The Baloney Detection Kit - with Michael Shermer

The Ten Questions

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

2. Does the source make similar claims?

3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?

4. Does this fit with the way the world works?

5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?


this kit is universal and has many applications
Original Post
Good stuff, and I first heard of the Baloney Detection Kit from Carl Sagan, in his book "Demon Haunted World".

There are other points to consider as well. One of which is: Is the evidence for a thesis falsifiable? If not, it's a poor argument.

DF
"There are other points to consider as well. One of which is: Is the evidence for a thesis falsifiable? If not, it's a poor argument."

I thought I was with you there for a moment but I can't really come to good grips on that one. I can't help myself from substituting verifiable for "falsifiable" and seeing that clearly. Is this one of those logic traps that is going to end up making my head hurt?
quote:
Originally posted by F350:
I thought I was with you there for a moment but I can't really come to good grips on that one. I can't help myself from substituting verifiable for "falsifiable" and seeing that clearly. Is this one of those logic traps that is going to end up making my head hurt?


Falsifiability is a foundation of the scientific method. Most scientists and philosophers agree that a proposition cannot be considered "science" unless it is falsifiable.

"Is it possible that this thesis could be reasonably proven to be false by observation or experiment?"

"All the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun" is a good theory. It is still a theory (in the scientific sense) even though we typically hold it to be fact. The theory is falsifiable because it can be reasonably asserted that one might possibly find that the sun actually does revolve around the planets if you travel outside the solar system and look. That will never happen, of course, but it is within the realm of possibility that we could observe the sun orbiting the earth.

Not falsifiable: Literal Genesis story. It is not even within the realm of possibility to falsify Creationism/Intelligent Design. There is no experiment that you could conduct that could show the hypothesis to be false. The moment you do, one can assert that an infinitely powerful being simply changed your observation (the "moving the goalpost" fallacy.)

In fact, any and all hypotheses that involve a omnipotent super being is wholly UNfalsifiable for that very reason.
Those are good questions. I've never seen them listed that way, but that's how I go about questioning issues, political, social, or religious. A lot of that comes from journalism classes. The 10th question is probably one of the most vital.

Just for the record, I've seen theories and links provided by atheists on this board that has completely failed the baloney test. The Jesus/sun god myth is just one example.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Those are good questions. I've never seen them listed that way, but that's how I go about questioning issues, political, social, or religious. A lot of that comes from journalism classes. The 10th question is probably one of the most vital.

Just for the record, I've seen theories and links provided by atheists on this board that has completely failed the baloney test. The Jesus/sun god myth is just one example.


Nash, all Gods fail this test. Regards
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Nash, all Gods fail this test. Regards


All but one.


Oh really?

Exactly how does your god pass all those tests yet everyone else's fails?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Nash, all Gods fail this test. Regards


All but one. It just requires an objective look at it.


The majority of religions believe as you do, and they have the same/equivalent evidence as you do.

I'm curious - how you know the other religions are false?

Regards
Good afternoon!
I just wanted to add my 2¢ into this. The atheist members of this discussion easily win almost all of these discussions because they correctly point out that there is no scientific way to prove the existence of a god. And my hat is off to them; they are one hundred percent correct in their assertions. The problem with many of the arguments put forth by the religionists is that they try to meet these statements head on… they try to use material and secular arguments to turn back the logical deductions of the materialists. (Sorry, I just don’t like using the word atheist, I prefer materialist because it captures a much greater segment of the population). And the failure of these arguments is pretty spectacular.

The way I see it, science and religion are two distinct things. Science is the measurement of the material, while religion, true religion, is the evaluation of the spiritual. Science deals with quantities, physical realities, while religion deals with qualities, more specifically the quality of values. There can really be no real disagreement between science and true religion. They are the two different pieces of the puzzle of continued human cultural and social evolution. Physical evolution of the species of humankind is proceeding somewhat apart from the social and cultural evolution of society. But progressive social and cultural evolution owe their direct lineage to the furtherance of BOTH religious and scientific advancement.

