Squeers, regarding part(s) of your posting on 29 May, 7.46pm:

1. ".. science begins with the unsubstantiated premise that everything in the universe is explicable in materialist terms. There is no good reason to make this assumption, we simply don't know and it is unwise to close our minds to extraordinary possibilities--"
2. "The notion that phenomena is reducible to simple cause and effect, based on our superficial and prejudiced perception of it, buys into the Newtonian reduction that phenomena is nothing more than dead matter behaving respectively and predictably."
3. ".. while it's certainly true that "objectivity" is prerequisite (and unattainable), deciding beforehand that the answer "must" be materialistic, is prejudice."

My response(s): 1. Science has to start somewhere, and has necessarily to make the assumption that everything is explainable in concrete "material" terms - until proven otherwise. Science can only build from the known (or reasonably proven), towards understanding of the, as yet, inexplicable. There is no closing to possibilities.
2. Everything IS cause and effect - there is no other possibility (Until Proven to be Otherwise), but it is far from "simple". Your use of Newton's view here is also a false and un-demonstrated conclusion, proving nothing.
3. Objectivity "unattainable"? All science is necessarily based on the purest form of objectivity, and to suggest otherwise beggars belief. Advances in science are subject to strict peer review, demand unerring proof replication, and any hypothesis can be demolished by one simple failure. It is thus, and must be - all else is chaos. (Or maybe, Purely Philosophical?)

Saltpetre,

Your 1,2,3 responses above are naive to say the least. Don't you think you ought to learn a little more about the respective problematics before you make resounding affirmations?

On the topic of this thread, I would ask "why" people want religion or science taught in school? What are the benefits?

Speaking for philosophy in school, which for me would include the Greek concept of "paideia"; it would equip the child to critique her culture and herself and aspire to make them better.
According to the OED one S. Butcher said paideia "in its full sense involves the union of intellectual and moral qualities. It is on the one hand mental illumination, an enlarged outlook on life; but it also implies a refinement and delicacy of feeling, a deepening of the sympathetic emotions, a scorn of what is self-seeking, ignoble, dishonourable—a scorn bred of loving familiarity with poets and philosophers, with all that is fortifying in thought or elevating in imagination".
We'd have to be careful this did't reinvent the philistine, but I'm confident such sensibilities would reject the present world and its "culture" and build another, and that is my hope for a philosophical education.

Religion offers no such promise as this world is neglected in favour of the next. Religious instruction is the perfect way to divert human potential and aspiration and keep our democracies devoted to meagre, maudlin and materialistic preoccupations.

The institution of science, on the other hand, is even more distracted--like an idiot savant; capable of stupendous feats of discovery yet bereft of discrimination. Science treats our "society" ("culture" is irrational) as a given context, and is so infatuated with the "phenomenon" at hand that it can't be bothered with arcane matters of right and wrong. Science is thus even more conservative, in its indifference, than religion!

Both science and religion are puppets of the state.

Philosophy, on the other hand, at its best and down to earth, takes the best from religion and science.

I hope someone will defend religion and/or science from my criticism and try to answer my "why" above.

Squeers,

Your latest post:
"The institution of science, on the other hand, is even more distracted--like an idiot savant; capable of stupendous feats of discovery yet bereft of discrimination. Science treats our "society" ("culture" is irrational) as a given context, and is so infatuated with the "phenomenon" at hand that it can't be bothered with arcane matters of right and wrong. Science is thus even more conservative, in its indifference, than religion!"

"Both science and religion are puppets of the state."

"Philosophy, on the other hand, at its best and down to earth, takes the best from religion and science."

And your request for response:
"On the topic of this thread, I would ask "why" people want religion or science taught in school? What are the benefits?"

My response - for what it's worth - and on latest evidence that would not be much, it would seem:

In my previous post I was not addressing RE, or philosophy - these have been extensively covered earlier in this thread, and quite adequately as far as I'm concerned. So, I'm not going to buy into that any further.

