally.

This here, right here.

alnorth
06-05-2009, 08:02 PM
It need not be, but the question is which do you trust more.

I can't think of many good reasons why I'd trust a dedicated man of science more than a devout man of religion, but I can think of some why I'd trust the MoR more than the MoS.

If we are talking about ethics and morality, then Science doesnt even have anything at all to do with it, and its a false argument. Science should most certainly be trusted over cultural myths for questions about how the natural world works. Saying you dont trust science to answer moral and ethical questions is like saying you dont trust your calculator to cook a good medium-rare steak.

Morality and Ethics does not flow from religion. It's a convenient tool that a society can use to convince people to be ethical and moral for those who "its the right thing to do" isnt good enough. OK, fine. Tell them God said to do it.

Myself, I'd rather cut out the fluff and middle-man to do what is ethical and moral for its own sake.

Silock
06-05-2009, 08:18 PM
Here's my take:

Science does not make judgments about anything. It simply presents facts. Any moral or ethical decisions resulting from those facts are purely a personal interpretation. Therefore, I trust both science and religion. Science cannot explain everything. Religion most certainly cannot. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. There's no reason you cannot "trust" both equally, because they are not two equitable concepts.

patteeu
06-05-2009, 08:29 PM
Why?

Because religions typically teach people to treat others well and to resist temptations of selfishness whereas science doesn't really address these things.

patteeu
06-05-2009, 08:34 PM
If we are talking about ethics and morality, then Science doesnt even have anything at all to do with it, and its a false argument.

It's not a false argument, it's just an example of why the poll question doesn't really have enough definition. I agree with you that science doesn't have anything to do with those things. That's why I'd trust the man of God over the man of science on ethical issues if I knew nothing else about them.

Morality and Ethics does not flow from religion.

They do flow from religion, they just don't flow exclusively from religion. I think we're pretty much in agreement on this though.

patteeu
06-05-2009, 08:36 PM
I find the statement that you didn't intend this to be a debate thread to be disingenuous.

It didn't have to be a debate as long as everyone agreed with the people who jAZ thought were right. :)

jAZ
06-05-2009, 10:32 PM
This question is like asking the type of treatment you'd want for an illness, medicine or a four-leaf clover.
This is the story that sparked my thought for this thread...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/05/homeopathy-kills/

Blogs / Bad Astronomy« Flying the meteoric skies
Secular Student Alliance meeting at OSU »
Homeopathy kills

[Note: This post may upset some people. It damn sure upset me. If you are easily upset by pediatric medical stories that do not end well, then you might want to skip reading this. The title alone may be all you need to know.]

Homeopathy is the antiscientific belief that infinitely diluted medicine in water can cure various ailments. It’s perhaps the most ridiculous of all "alternative" medicines, since it clearly cannot work, does not work, and has been tested repeatedly and shown to be useless.

And for those who ask, "what’s the harm?", you may direct your question to Thomas Sam and his wife Manju Sam, whose nine-month-old daughter died because of their homeopathic beliefs.

The infant girl, Gloria Thomas, died of complications due to eczema. Eczema. This is an easily-treatable skin condition (the treatments don’t cure eczema but do manage it), but that treatment was withheld from the baby girl by her parents, who rejected the advice of doctors and instead used homeopathic treatments. The baby’s condition got worse, with her skin covered in rashes and open cracks. These cracks let in germs which her tiny body had difficulty fighting off. She became undernourished as she used all her nutrients to fight infections instead of for growth and the other normal body functions of an infant. She was constantly sick and in pain, but her parents stuck with homeopathy. When the baby girl developed an eye infection, her parents finally took her to a hospital, but it was far too late: little Gloria Thomas succumbed to septicemia from the infection.

