|
As a biology teacher, 1/6 of my school year is explicitly devoted to the subject of evolution. This is not surprising, as it is the key concept that unifies the study of biology, but for a considerable number of my students, six weeks is six weeks too many. Most students, even deeply religious ones, are open to a discussion of the theory, but I've had more than few walk in on the first day of school singing the Darwin is a monkey song, or telling me that they've been told since a very young age that in tenth grade their faith will be tested by their biology teacher. (I am not alone in this-- most biology teachers have similar stories to tell). All one can do in this situation is recognize it for what it is-- they have arrived at their conclusion in a non-scientific way. It's not based on reason. That's fine with me-- there are many ways to understand the world, and I don't think the scientific view of the world stands above all others. However, I don't give up on teaching these students-- even if they disagree with the theory, they still need to know what it is. I do my best, however, to respect their religious beliefs while I teach them a subject they find controversial. It's not my job to change their views, and to me it's clear that I couldn't, even if I tried. But it helps to know where they are coming from-- the result is less frustration on both sides.
This experience has given me a new understanding of the old saw about politics being a topic that shouldn't be discussed in polite society: the thinking, I believe, is that if you've arrived at a conclusion without using reason, reason alone won't be able to dissuade you.
I wouldn't be posting on DU if I agreed with the above assertion. I think it is true that politics is an area where decisions are made using more than reason. That's why people seem to vote for people who make them feel most comfortable, and that's why the politics of fear are so effective. I don't believe, though, that most (although certainly not all) of the supporters for Clinton and Obama have made their decisions to support their candidates based solely on emotion. There are thinking people on this forum, and I think that most of us have thought long and hard before making our decision. In other words, emotion may make up a small part of our decisions, while reason has made up the lion's share.
I'd like to test this hypothesis. The point of a discussion form, after all is discussion , but if there's no chance of changing anyone's mind, why have the discussion? Here's a strategy I've used with my students: if you've arrived at a conclusion based on reason, there will be certain conditions under which you will change your conclusion. So for my students, the question I ask is: "What would it take for you to decide the theory of evolution has merit? What evidence would you need to see?" Some say they would need to see something evolving in their lifetime. Others say there is no evidence that would allow them to draw such a conclusion. It's easy to see which students have based their preliminary conclusions on reason, and which ones haven't.
So here's my experiment. Clinton AND Obama supporters, under what circumstances (please be specific) would you no longer support your candidate? What would he or she have to do to lose your vote? Please note that I am asking you to talk about your candidate, not the other one. Therefore frame your response with plausible specifics about your candidate.
I'll go first:
For me to no longer support my candidate he would need to do any one of the following:
Slander his opponent
Stand by while a surrogate slandered his opponent
Act in contradiction to his stated platform
Stand by while surrogates act in contradiction to his stated platform
Cheat, attempt to cheat or support (in words, actions or lack of action) the cheating of others
The easy response to my post would be to launch an ad hominem attack or to reply that my candidate has already done one or more of the things I've listed. Either type of post wouldn't qualify as discussion, however, as neither would be addressing the purpose of this post. So, if you'd like to do either of those things, please start a new thread. I'd like the responses to this post to test the hypothesis.
Thanks in advance to anyone who cares to participate!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(660 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