I am at a loss that you would/could question the teaching of science in our schools. Certainly you appear to hold a very different view of science to myself. That has been made very clear in your response to my previous comments on your assertions regarding the inability of science to be objective. However, in this latest post you have reached into a realm of not only refuting the objectivity of science, but seemingly denying its fundamental or perceived relevance to society (or dare I add, to world progress?).

You appear to contend that Philosophy is the alpha and the omega, has all the answers, and that contemplation is all that is required to educate the next generation and achieve a "realisation", of what? Of the "real purpose" of mankind's existence? Is that it? For your assertions, proposition, or whatever you wish to call it, makes no sense to me whatever.

My only hope is that you are not an educator.

Saltpetre,

It's a shame we don't have more educators that hold to Squeers' philosophy.

Paideia, as opposed to purely technical education, was the highest theoretical aim of education in Ancient Greece.
E.B. Castle wrote:
"In the midst of our gadget-cluttered world it is a good thing to reflect, slowly and imaginatively, on what was the essence of this Greek contribution to education....They approached their problem in a characteristically Greek way, examining the principles governing human life, asking what a man was, body, mind and spirit....It is on this main theme that we must concentrate - on the idea that education is the making of a man.....today we tend to ask, not how shall we make a child into a complete man, but what technique we shall teach him so that he will become a neat and uncomplaining cog in a world whose main concern is to produce material wealth....
We become educated by continuous searching. The personal culture thus attained is a man's "paideia", the thing for which he is born, the sum of his intellectual, moral and aesthetic qualities that make him a complete man."

Perhaps the Greek ideal is set a bit too high for a society obsessed with material gain. If you drop your bombastic attitude for a moment, Saltpetre, you might see the merit in Squeers' philosophical approach.

Saltpetre,

Your innocent criticism makes me smile : )

Poirot,
great quote!

..And no takers from either side on Squeers's query as to <"why" people want religion or science taught in school? What are the benefits?>

Surely someone has a good reason to prefer one or the other? I assumed this had been thought-out...

Oh drear..

AJ Philips "Delay much, Shockadelic?"

Unlike some people, I have a life outside of OLO.

"One organ being symmetrical wouldn’t save DNA."

That wasn't the question.

"evolution can only work with what it’s given anyway - like our backwards retinas - it doesn’t consciously decide what ‘s best and then do it.'

Yet strangely symmetry "worked" for almost every part of every lifeform.
You have not answered why just a *few* things evaded this almost-universal tendency.

<<Why don't we only need one kidney, one lung?>>

"For the lungs, I suspect it would have something to do with surface area and/or circulation."

So why not one lung with greater surface area?
Why not one ear that can hear in all directions?

"why don’t you ask experts on those organs?"

They will, like you, describe what *now* exists, not why or how it came to be that way.
You are the ones advocating a non-intelligent process, not my local GP.

"Evolution would still remain a fact regardless of what your Joho pamphlets claim."

Newsflash, I'm not Joho or even Christian.

"Oh, and I have never once said that things are the way they are because they are that way."

Clever boy. I was summing up your attitude, not your exact words.
From your response it seems clear you have no answer.

Saltpetre "allowing the chips to fall where they may."

Yet the chips fell on "symmetry" over and over and over again, but not for this organ or that one. Why?

"Symmetry (or system duplication) is a random facet, only holding sway where it is advantageous - such as in physical mobility and dexterity, stereoscopic vision,"

You, like AJ, are stating an opinion about "advantage" based on a convenient back-formation of lifeforms as they exist *now*, not explaining why they got that way.

"and the likes of system back-up to reduce the impacts of partial systems failure - eg kidneys, lungs."

Don't people's livers fail? Their hearts?
Without a functioning heart, you're dust!

"What works, works"

i.e. things-are-they-way-they-are-because-they-are-that-way.