"Bayesian Statistics are just a theory. Teachers should be required to state this to students and also to give equal time to alternate theories, such as the theory of Intelligent Predetermination."
i don't mean that specific kind of crazy, but rather an overall suggestion that humans of all extractions have a habit of arguing with the facts for various reasons.
But yeah, since you ask, I believe that the kind of people who want creationism taught in public schools would ban books on evolution if they thought they could get away with it.
Sure, there are people crazy enough that they would ban books on evolution, just are there are undoubtedly people who are crazy enough to ban books on creationism. Those are probably not even near the top of the list of crazy things people wish they could do.
The reason that it is the case that "things are this crazy in China" is that there is a difference between the existence of people who would probably enjoy implementing crazy policies and the actual implementation of crazy policies.
Oh, we're in violent agreement. The thing about the USA and Canada is that we're constitutional democracies. That doesn't mean that as people we're any less crazy than places with a different system, but our constitutions act as a brake slowing down implementation of crazy policies and providing a kind of "undo" when things go wrong.
As we saw in the FLQ Crisis and again during the G20 summit, Canadians can lock thousands of people up without due process of law. As we saw in Kansas, certain Americans can ban the teaching of established science in the classroom.
But our system at least makes these things aberrations and provides dissenters a way to rectify the problems in the courts.'
edit: I think what I'm trying to say is "Our system provides us with an undo, but it's only good when we remain vigilant against craziness. If we become complacent and assume that we as people are somehow too intelligent or too morally centered to do crazy things, wham, we do crazy things too."
"But our system at least makes these things aberrations and provides dissenters a way to rectify the problems in the courts."
What a lot of people don't get when they try to tu quoque US/Canada/etc on particular events is that their protection of essential liberties is defense in depth.
If a book was banned:
- due process means that this incident can be taken to court
- freedom of press means the mass media can inform others of what has happened
- freedom of speech means you can raise awareness about the banning and denounce the agencies responsible
- with freedom of assembly, those who want the ban overturned can take to the streets and protest
These freedoms are mutually supportive -- abuse of any aspect would be mitigated by the presence of the rest.
V. true. Sadly, those who prefer a tyranny seem to have figured this out and are assaulting all of the freedoms you've listed. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which of these liberties are currently under assault.
I don't think it's crazy. As someone already said the objections are probably related to the examples mentioned on the book (election results and other "controversial" subjects).
Crazy is superficial, this is, in my opinion, sad but not crazy or stupid.
Maybe it was a wrong word. I have to see the book to make conclusions, but I doubt that a book on Bayesian statistics may contain something highly controversial that needs to be banned.