The materialists of this forum do all of mankind a great service with their attacks upon the entrenched superstitions and gross errors of the evolutionary religions of fear. Indeed, one of the goals of science should be to drive out the lingering superstitions which continue to curse and pollute the religious beliefs of even this relatively civilized society. But they go to far when they positively assert that there absolutely is no god. One can not prove the non-existence of god anymore than one can prove the existence of god. And any person who says that they can prove that god either does or does not exist is either a fool (thinking to prove god does not exist) or is missing the real crux of the religious experience. Because religion, true religion, is the relationship of the individual with that ideal which he designates god. And the ideal of God is always the highest concept of goodness, which the individual in question can conceive. And the truth of god is infinitely greater than even the highest concept of the most advanced of men.

This is why it is incorrect for the materialist to go on and on about the words found in “scripture” concerning the wrath of god, the sacrifices required by god or the punishments done by god. For these words were written at a time when the highest concept of god was still that of a wrathful and vengeful deity, a deity not so far removed from the limited minds of his followers. Do not make the mistake of confusing the ideals of primitive men with the truth of the living god! God, if he exists, and I say he does, is far greater than the limited comprehension of even the best of men, and is infinitely greater than the backward views of the ancients, or even the modern fundamentalist.

So, you ask, what “proof” do I offer? I can offer no material proof. I need not offer material proof. There can be no material proof of a supermaterial thing. Instead I offer you the concept of values. There are no values in nature. Nature does not respect the concept of good or evil. Mechanistic machines, inhabiting a mechanistic and non spiritual universe could never hunger for truth, adore beauty of crave goodness. Because truth, beauty and goodness are not material values. They are supermaterial. Just as every mechanist here at this forum craves goodness, so are you supermaterial, and hence, spiritual. And if you are supermaterial, and hence spiritual, then from where came the original spirit? I say it came from god, and that a fragment of this same god indwells every one of us, even the mind of the materialist, even the confused mind of the fundamentalist. But that is only what I say. You are free to make your own interpretations of life.

Al
Al,

At least you are honest about it. You admit you cannot offer any reasonable evidence for your belief.

This means I need not respect your belief. I am under no obligation to mock it, but I need not respect it, either. And I don't.

Still, good post. We understand each other on at least this level.

DF
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Nash, all Gods fail this test. Regards


All but one. It just requires an objective look at it.


The majority of religions believe as you do, and they have the same/equivalent evidence as you do.

I'm curious - how you know the other religions are false?

Regards



When you say Christianity has the same amount of evidence as other religions, you mean none, correct?

One can't be convinced to change their mind without something to convince them, some kind of evidence to require them to rethink their previously held view. A large number of Christians weren't always Christians, this is very different than other religions where it is more culturally based.

Is it totally scientific? No. Proving God's existence is no more scientificaly possible than proving the existence of love, beauty, or even evil. There are somethings that are outside the borders of science, but still exist.

How do I know other religions are false? I applied my own version of the baloney test to them.

If you're interested, here is a good lecture explaining things in much better terms than I can.

Link
"One can't be convinced to change their mind without something to convince them, some kind of evidence to require them to rethink their previously held view." -- Nash

You are talking about those governed by reason. Unfortunately, the unwashed masses are convinced by false promises and simplistic answers. They have no intereszt in evidence. Evidence is the enemy of those who base their "knowledge" on wishful thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by davidnmiles:
"One can't be convinced to change their mind without something to convince them, some kind of evidence to require them to rethink their previously held view." -- Nash

You are talking about those governed by reason. Unfortunately, the unwashed masses are convinced by false promises and simplistic answers. They have no intereszt in evidence. Evidence is the enemy of those who base their "knowledge" on wishful thinking.


I can assure you David, folks like C.S. Lewis, John C. Wright, Dr. Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, and many others are governed by reason and bathed regularly.
"I can assure you David, folks like C.S. Lewis, John C. Wright, Dr. Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, and many others are governed by reason and bathed regularly."

You cannot assure me of anything of the kind. If they do not require evidence to believe that a proposition is true, then they have totally rejected reason in accepting the existence of a supernatural being (who isn't even a nice guy).