Thomas and Manju Sam were convicted yesterday of manslaughter in Australian court. As a parent myself I cannot even begin to imagine the pain they are going through, the anguish and the emotional horror. But let us be clear here: their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby. Homeopathy doesn’t work, but because they were raised in an environment that supports belief in homeopathy, they trusted it. They used it, and they rejected real, science-based medicine. And their daughter suffered the consequences.

And suffer she did. The accounts of the pediatricians who tried too late to help little Gloria Thomas are simply harrowing.

Every time I hear about something like this — a baby dying due to "alternative" medicine, or the lies and disinformation from the antivaccination movement, or some other belief system that flies in the face of reality — a little bit of me dies as well. I held my daughter shortly after she was born, and I would have done anything to protect her, and that included and still includes protecting her against people who fight so adamantly against reality.

The reality is that the antivaxxers’ work will result in babies dying. The reality is that belief in homeopathy will result in more babies dying. The reality is that denying science-based medicine will result in more babies dying.

And I know these words will fall on many deaf ears. And I will guarantee the comments to this post will contain many loud and irrational arguments supporting homeopathy and the antivaxxers. I’ve seen it before, and I know that many of those people are completely immune to reason and logic. And if you wonder what might wake them up, the answer may very well be nothing. Just read what Gloria Thomas’ father — the man just convicted of the manslaughter of his own daughter — had to say:

`
He and his wife face 25 years in jail, where they will have plenty of time to rethink their convictions.

June 5th, 2009 10:03 AM by Phil Plait in Antiscience, Piece of mind, Science | 124 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 10:51 PM
Those are not quantitative issues. Faith could be used to answer that, but is not at all necessary. Ethics, Morality, and plain old personal preference can exist just fine without believing in the invisible man in the sky.

Yeah well, I qualified my statement that it could be philosophical as one's religion. You err'd in assuming all religions believe in an invisible man in the sky. That's mainly the three Abrahamic religions. Buddhism doesn't. That's more about improving oneself and reaching higher states. And the question was not a quantitative one either. It was vague or general. I mean do you use a trust meter or calculator in how you decide to trust someone in life?

FTR, our SC considers anything along the line I used to define my answer as in the religion camp. Specifically I'll cite Secular Humanism. It may be a belief in man and his reason, but it is a belief in something. And it plays the same role as religion guiding one's decisions about what is the good life and right and wrong.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-06-2009, 12:21 AM
GOD, because if i had trusted science i want a refund.

Pioli Zombie
06-06-2009, 07:02 AM
Why can't you have both? This is the biggest false debate going right now.
Posted via Mobile Device

trndobrd
06-06-2009, 09:37 AM
Science according to who? Religion according to who?

|Zach|
06-06-2009, 09:39 AM
GOD, because if i had trusted science i want a refund.

Did you purchase science?

jAZ
06-06-2009, 09:48 AM
Science according to who? Religion according to who?

You.

jAZ
06-06-2009, 09:56 AM
I find the statement that you didn't intend this to be a debate thread to be disingenuous.

I think this is a fair point. However, I created the thread for the poll results. I screwed up and forgot to make it a public poll. I was curious about the stats and the identification. I certainly expected debate, but had I wanted to stir debate, I w/could have been far more provacative in my opening post.

Given that I have since posted the article that prompted my thought on this thread, you can see that just starting the discussion around that topic would have inflamed the debate from square one.

I didn't use it as the premise of this thread for a reason.

Cannibal
06-06-2009, 10:30 AM
It need not be, but the question is which do you trust more.

I can't think of many good reasons why I'd trust a dedicated man of science more than a devout man of religion, but I can think of some why I'd trust the MoR more than the MoS.

I can think of several reasons why a 10 year old boy would trust the MoS more than a Catholic priest.

patteeu
06-06-2009, 11:22 AM
I can think of several reasons why a 10 year old boy would trust the MoS more than a Catholic priest.

Yeah, except that that's just because of a media-created distortion of reality.

Jenson71
06-06-2009, 03:40 PM
They are separate things, though not in conflict as to make someone choose between them. You may as well have included art in your question. Do you trust art more than science or religion? You probably wonder -- trust art in what respect, if such a thing is even possible?

