View Full Version : Excuse me, but what do these morons need?
Business_Casual
03-10-10, 21:40
In reference to Texas, where the school text book controversy is happening, what exactly do these morons need? They have 12 years plus kindergarten to teach children reading, writing, math and history. How hard can it really be to pack that into 4,380 days?
M_P
Any links to a news bit? Ive heard nothing of it
Belmont31R
03-10-10, 22:45
Any links to a news bit? Ive heard nothing of it
Basically the liberals want to scrub "traditional" history out of the books, and add in their revisionist history. Conservatives want to keep traditional history lessons.
Been going on since before I was born, I thought maybe this is a individual case though. There was an interesting book on text book censorship that I cant remember the name of, but points out many cases of this crap including how teachers teach etc..... It mentioned a case in which the text books couldnt contain any info on owls, owls as characters (children books) or anything of the such because it might offend some indian tribes who see the owl as a evil spirit of sorts:rolleyes: Or how in a lot of inner city liberal schools and a lot of them in california teachers cant grade papers in red ink because its too imposing and degrading on the kids to see their paper filled with red ink for mistakes. Freaking crazy ass shit if you ask me.
Business_Casual
03-11-10, 04:44
Been going on since before I was born, I thought maybe this is a individual case though. There was an interesting book on text book censorship that I cant remember the name of, but points out many cases of this crap including how teachers teach etc..... It mentioned a case in which the text books couldnt contain any info on owls, owls as characters (children books) or anything of the such because it might offend some indian tribes who see the owl as a evil spirit of sorts:rolleyes: Or how in a lot of inner city liberal schools and a lot of them in california teachers cant grade papers in red ink because its too imposing and degrading on the kids to see their paper filled with red ink for mistakes. Freaking crazy ass shit if you ask me.
These are examples of how our educational system fails our students at every level.
First, at the graduate level, instead of testing knowledge our system requires a student to create a theory out of whole cloth and defend it. Hence things such as Shakespeare was gay, instead of being able to recite every character in every play for example.
Second, those newly minted, but clueless BA/MA/PhD students go into the "education" field and think up new and wonderful ideas such as red ink scares students.
M_P
It all gets down to who do we blame the failures on. The teachers want the latest and greatest teaching materials and we give it to them, because:
1. One we want our kids to succeed and do not want to give the education system any reason not to.
2. Many of us don't want to or do not have time to help with our kids education.
But I have to say this, we put men on the moon with old style math, and the "see spot run" books. Some of our greatest accomplishments happened during the 50's-70's using an older style education system. And here today we have problems getting kids to read. Maybe it's not the way we teach things but society today that is the problem.
Back then one parent was able to stay home and greet the kids when they came home from school, understand and help with homework and better yet make sure homework gets done. Stress and instill a value system other than gang values in our kids. (Now before you all get up in arms I realize the folks belonging to this forum still do that today, but can you say that the inner city kids or those kids who are having problems learning have the benefit of that kind of home life).
Our foods at the time were not full of chemicals that can be said to cause autism or other learning disabilities.
Colan Powell grew up in Harlem and because he desired to succeed rose to the position of Secretary of State.
I just heard on the radio that the Philadelphia School system has an unbelievable truancy rate, somewhere in the range of 15%. No matter what system you use if the child is not in school he isn't going to learn. We need to instill a desire to learn in the child and no matter what system you use they will learn.
We could go on and on.
Fox has been on the story...do a search for Texas Education
There's a bit more to the story & it's tied specifically to Social Studies. Texas sets the standard for the nation on schoolbooks due to volume, so many parts of the nation are affected & will get what the state prints.
Isn't this the same state that is trying to put ID in the books and push evolution out? And then fired Chris Comer for being critical of ID? :rolleyes:
Yeah I don't have much hope for Texas Education system.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 09:23
It all gets down to who do we blame the failures on. The teachers want the latest and greatest teaching materials and we give it to them, because:
1. One we want our kids to succeed and do not want to give the education system any reason not to.
2. Many of us don't want to or do not have time to help with our kids education.
But I have to say this, we put men on the moon with old style math, and the "see spot run" books. Some of our greatest accomplishments happened during the 50's-70's using an older style education system. And here today we have problems getting kids to read. Maybe it's not the way we teach things but society today that is the problem.
Back then one parent was able to stay home and greet the kids when they came home from school, understand and help with homework and better yet make sure homework gets done. Stress and instill a value system other than gang values in our kids. (Now before you all get up in arms I realize the folks belonging to this forum still do that today, but can you say that the inner city kids or those kids who are having problems learning have the benefit of that kind of home life).
Our foods at the time were not full of chemicals that can be said to cause autism or other learning disabilities.
Colan Powell grew up in Harlem and because he desired to succeed rose to the position of Secretary of State.
I just heard on the radio that the Philadelphia School system has an unbelievable truancy rate, somewhere in the range of 15%. No matter what system you use if the child is not in school he isn't going to learn. We need to instill a desire to learn in the child and no matter what system you use they will learn.