I stand corrected on their bathing habits. Obviously, when it comes to religion, all reason has been thoroughly scrubbed away.
quote:
Originally posted by davidnmiles:
"I can assure you David, folks like C.S. Lewis, John C. Wright, Dr. Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, and many others are governed by reason and bathed regularly."

You cannot assure me of anything of the kind. If they do not require evidence to believe that a proposition is true, then they have totally rejected reason in accepting the existence of a supernatural being (who isn't even a nice guy).

I stand corrected on their bathing habits. Obviously, when it comes to religion, all reason has been thoroughly scrubbed away.


You're assuming that they suddenly decided no evidence was neccessary to change their mind about a controversial issue. That's a pretty big assumption on your part.

Like I said, it takes quite a bit to convince people that once believed God did not exist that He in fact does. That's a major change in world view, something which can only happen by means of something significant.
"Like I said, it takes quite a bit to convince people that once believed God did not exist that He in fact does. That's a major change in world view, something which can only happen by means of something significant."--Nash

It takes nothing more than a crisis to bring about the need for a crutch to sooth the partially weakened mind. A person of sound mind will not forsake reason and experience for mysticism (communication with the supernatural) and authoritarianism biblical and ecclesiastical decree).

For every scientist like Francis Collins who found it necessary to abandon reason to relieve a certain psychosis, there are thousand who have maintained intellectual equanimity.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
A large number of Christians weren't always Christians, this is very different than other religions where it is more culturally based.


Hah!

I'm curious: If you were born in Yemen, what religion do you think you'd ascribe to?

quote:
Is it totally scientific? No. Proving God's existence is no more scientificaly possible than proving the existence of love, beauty, or even evil.


Malarky.

While the concepts of "love" or "beauty" or "evil" is abstract and debatable, the subject of existence of god is a scientific principal. There are only two answers:

A.) He exists.
B.) He does not.

Only one of the two are possible. Now, for you to assert that He exists and all toher do not, you must prove proof.

I've already refuted your over-used, downright silly idea that "people change therefore god exists." I "changed" when I admitted and embraced by disbelief. I am a better person and a better human for it. How do you explain that?

No, Nash, in order to fool anyone other than yourself, you must prove empirical, logical evidence that a rational mind cannot deny.

So where is it?
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Hi David, would you mind responding to what I wrote? I would be interested in your take.

Al


Hi Al, Sorry for the delay. Just noticed this. I assume this is a serious question and not just an excuse for hurling insults. Hence, I will give it serious consideration.

"But they go to far when they positively assert that there absolutely is no god. One can not prove the non-existence of god anymore than one can prove the existence of god. And any person who says that they can prove that god either does or does not exist is either a fool (thinking to prove god does not exist) or is missing the real crux of the religious experience.”

Is a person “going to far when they positively assert that there absolutely is no“: Zeus, tooth fairy, green unicorns--ad infinitum. I say that neither God nor any of the above exist because there is not one shred of evidence that they do. I will say, that if I am presented evidence for their existence, I will become a “knower.” I could say that there is a certain probability that God exists, but that probability is infinitesimally small.

Of course I cannot prove God doesn’t exist. It is impossible to prove that something that doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist. That in itself may be pretty strong evidence for non-existence.

“Because religion, true religion, is the relationship of the individual with that ideal which he designates god. And the ideal of God is always the highest concept of goodness, which the individual in question can conceive.”

God is one of man’s greatest inventions. He can be anything you want him to be, think anything you want him to think, do anything you want him to do. And then when he fails to live up to your expectations, wants and ideals, you can find a myriad of excuses for his actions or inactions.

“And the truth of god is infinitely greater than even the highest concept of the most advanced of men.”

My point exactly. This statement is true solely in your mind. Due to lack of evidence, it is groundless and only a personal belief.

“There are no values in nature. Nature does not respect the concept of good or evil. Mechanistic machines, inhabiting a mechanistic and non spiritual universe could never hunger for truth, adore beauty of crave goodness. Because truth, beauty and goodness are not material values.”

No, they are human values. They are given meaning by the human mind.

“There can really be no real disagreement between science and true religion.”