I would not trust religion to determine or maintain that energy and matter are linked. I would not trust religion to cure cancer. I would not trust religion to properly determine the physics needed to launch a rocket out of our atmosphere. Of that, and many others, I trust science, the total observations and experiments that understand the natural order of our universe.

Science is very trustworthy, as much as our reason and senses can be trusted. Science is an amazing human endeavor, one of the most amazing things we have. It must be treasured.

But I would not trust science to determine how to live to get to heaven. I would not trust science to determine the purpose of my life. I would not trust science to lead men to greatness or accomplishment or peace. I would not trust science to explain spiritual and supernatural problems. In those, and many others, I trust the Christian/Catholic religion.

If we could simplify these, right now I'm thinking that trusting in reason and conscience will always be a good path.

I don't see any option for this in your poll.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2009, 04:26 PM
This poll is silly. Life is not an either or proposition. This is a false choice for most people of faith; and a no-brainer, and another opportunity to belittle believers, by people who chose not to believe.

:whackit:

patteeu
06-06-2009, 05:36 PM
This poll is silly.

Creating a good poll is harder than Rain Man makes it look.

irishjayhawk
06-06-2009, 06:47 PM
This poll is silly. Life is not an either or proposition. This is a false choice for most people of faith; and a no-brainer, and another opportunity to belittle believers, by people who chose not to believe.

:whackit:

It's not really that silly when you consider his motivation for posting, which he later added. I presume you didn't read that post.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 12:43 PM
I can think of several reasons why a 10 year old boy would trust the MoS more than a Catholic priest.

So because 2% of priests were pedophiles they all are? If you trust science more I'd like to know what logic leads to such a conclusion? Sounds like it's faith based to me...or prejudiced based.

On the other hand more teachers have been pedophiles. I wonder how many were science teachers? That means all of them are pedophiles I gather per this logic.

Warning Anecdotal Evidence: I chaperoned on a girl scout camping trip. One of the mothers who had a troop who was a counselor reported she was shocked at how many male kids claimed to have been sexually abused buy a male scout leader. Specifically, forced to give bj's. Not saying it was like 30 or 50% or anything but she was just surprised how it did come up. Pedophiles go where there are more kids.

Cannibal
06-07-2009, 12:51 PM
So because 2% of priests were pedophiles they all are? If you trust science more I'd like to know what logic leads to such a conclusion? Sounds like it's faith based to me...or prejudiced based.

On the other hand more teachers have been pedophiles. I wonder how many were science teachers? That means all of them are pedophiles I gather per this logic.

Warning Anecdotal Evidence: I chaperoned on a girl scout camping trip. One of the mothers who had a troop who was a counselor reported she was shocked at how many male kids claimed to have been sexually abused buy a male scout leader. Specifically, forced to give bj's. Not saying it was like 30 or 50% or anything but she was just surprised how it did come up. Pedophiles go where there are more kids.

No, I did not say they all are anywhere in my post. I sure the thought crosses the minds of kids and parents in the Catholic church though.

banyon
06-07-2009, 12:54 PM
So because 2% of priests were pedophiles they all are? If you trust science more I'd like to know what logic leads to such a conclusion? Sounds like it's faith based to me...or prejudiced based.

On the other hand more teachers have been pedophiles. I wonder how many were science teachers? That means all of them are pedophiles I gather per this logic.

Warning Anecdotal Evidence: I chaperoned on a girl scout camping trip. One of the mothers who had a troop who was a counselor reported she was shocked at how many male kids claimed to have been sexually abused buy a male scout leader. Specifically, forced to give bj's. Not saying it was like 30 or 50% or anything but she was just surprised how it did come up. Pedophiles go where there are more kids.