We could go on and on.
+1
Bravo man, this is exactly what is wrong with the new generations coming up. It shows, not only in school, but when they reach the work envirement as well. I have employees that think they deserve a raise because they came to work on time for 2 weeks straight. I usually respond with, "you're lucky you aren't on unemployment for showing up late everyday for the 2 months before that."
I am tired of the way society tries to cover up failure and pretend like it's not a failure. These kids need the hard truth during school. If you don't work hard you fail. You don't get partial credit in real life for almost being right. Simple as that.
rickrock305
03-11-10, 09:40
Basically the liberals want to scrub "traditional" history out of the books, and add in their revisionist history. Conservatives want to keep traditional history lessons.
Like?
Edit: During my search I found this...
http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/the-revision-thing/
Since the last meeting, board member and former chair Don McLeroy — the most aggressive amender of curriculum and a self-proclaimed “religious fanatic” who believes education is “too important not to politicize”
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6905110.html
AUSTIN — As the State Board of Education sits down this week to review proposed social studies standards, critics say the board could stand a history lesson of its own before setting the standards for public school students.
Among the choices the board has made this year:
• The board voted to pull a popular children's book author after confusing him with the author of a book about Marxism.
• At the urging of a Dallas board member, the panel rejected a nationally known migrant labor leader because she was a member of a socialist group. Instead, the sponsoring member extolled the virtues of Helen Keller, unaware that Keller advocated for socialism.
• The board changed a section on McCarthyism after a member said research had “basically vindicated” the senator's 1950s hunt for communists.
“This goes to the fundamental issue. The board is not made up of educators, yet alone historians. They look very ignorant when they don't know that Helen Keller herself was a socialist,” said Julio Noboa, a history professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, one of the board's socials studies experts offering recommendations. “It really makes them look stupid. These people are making education decisions for one of the largest states in the union.”
Some board members acknowledge mistakes in the effort to adopt new curriculum standards but say the process is set up to correct them.
seems like its the opposite of what you said. in fact most of the changes were proposed by Don McLeroy, a Republican.
rickrock305
03-11-10, 09:48
Fox has been on the story...do a search for Texas Education
There's a bit more to the story & it's tied specifically to Social Studies. Texas sets the standard for the nation on schoolbooks due to volume, so many parts of the nation are affected & will get what the state prints.
hmmm, this is what a quick search came up with...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-sboesider_11tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bf1de7.html
AUSTIN – The Texas Education Agency lashed out Wednesday at the Fox Network for "highly inaccurate" reports about the State Board of Education and its work on social studies curriculum standards.
The TEA, in a news release, cited a half-dozen errors in a March 10 broadcast of Fox & Friends, such as Texas proposing only to teach U.S. history from 1877 to the present.
The TEA said U.S. history "has and always will" be taught from beginning to the present. Early history is covered in the eighth grade, and the period 1877 to the present typically is presented in the 11th grade.
It also chided Fox for reporting that the board had removed George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Christmas, Independence Day and Veterans Day from textbooks.
Those haven't been removed, and the board will not adopt history textbooks for a couple of years.
A Fox representative said it would address the issue today.
I try to like Fox. I really do. But they never fact check anything. :(
rickrock305
03-11-10, 09:58
you can read the changes for yourself here.
http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/the-revision-thing/
I try to like Fox. I really do. But they never fact check anything. :(
Yeah, kinda like how MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS don't either. They're all bad in one way or another.
Basically the liberals want to scrub "traditional" history out of the books, and add in their revisionist history. Conservatives want to keep traditional history lessons.
Basically "I'm right and your wrong". Is what your saying then. :rolleyes:
Yeah, kinda like how MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS don't either. They're all bad in one way or another.
Agreed, but Fox has been worse than normal lately. And I guess I had come to expect more from them.
rickrock305
03-12-10, 09:55
so whats the outrage over? where are the big bad liberal boogeymen?
so whats the outrage over? where are the big bad liberal boogeymen?
It's no secret that the textbooks in the education system have been grossly edited to baby kids these days. Republican or demacrat, they can both be liberal, traditional minded CONSERVATIVES as a whole don't believe in text book censorship. So who does that leave responsible? Liberals, is it some kind of rare happening that alot of this ridiculous text book crap passes in California? The single most liberal state in the country? I don't think so.
This (like alot of things) tends to be a battle between liberal fruits and religious kooks.Both are avid revisionists when it suits their needs.
It's very disheartening for the rest of us who want neither influencing our kids.
rickrock305
03-12-10, 19:18
This (like alot of things) tends to be a battle between liberal fruits and religious kooks.Both are avid revisionists when it suits their needs.
It's very disheartening for the rest of us who want neither influencing our kids.
absolutey
This (like alot of things) tends to be a battle between liberal fruits and religious kooks.Both are avid revisionists when it suits their needs.