There is absolute disagreement between science and true religion. The only time that there isn’t disagreement is if by chance a religious proclamation happens to be supported by evidence. Once this happens, it is no longer religion. Religion is the trash bin that contains the rejects from science. Science is objective, religion is subjective; and never the twain shall meet.
quote:

Hah!

I'm curious: If you were born in Yemen, what religion do you think you'd ascribe to?


Are there no Christians in Yemem?
quote:
While the concepts of "love" or "beauty" or "evil" is abstract and debatable, the subject of existence of god is a scientific principal. There are only two answers:

A.) He exists.
B.) He does not.



How can something that observes the natural world prove the supernatural? It can't any more than it can prove the abstract, it's beyond the bounds of science. It's not a question for science to answer. If you want a more detailed explanation, watch the video I posted in this thread.


quote:
Only one of the two are possible. Now, for you to assert that He exists and all toher do not, you must prove proof.

I've already refuted your over-used, downright silly idea that "people change therefore god exists." I "changed" when I admitted and embraced by disbelief. I am a better person and a better human for it. How do you explain that?


You haven't refuted my statement. The fact that there are atheists who find something convincing enough to change their minds is a fact and reality. Just because you deny evidence doesn't disprove it. Besides, how can a non belief make you a better person?
Thank you David!

That was a very interesting reply. I would love to sit here and think about it, but I have a herd of 11 year olds at bay, and am about to take them to see Harry Potter.

I really appreciate your response. We disagree, obviously on many points, but it is refreshing to have a discussion free from personal barbs. I wonder why Mr. Bill, the consumate Christian can not do the same.

I am debating on formulating a response to your post, or may start a new thread.

Looking forward to further discussion !

Al

PS Thanks also to Deep, for his response. Always a pleasure.
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Thank you David!

That was a very interesting reply. I would love to sit here and think about it, but I have a herd of 11 year olds at bay, and am about to take them to see Harry Potter.

I really appreciate your response. We disagree, obviously on many points, but it is refreshing to have a discussion free from personal barbs. I wonder why Mr. Bill, the consumate Christian can not do the same.

I am debating on formulating a response to your post, or may start a new thread.

Looking forward to further discussion !

Al

PS Thanks also to Deep, for his response. Always a pleasure.


Thanks Al for the response,
I too was a little pressed for time and would like to have spent a little more time in thought.

Glad for the intelligent exchange. Contrary to what others may think, I do not condemn a person for disagreeing with me. I respect everone's right to their own opinions and beliefs. Glad to have a good discussion.
Dave
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
... I have a herd of 11 year olds at bay, and am about to take them to see Harry Potter.


I took a sort of young woman (younger than I am, anyway) to see HP this afternoon. She hated the way it ended. It was pretty clear she didn't read any of the books.

Eleven year olds? You are a more patient than I could ever hope to be, without the assistance of vast quantities of alcohol.
Zip,

I read one of the books. It was quite good literature, aimed at pre-adolescents.

I can understand why the younger crowd loves it so. It does not insult their intelligence, and it challenges their sense of bravery. Altogether, well done.

DF
Your fundy preacher was most likely a... oh, what's the word?

Um...

Er....


Help me out here.

It rhymes with "blidiot".



DF
The Harry Potter movie was excellent !
I recomend it to anyone who has read the books or followed the movies.

As for the (7) 11 year olds we took, they were easy! You just got to put yourself into their young shoes and remember how you looked at the world when you were their age. It's fun and spiritualy uplifting to become young again, if only for a few hours.

Al
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

Are there no Christians in Yemem?



Very few.

How 'bout if you were born in Japan? India? Afghanistan? You will never admit it but you are a Christian because your mother and father were Christian. Your friends a Christian. To give that up for another religion is to be ostracized (believe me, I know the feeling).

quote:
I've already refuted your over-used, downright silly idea that "people change therefore god exists." I "changed" when I admitted and embraced by disbelief. I am a better person and a better human for it. How do you explain that?


quote:
You haven't refuted my statement. The fact that there are atheists who find something convincing enough to change their minds is a fact and reality. Just because you deny evidence doesn't disprove it. Besides, how can a non belief make you a better person?