2% is pretty high compared with the general population.

irishjayhawk
06-07-2009, 01:03 PM
So because 2% of priests were pedophiles they all are? If you trust science more I'd like to know what logic leads to such a conclusion? Sounds like it's faith based to me...or prejudiced based.

On the other hand more teachers have been pedophiles. I wonder how many were science teachers? That means all of them are pedophiles I gather per this logic.

Warning Anecdotal Evidence: I chaperoned on a girl scout camping trip. One of the mothers who had a troop who was a counselor reported she was shocked at how many male kids claimed to have been sexually abused buy a male scout leader. Specifically, forced to give bj's. Not saying it was like 30 or 50% or anything but she was just surprised how it did come up. Pedophiles go where there are more kids.

Simple: scientific method.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 01:16 PM
No, I did not say they all are anywhere in my post. I sure the thought crosses the minds of kids and parents in the Catholic church though.

Yes I'm sure it does. It should too. I would spread that concern to other professionsl though. Did you hear of that global sting operation on child pornographers/pedophiles way back about 2002 or 03? You'd be shocked that the bulk of those involved were in professions dealing with positions of trust with children. Even counselors and ministers or other religions. Evem Medved has written that it afflicts rabbis ( around the same percentage of 2%). The highest is teachers though. ( iirc over 20%) Then the psyche profession. ( iirc about 10%)

banyon
06-07-2009, 02:10 PM
Yes I'm sure it does. It should too. I would spread that concern to other professionsl though. Did you hear of that global sting operation on child pornographers/pedophiles way back about 2002 or 03? You'd be shocked that the bulk of those involved were in professions dealing with positions of trust with children. Even counselors and ministers or other religions. Evem Medved has written that it afflicts rabbis ( around the same percentage of 2%). The highest is teachers though. ( iirc over 20%) Then the psyche profession. ( iirc about 10%)

20% of teachers are pedophiles? I'm going to have to call BS on that.

Mile High Mania
06-07-2009, 04:04 PM
Lots of interesting things on YouTube related to this topic... I support the idea of Intelligent Design.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 04:31 PM
20% of teachers are pedophiles? I'm going to have to call BS on that.

Actually, she was talking about a child porn sting not pedophilia, but it's not clear whether she meant that 20% of the people stung were teachers or that 20% of teachers possess child porn (or something else altogether). I agree that 20% of the entire population of teachers seems way too high.

I don't think there's any reason to think the prevalence of pedophiles in the priesthood is any higher than in the teaching profession though.

banyon
06-07-2009, 04:37 PM
Actually, she was talking about a child porn sting not pedophilia, but it's not clear whether she meant that 20% of the people stung were teachers or that 20% of teachers possess child porn (or something else altogether). I agree that 20% of the entire population of teachers seems way too high.

I don't think there's any reason to think the prevalence of pedophiles in the priesthood is any higher than in the teaching profession though.

She said:

Evem Medved has written that it afflicts rabbis ( around the same percentage of 2%). The highest is teachers though. ( iirc over 20%) Then the psyche profession. ( iirc about 10%)

I don't know how else to interpret the "it afflicts" except to apply it to the context around it. I think she meant the latter, but you are right both are silly.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 04:44 PM
She said:



I don't know how else to interpret the "it afflicts" except to apply it to the context around it. I think she meant the former, but you are right both are silly.

I stand corrected. I agree with you that her numbers are way off base.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 06:12 PM
Actually, she was talking about a child porn sting not pedophilia, but it's not clear whether she meant that 20% of the people stung were teachers or that 20% of teachers possess child porn (or something else altogether). I agree that 20% of the entire population of teachers seems way too high.

