Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 September 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 17

James Randi and Arguments and Evidence for Christianity

Christians have alot of arguments and claim to have alot of evidence for Christianity to be the one true religion. For example, they include arguments and evidence that God exists, arguments and evidence that the Bible is inspired by God, and arguments and evidence that Jesus is God and the son of God.

Has James Randi heard about these arguments and claims of evidence for Christianity to be the one true religion? If so, then what does he think about them? Is he convinced by them? If not, then why not? If not, then what would he think about them? Would he be convinced by them? If not, then why not?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking us what a person (that more than likely none of us know in person) would think about a given religious belief? Seriously? But maybe you could read this (James Randi#Views on religion) a little closer. Heiro 07:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that Randy is a reasonably educated man, I'd say he has heard many of the arguments. He probably has not been convinced by them because at least the common ones are either circular, or plain wrong. This certainly is the reason why many philosophers from antiquity to today reject them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, none of the "arguments and evidence" are amenable to double-blind testing, which is the standard Randi (and most of science) typically uses. If you think they are amenable to double-blind testing, there may be $1 million waiting for you... Staecker (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That none of the "arguments and evidence" are amenable to double-blind testing is exactly why the existence or non-existence of God can never be established in a way that would satisfy science. It's entirely a matter of belief, either way. Believers can't prove he exists, and non-believers can't prove he doesn't. There would be no need for belief or faith if the question was settled with scientific certainty. Yet how many "scientists" claim God does not exist because there's no scientific proof. I wonder what low standard they're accepting on this question, when they remain scientifically objective and completely open-minded about a pile of other things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See Russell's teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Zeus. Just because something cannot be proven or disproven in a mathematical sense does not mean that the two claims are equally likely. There are arbitrarily many things one could believe in, but most people insist on a smattering of evidence. I'm not aware of many scientists who absolutely claim that "God does not exist", much less "because there is no scientific proof". Compare Richard Dawkins' Why There Almost Certainly Is No God (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

James Randi is notable for his paranormal challenge and not for his views on religion. His challenge is to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural ability of their own. Randi as a declared Bright dismisses as deluded what anyone says about an external god or past miracle. The OP has tried before to use this desk as a proxy for a religious discussion with Randi and should have read the copious responses given the first time around. @Jack of Oz, the "low standard" that scientists set is Okkams razor which, although it is only a heuristic, is a consistently productive methodology. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See Brights movement. (BTW, that's Occam or Ockham, not Okkam.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Airplanes

Hi everybody. Do airplanes contain pesticides?184.163.238.18 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In some cases - yes. Arrivals to New Zealand are routinely fumigated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Crop dusters are full of pesticides. You might even say that they are lousy with them. Dismas|^(talk) 19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Should I report you as a persona of Baseball Bugs? <g> Collect (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

An airborne icide for two-legged pests. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Arrivals to Australia are routinely fumigated too.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Preventing cheating

In my English class we had to read Tale of Two Cities. We were assigned a few chapters every few nights, but most people didn't read it. We had quizzes on the sections, but most people just looked up summaries of the chapters online. I can't think of any way that the teacher could be sure they are reading it besides watching them read it in class, which isn't very time effective. We took notes on the whole book, so they were still prepared for the exams, so everyone passed the class anyway, even though they didn't deserve the grade. So, my question is that if anyone here knows of any good ways to ensure that the students are actually reading the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awc14 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If the students pass the exam, isn't that a sign that they learned what they were supposed to learn? Of course, A Tale of Two Cities is well worth reading, and reading it should be its own reward. But in my experience, I rarely enjoy books I'm made to read... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My experience with this kind of thing is that both sides are cheating: the teacher check the summaries to make the questions and the student to answer them. Forcing people to read makes them hate what they read, so it's not a big deal to let them read the summary and pass a stupid exam. Wikiweek (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Learning ways to efficiently acquire the information required is arguably a more important skill to get from your classes than learning the contents of the book. In a school context, maybe that feels like cheating, but in the real world knowing the fastest ways to learn what you need to know is actually very valuable. Dragons flight (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can read the book here in the public domain or just skim quotations here. Any teacher who knows the book can by a few questions easily find whether a student "actually read" the book. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. If I get the CliffsNotes version, then paraphrase that for my report, and maybe open the actual book just long enough to grab a quote or two, how would you know ? StuRat (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They're all losers. In my experience, reading and "learning" literature for the sake of exams robs it of its joy and soul, so if the students just read the study notes to pass the exam, they're just playing the examiner's game. The game is not "reading", but "studying", so I don't think it's cheating at all.

When I had to do this, I learned masses of direct quotes from books, plays and poems to do well in exams. Years on, the quotes are all forgotten and, with few exceptions, I now [still] loathe the texts we were asked to study. There are some notable exceptions, though. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you weren't allowed to take the text into the exam? That's presumably why you had to memorise quotes. What's supposed to be the point of that? 86.164.76.231 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea - you'd have to go back a bunch of years and ask the A Level examiners. Frankly, I'd go further and say that I think exams are a bit of a bonkers method of testing ability in literature anyway. Exams mostly test exam technique, rather than ability, but that's a different question. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question, as posed by Awc14: "So, my question is that if anyone here knows of any good ways to ensure that the students are actually reading the book."

It seems to me that the teacher has to know the book very well. The teacher has to have a personal opinion of the book. The teacher should appreciate or at least be knowledgeably critical of the book. The teacher would then know from conversation with the student whether the student read it or not. The teacher would also have a more direct relationship with the student via this book if the teacher was opinionated in a personal way about the piece of literature in question. I think that would represent a better level of teaching than just covering the ground that is covered by the available secondary material relating to that book. Bus stop (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the teacher could read through the CliffsNotes and then ask about details from the book which are not included there. However, only the sharpest students are likely to get more out of the book than the CliffsNotes, so then the teacher will think the average students all cheated. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the ultimate answer is that books should be assigned which students will actually want to read, which means those which are entertaining, use modern English, and relate closely to their lives. In other words, not so much Shakespeare (although kids might relate to Romeo and Juliet). StuRat (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, most kids will miss all the dirty jokes in R&J. --Carnildo (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I read it as a kid, so I must have missed them, too. Any examples ? StuRat (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)