A non belief in Thor allows me to enjoy a thunderstorm for the natural wonder that it is. The non belief in Santa Caluse allows me to enjoy the winter solstice for the natural occurance that is it. A non belief in ghosts allows me to take a leasurely, romantic stroll through an old cemertary at night honoring my Confederate ancestors. A non belief in gremlins allows me to diagnose and repair my lawn mower.

A non belief in your god, Al's god, any god allwes me tto see the world for what it is, not how some people wish it to be. My non beleif --especially in your vengeful, spiteful, diety-- allows me to view your religion from a vantage point that you will never comprehend. I can see the evil, pettiness, lustful, insanity of your religion and enjoy or hate iot for what it is: a comfortable fiction.

I am a more moral person for it because I hold myself to a higher power, Nash.
Cookey

I love what you said here. It truly represents how I feel.

Where you talked about being ostracized for your non-belief really hit home. When ever I hear a christian whine and complain because they feel like their religion/beleif is being picked on or they are being denied some personal right when religion isn't taught in our public schools, I often think they have no idea how easy they have it. They can freely (and often do) talk about their belief in Christianity with friends, family and total strangers in Wal-Mart and get nothing but positive reinforcement of their belief. Atheist on the other hand know what its like to truly be treated differently for our "belief" or non-belief. I had someone on this forum tell me that I should just not tell people I am Atheist. That seems like I am being ask to hide something I should have no reason to hide. However I have come to expect some degree of strange looks and often promises of prayers from those I speak to about my non belief. I refuse to hide it. I have no reason to be ashamed of my reasoning skills and intelligence.

I also answer to and hold myself to higher powers. Mostly myself. I want to be a good productive citizen with friends and family that can respect me. I want this to be the best world possible for my children and grandchildren. For those reasons I strive to live a life that I am proud of.


I do not pray. I do not go to church. I do not believe in supernatural spirits nor do I think that they have any power over me. I do believe in treating others with respect (when deserved) and with kindness.

I am charitable because I know that there are less fortunate people than me and as a human being I want to help them.

I love and respect my parents because they were good to me and raised me with love and understanding.

I do not steal, not only is it a crime it also goes against my moral fiber. Taking something that does not belong to you can cause more than just the loss of a material item, it could cause someone to lose a job, lose a cherished keepsake, or something important to their lively hood.

I do not kill. I'm not saying I couldn't or wouldn't. If I had to kill to survive I would. If someone was hurting my children or any loved one I could and would. Other wise I think that cold blooded murder is not in any way deterred only by religion or belief in god. I think it goes against most stable minded human beings love for each other and survival of our species.

I take offense to Bill Gray's sideways insult that Atheist and murderers are basically the same. Sadly that's the world that most atheist live in. Especially here in the south.

Morality is not faith based. It is humanism. When people stop looking up and asking invisible, non existent beings to guide and help them and start looking around at the real world we live in and work together to make it the best that we can as humans, then all humans will benefit and science and technology would grow by leaps and bounds.
Jan, you're absolutely spot on. Sometimes I wonder how I'm going to survive moving back to the southeast. Maybe by keeping my head down, but that just isn't my nature.

Maybe I'll just do a lot of something else on the weekends.
Well and eloquently said, Nonya.

Just as technology is rapidly changing the world, the realization that religiously-based philosophy and morality is, and has been, insufficient will make the near future very different, and very likely better.

All religiously based morality rests upon one supreme tenet: Belief in a god and/or prophets who either don't exist or were merely people. Certainty in a god for whom there is no evidence is immoral, as it denies the human intellect, locking the mind into ignorance. And ignorance hurts.

You are a living example of the new philosophy.

DF
Nonya reports, "I had someone on this forum tell me that I should just not tell people I am Atheist." Good Gawd! I hope that you screem it from the roof tops. That one word, "atheist," will let the world know that you likely are intelligent, rationsl, free from superstitions, tolerant, caring, ethical and in every way humanistic.

Evangelicals seems to ignore the fact that less than one third of the world's population worries about their particular god. Where do they get the authority to proclaim that without acknowledging "God," a person is incapable of being moral, ethical and law-abiding?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

You're assuming that they suddenly decided no evidence was neccessary to change their mind about a controversial issue. That's a pretty big assumption on your part.