I don't think there's any reason to think the prevalence of pedophiles in the priesthood is any higher than in the teaching profession though.
Well, I prefaced it with "iirc".
When I first came here and these subjects were in the Lounge, I had read that it's 23% for teachers. Someone argued with me on it, a teacher as a matter of fact and I did eventually get where I got that figure. Iirc it was an APA figure. There was something about how schools transfer them more....it's called passing the trash around. I could find the link easy enough again but that board where I linked is down and gone. I'd have to search all over again. But that's the number I saw. Just watchin' the news these days with more teachers getting caught seems to back up the prevalence or increasing prevalence.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 06:17 PM
When I first came here and these subjects were in the Lounge, I had read that it's 23% for teachers. Someone argued with me on it, a teacher as a matter of fact and I did eventually get where I got that figure. Iirc it was an APA figure. There was something about how schools transfer them more....it's called passing the trash around. I could find the link easy enough again but that board where I linked is down and gone. I'd have to search all over again. But that's the number I saw. Just watchin' the news these days with more teachers getting caught seems to back up the prevalence or increasing prevalence.

There's no way that one out of every 5 teachers is a pedophile. I can believe that the rate is just as high or maybe even higher in the teaching profession as it is in the priesthood, but 23% is way too high.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 06:17 PM
I stand corrected. I agree with you that her numbers are way off base.

Provide your own then.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 06:18 PM
Provide your own then.

:LOL: Sorry, your numbers just aren't believable. Whatever it is that you read, you're not remembering it accurately.

Jenson71
06-07-2009, 06:19 PM
Well, I prefaced it with "iirc".
When I first came here and these subjects were in the Lounge, I had read that it's 23% for teachers. Someone argued with me on it, a teacher as a matter of fact and I did eventually get where I got that figure. Iirc it was an APA figure. There was something about how schools transfer them more....it's called passing the trash around. I could find the link easy enough again but that board where I linked is down and gone. I'd have to search all over again. But that's the number I saw. Just watchin' the news these days with more teachers getting caught seems to back up the prevalence or increasing prevalence.

In math, it sometimes helps to check your answer by seeing if it makes sense.

Sully
06-07-2009, 06:26 PM
I got yer Ivory Tower, right here! For extra credit!

ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 06:30 PM
:LOL: Sorry, your numbers just aren't believable. Whatever it is that you read, you're not remembering it accurately.

I found the earlier post with links.

Another teacher cuaght boinking her students (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3237108&highlight=teachers+sexual#post3237108) It was done from memory. It was from the American Medical Association. Not Psychiatric Association. It's 13% but for intercourse. That's still much higher than for clergy. Some could be false reports though.

The link provides numbers for other clergy and professions in general.

It was reported in 1991 that 17.7 percent of males who graduated from high school, and 82.2 percent of females, reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their years in school. Fully 13.5 percent said they had sexual intercourse with their teacher.[xxx]

Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district.[xxxiv] According to Diana Jean Schemo, the term “passing the trash” is the preferred jargon among educators.[xxxv]


Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child. It also shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 06:34 PM
In math, it sometimes helps to check your answer by seeing if it makes sense.

It's not math. It's reporting numbers from memory with "iirc" when posting quickly. I had to go somewhere. You ought to look in the mirror because you've responded to posts you haven't read and posted incorrectly to some of them assuming things. So much for making sense. Mirror mirror on the wall....

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 06:35 PM
:LOL: Sorry, your numbers just aren't believable. Whatever it is that you read, you're not remembering it accurately.

That's why it was prefaced with "iirc." Maybe you should read that or know what that means. It's basically saying it was based on recall and has an "if" in it for that reason. You do know what "if" means right? But you're right the recall wasn't perfectly accurate. The numbers appear to be higher. You spoke too soon and on speculation. You know what they say about assuming. Now which is worse?

Keep laughing....the smiley is very KC native of you.

Adept Havelock
06-07-2009, 06:48 PM
Science according to who? Religion according to who?

Science according to the Scientific Method.

Religion according to whatever brand you prefer.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 06:49 PM
" A Trust Betrayed: Sexual Abuse by Teachers" three part series published in Education Week Dec 16, 1998 http://www.edweek.org/sreports/abuse98.htm ( It's says link is not there but you have to register)

"Passing the Trash" Education Week Dec 9, 1998

Dirty Secrets 3 part series in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Oct 31-Nov 2 1999

"Silently Shifting Teachers in Sex Abuse Cases" NYT June 18, 2002

"Sexual Abuse in School" ( San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, 2003)

"Reported and Unreported Teacher-Student Sexual Harrassment" Dean Wishnietsky Journal of Educational Research 84, 3 ( 1991): 164-169

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 06:55 PM
In their 2002 survey on 2064 students in 8th through 11th grade, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) reported:[5]

* 83% of girls have been sexually harassed
* 78% of boys have been sexually harassed
* 38% of the students were harassed by teachers or school employees
* 36% of school employees or teachers were harassed by students
* 42% of school employees or teachers had been harassed by each other
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment_in_education

Sexual harassment and abuse of students by teachers

Prevalence

In their 2002 survey, the AAUW reported that, of students who had been harassed, 38% were harassed by teachers or other school employees. One survey, conducted with psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual interactions with their educators; in turn, 13% of educators reported sexual interaction with their students.[7] In a survey of high school students, 14% reported that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher. (Wishnietsky, 1991) In a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 found that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. And a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found that nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students reported having been targeted with sexual attention by school employees. Indeed, one critic has claimed that sexual harassment and abuse by teachers is 100 times more frequent than abuse by priests.[8]

Some of the biblio links below are the same as the one's cited just above. But I left out Sesame which has a site on the matter.
http://www.sesamenet.org/

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 07:02 PM
For those not liking that the original numbers posted above come from a Catholic article citing the AMA. This site uses the same numbers.

numbers:http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/SHEd.html


In a survey of high school graduates, 17.7% of
males and 82.2% of females reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their school careers.
Approximately 14% of those surveyed said they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher. In a
survey conducted by the AAUW in 2000, it was reported that roughly 290, 000 students had been
targeted for physical sexual abuse by school employees between 1991 and 2000

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 07:08 PM
Scouting Sex Abuse Cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_sex_abuse_cases
Legal actions

A number of families of abused boys have brought law suits against the Boy Scouts of America. For example in the five years from 1986 to 1991 the BSA and their local councils paid or agreed to pay more than $15 million in damages to settle lawsuits over boys who were sexually abused by Scout leaders, a study of 50 lawsuits against the Scouts showed. According to the Scouts federal tax returns, payments to just one law firm in Miami working on abuse cases for the BSA totaled more than one-half million dollars; the BSA insurance reserve, from which the damages are paid, stood at $61.9 million.[6]

The actual payment total, said the Washington Times in 1991, is probably far higher because the Scouts sometimes agree to pay damages only if the payments are kept secret. Keeping any type of damage award confidential is very commonly required by insurers.

In August 2007, the Washington Supreme Court ordered the BSA to hand over documents concerning sexual abuse by Scout leaders. These documents show that the organization has removed about 180 of its leaders each year (about one every other day). [8]

Also says BSA have taken steps to deal with it.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 07:35 PM
What happened to all the noise? All I hear is crickets chirping now.

JohnnyV13
06-07-2009, 08:08 PM
Lots of interesting things on YouTube related to this topic... I support the idea of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is for people who entirely lack that attribute.

irishjayhawk
06-07-2009, 08:11 PM
What is your overall point?

irishjayhawk
06-07-2009, 08:11 PM
Intelligent Design is for people who entirely lack that attribute.

:LOL:

Adept Havelock
06-07-2009, 09:02 PM
Intelligent Design is for people who entirely lack that attribute.

;)

http://f.imagehost.org/0710/Creationist.gif (http://f.imagehost.org/view/0710/Creationist)

banyon
06-07-2009, 10:32 PM
It's not math. It's reporting numbers from memory with "iirc" when posting quickly. I had to go somewhere. You ought to look in the mirror because you've responded to posts you haven't read and posted incorrectly to some of them assuming things. So much for making sense. Mirror mirror on the wall....