Like I said, it takes quite a bit to convince people that once believed God did not exist that He in fact does. That's a major change in world view, something which can only happen by means of something significant.


Nash, it is quite possible for someone to go through an educational program (doctorate,etc.) and come out of the other side with unreasonable and irrational beliefs.

As you claim, you've applied your own version of a "Baloney Detection Kit" to all the other religions, yet there are more highly educated people that don't believe in Christianity than do.

Using your reasoning, how is that possible?

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

You're assuming that they suddenly decided no evidence was neccessary to change their mind about a controversial issue. That's a pretty big assumption on your part.

Like I said, it takes quite a bit to convince people that once believed God did not exist that He in fact does. That's a major change in world view, something which can only happen by means of something significant.


Nash, it is quite possible for someone to go through an educational program (doctorate,etc.) and come out of the other side with unreasonable and irrational beliefs.

As you claim, you've applied your own version of a "Baloney Detection Kit" to all the other religions, yet there are more highly educated people that don't believe in Christianity than do.

Using your reasoning, how is that possible?

Regards


I didn't just apply the test to all other religions. I apply it to everything, including Christianity and atheism alike. That's why my views are very different from Bill's and other Christians, they are my own that I've come to through my own research.

The key to the "baloney test" is objectivity. If you are biased in any way, the test will only reveal what you want it to. No offense, but when the Jesus/Horus myth passes the baloney test, there is very clear bias involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uns2qviklEg
Last edited by NashBama
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

You're assuming that they suddenly decided no evidence was neccessary to change their mind about a controversial issue. That's a pretty big assumption on your part.

Like I said, it takes quite a bit to convince people that once believed God did not exist that He in fact does. That's a major change in world view, something which can only happen by means of something significant.


Nash, it is quite possible for someone to go through an educational program (doctorate,etc.) and come out of the other side with unreasonable and irrational beliefs.

As you claim, you've applied your own version of a "Baloney Detection Kit" to all the other religions, yet there are more highly educated people that don't believe in Christianity than do.

Using your reasoning, how is that possible?


Regards


I didn't just apply the test to all other religions. I apply it to everything, including Christianity and atheism alike. That's why my views are very different from Bill's and other Christians, they are my own that I've come to through my own research.

The key to the "baloney test" is objectivity. If you are biased in any way, the test will only reveal what you want it to. No offense, but when the Jesus/Horus myth passes the baloney test, there is very clear bias involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uns2qviklEg


Nash, I see the baloney there, but it would be nice to see some evidence.

Regards
I had a number of my college professors who were very left leaning in their political views. There are many very educated people with more advanced degrees than either of us have who believe capitalism is a bad thing and that the government knows what's best for us. On college campuses, you'll probably find more professors and students who lean towards the liberal political view more so than libertarian. Do you automatically agree with them based on their degrees or do you question their views through an objective process?

The search for evidence requires an objective, unbiased search for it. That's my reasoning on deciding on any issue, not just in regards to religion.
It depends on whether or not questioning their political views would earn you a failing grade. I agree that the search for evidence requires an objective, unbiased search. I also submit that there are college professors who don't want objective thought as much as they crave sycophancy.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
It depends on whether or not questioning their political views would earn you a failing grade. I agree that the search for evidence requires an objective, unbiased search. I also submit that there are college professors who don't want objective thought as much as they crave sycophancy.


I agree completely.

Long story short, I almost got a D in one of my history classes because I critiqued a book honestly rather than praise the author for his views that the professor agreed with, but I didn't. Before that my grades were very good because I was simply writing what I thought she wanted to hear, but I wasn't being honest with myself.

I politely and respectfully challenged the grade and let it be known I thought the grade was based on my personal views and not the guidelines on the syllabus. Anyone who's dealt with college professors knows how rare it is for a grade to be changed. Very reluctantly, my grade was was bumped up to a C.

I've had professors before who inserted views I didn't agree with in their lectures, but that was the first one who almost failed me not because of the requirements of the assignment, but because of my personal views.

It's almost impossible to be able to learn something new when one dismisses any opposing view before they have a chance to make their case.

Add Reply

Post

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×