Well, you were only off by 500%, so yeah, you should be given a margin of error while you're making crap up I guess.

banyon
06-07-2009, 10:44 PM
For those not liking that the original numbers posted above come from a Catholic article citing the AMA. This site uses the same numbers.

numbers:http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/SHEd.html

Your link is unsurprisingly extremely specious.

It only took me one glance at the report that is cited for your statistic that "14% of students had intercourse with a teacher" to figure out that the website you used was citing a study about college behavior, and thus not "pedophilia". http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/DTLFinal.pdf

I mean, think about what you are saying for a second. You are saying that more than 1/10 kids in high schools and elementary schools are RAPED by their teachers. If that were true (which of course it isn't), then the media would be in full batS*** hysteria right now over an epidemic. Parents would refuse to send their kids to school, we'd have police escorts in every hallway.
I mean, *think* before you just make crap up, alright?

Honestly, I think even your 2% number that you conjured out of the sky is probably too high, it's probably more like .02%.

I guess I'll just chalk this up with Lincoln the rapist and the 150 year old grass valley people and the wheat germ cancer therapy.

jAZ
06-07-2009, 11:01 PM
It's 13% but for intercourse.

Ok, stats may not be your thing, but you claimed that 25% of teachers are pedophiles. Let's take your "from memory" adjustment and make it 13% of teachers are pedophiles for the record.

13% of kids reporting sleeping with a teacher is not = 13% of teachers sleeping with kids.

That's because it's possible that 1 reacher accounts for 100% of all reports.

You can't draw a % of pedophile teachers from the stat you are quoting.

patteeu
06-08-2009, 05:46 AM
That's why it was prefaced with "iirc." Maybe you should read that or know what that means. It's basically saying it was based on recall and has an "if" in it for that reason. You do know what "if" means right? But you're right the recall wasn't perfectly accurate. The numbers appear to be higher. You spoke too soon and on speculation. You know what they say about assuming. Now which is worse?

I acknowledged the fact that you prefaced your remark with the iirc by suggesting that you don't rc.

No, the numbers aren't higher, they are substantially lower just as I suspected and the numbers in your link are about victims not perpetrators. Furthermore, they're based on the inevitably wildly exaggerated claims from supposed victims (as are the higher estimates for priest abuse which is bogus too). I remain confident that the actual number is even lower than 13%, although, again, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the number is higher for teachers than it is for RCC priests.

Keep laughing....the smiley is very KC native of you.

I'm laughing at the stupidly defensive response "provide your own" as if I'm the one who claimed to have a specific number in mind or who has anything to back up.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 05:56 AM
I'd be curious to see how the 200 and so passengers onboard that AirFrance flight over the Atlantic would have voted during the final 14 minutes of their lives.

patteeu
06-08-2009, 06:00 AM
Your link is unsurprisingly extremely specious.

It only took me one glance at the report that is cited for your statistic that "14% of students had intercourse with a teacher" to figure out that the website you used was citing a study about college behavior, and thus not "pedophilia". http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/DTLFinal.pdf

I mean, think about what you are saying for a second. You are saying that more than 1/10 kids in high schools and elementary schools are RAPED by their teachers. If that were true (which of course it isn't), then the media would be in full batS*** hysteria right now over an epidemic. Parents would refuse to send their kids to school, we'd have police escorts in every hallway.
I mean, *think* before you just make crap up, alright?

Honestly, I think even your 2% number that you conjured out of the sky is probably too high, it's probably more like .02%.

I guess I'll just chalk this up with Lincoln the rapist and the 150 year old grass valley people and the wheat germ cancer therapy.

Depending on how sexual abuse is defined and how we define the group of teachers (high school only or K-12), I bet it's higher than .02% (1/5000), but I agree that it can't be much higher than 2% (1/50).

Amnorix
06-08-2009, 06:13 AM
Science.

Faith is a delusional fantasy created by men to cope with death and/or the unknown.

Science is not infallible, but at least does not have an inherent bias. An answer derived through the scientific method is either right or unavailable without brilliant insight and more data.

This.

Though I do have respect for what religion tries, and often does, accomplish when it's not radical about it.

Amnorix
06-08-2009, 06:29 AM
Regrettably I don't have time to revew this entire thread, not involve myself in the debate that Patteeu clearly didn't invite.... :D

But here are my stray thoughts.

1. In a vaccuum, science is more trustworthy within the limits of our understanding. Absent political or other interference, once something moves from theory to proven, then it hsould for all purposes be reliable.

2. Religion, in my opinion, is as someone previously stated a construct created by man to help deal with the unknown and the unknowable, especially death.

3. Religion is not, however, without value. It has helped frame moral values, which was especially useful as humans were organizing societies and trying to move past simple barbarism. It has also proven to be a very productive in binding societies together.

4. Unfortunately, both science and religion can be used by the unscrupulous for their own ends. Regrettably, many have died or suffered greviously in the name of "religion", though without doubt many times the real reasons were secular and religion was just the perverted excuse given.


I note on the side that religion can be beneficial as a moral compass for those who need external guidance for that. I, personally, have never understood that need, but not everyone is the same obviously. I'm as straight an arrow as they come, and I'm areligious, so certainly religion isn't necessary for one to live a moral life. :D

patteeu
06-08-2009, 06:43 AM
Regrettably I don't have time to revew this entire thread, not involve myself in the debate that Patteeu clearly didn't invite.... :D

Surely you mean jAZ? I feel dirty. ;)

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 08:46 AM
Surely you mean jAZ? I feel dirty. ;)

kOZ

:drool:

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 08:54 AM
Depending on how sexual abuse is defined and how we define the group of teachers (high school only or K-12), I bet it's higher than .02% (1/5000), but I agree that it can't be much higher than 2% (1/50).

It's still much higher than it is for clergy. It's probably the highest of all professions because they come into contact with far more children and more often—daily, for a great portion of the day. So it's not unreasonable to make this claim. Some states have begun to deal with this matter more pro-actively because of these reports.

I think people have a had time accepting this because teachers usually come up high on trust compared to other professions like lawyers, used car salesmen and politicians.

stevieray
06-08-2009, 08:59 AM
science in science
science in religion
science in faith

religion in religion
religion in science
religion in faith

faith in science
faith in religion
faith in faith..

:hmmm:

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 09:07 AM
In their 2002 survey on 2064 students in 8th through 11th grade, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) reported:
Um no, they also did earlier grades.

Baby Lee
06-08-2009, 09:29 AM
That's because it's possible that 1 reacher accounts for 100% of all reports.
round?

InChiefsHell
06-08-2009, 09:35 AM
I do not draw a distinction between the two.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 09:43 AM
Well if one teacher accounts for 100% of reports then the same argument can be made for priests. I happen to know that is the case with priests because the low percentage that were involved molested many more than one boy over a many decades. So it appears to be more widespread amongst priests when the media reports it.

Some of the reports are probably false reports but some may not be reported either.

banyon
06-08-2009, 12:01 PM
Um no, they also did earlier grades.

Um yeah, they did, but that survey (http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/hostilehallways.pdf) (page 4) did not ask students if they had "intercourse" with their teachers. It was about sexual harrassment. Only the college 07 survey asked that question. You have conflated the two studies, not that you had apparently read either of them in the first place.

Amnorix
06-09-2009, 01:57 PM
Regrettably I don't have time to revew this entire thread, not involve myself in the debate that Patteeu clearly didn't invite.... :D


Surely you mean jAZ? I feel dirty. ;)

Gah!! Sorry, I meant Gaz.

No, wait Jaz? errr...Jazz. ummm jAZ. Yeah, him!!!