It's very disheartening for the rest of us who want neither influencing our kids.
Can you explain why anyone who does not want history re-written by self-loathing, minority appeasing progressives would be considered as a "Religious Kook"? I haven't been to church in years, but I don't care for it either.
You don't see the liberal slant in education today? We going to play this simpleton game again?
rickrock305
03-12-10, 21:08
Can you explain why anyone who does not want history re-written by self-loathing, minority appeasing progressives would be considered as a "Religious Kook"? I haven't been to church in years, but I don't care for it either.
You don't see the liberal slant in education today? We going to play this simpleton game again?
The only one trying to rewrite history in this case happens to be a self described religious fanatic.
In your opinion what is the liberal slant in today's education? Minus the name calling if you can.
Business_Casual
03-12-10, 22:45
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt!
Once again Rickrock enters the fray on the wrong side of the facts.
There is no question that text books are the basis for liberal infiltration into the classroom. Control the circulum, control the debate. So simple even a child should be able to see it.
M_P
what is the liberal slant in today's education? Minus the name calling if you can.
-gross misuse of ethical relativism,
-white guilt,
-religiously anti-religion,
-merits of socialism and the evil of free trade,
-anti-establishment,
-anti-parental authority/discretion,
-state-authoritarianism,
-"living-document" constitutional theory,
-anti-assimilation,
-total retreat from the "white-male model" of instruction (which is still the best model for the largest single group of pupils),
-utilitarian ethics (when you ignore the fact that "whats best for the whole" generally ends up being nothing more than "whats furthers the leftist utopia in our minds," or "what furthers my own personal gains," for those actually in power),
-political biases instilled pretty much across the board on any and all given topics,
-promoting sexuality in pre-developed prefrontal cortexs,
-promoting "emancipated minds" in same (those physiologically incapable of consistent, rational decision making),
-etc, etc, etc, etc, etc..
just some shit off the top of my head.
are you going to pretend that a leftist bias isn't common knowledge in this country? have you never taken a college level social science class?
Can you explain why anyone who does not want history re-written by self-loathing, minority appeasing progressives would be considered as a "Religious Kook"?
That's not what I wrote.
But they(kooks) are typically at the forefront from what I've seen.These "battles" always seem to come down to teaching Mao or teaching Noahs Arc(that's called hyperbole).
How about we stick to the Joe Friday theory of education and leave the raising of little progressives and conservatives to the parents.
You don't see the liberal slant in education today?
I do.
Especially in "higher education".
I'm just not interested in seeing the pendulum swinging to the other side(unless it stops at sanity and falls off).Indoctrination seems to be an almost universal compulsion.
We going to play this simpleton game again?
But you're so good at it.:rolleyes:
How about we stick to the Joe Friday theory of education and leave the raising of little progressives and conservatives to the parents.
Never heard the term before, but it sounds just fine to me...perfect in fact. Joe would have likely made for a great school teacher.
rickrock305
03-13-10, 08:44
-gross misuse of ethical relativism,
-white guilt,
-religiously anti-religion,
-merits of socialism and the evil of free trade,
-anti-establishment,
-anti-parental authority/discretion,
-state-authoritarianism,
-"living-document" constitutional theory,
-anti-assimilation,
-total retreat from the "white-male model" of instruction (which is still the best model for the largest single group of pupils),
-utilitarian ethics (when you ignore the fact that "whats best for the whole" generally ends up being nothing more than "whats furthers the leftist utopia in our minds," or "what furthers my own personal gains," for those actually in power),
-political biases instilled pretty much across the board on any and all given topics,
-promoting sexuality in pre-developed prefrontal cortexs,
-promoting "emancipated minds" in same (those physiologically incapable of consistent, rational decision making),
-etc, etc, etc, etc, etc..
just some shit off the top of my head.
are you going to pretend that a leftist bias isn't common knowledge in this country? have you never taken a college level social science class?
wow, thats quite the list you have there.
White guilt?
Anti religion?
White-male model?
Anti establishment?
:rolleyes:
I don't know what kinda school you have where you live, or how much you actually know about what goes on there. But I can tell you every school myself or my child has been to does not gel with the majority of your list.
Basically the liberals want to scrub "traditional" history out of the books, and add in their revisionist history. Conservatives want to keep traditional history lessons.
Texas is a big state with a large population. When the publisher gets the order for TX text books they send the same text to other less populous states. So the TX decision on content has the potential to effect the bulk of the country.
Liberals want to change history, conservatives want to change science. Both are idiots in this case and should stay out of teaching.
School is the place of Historical facts, Scientific Theory, and Mathematical Proofs. There is no place in it for Politics or Religion.
Business_Casual
03-13-10, 16:29
Conservatives want to change science? What are you talking about?
M_P
Conservatives want to change science? What are you talking about?
M_P
Evolution vs Creationism.
Evolution vs Creationism.
This is the most talked about yes. But it extends to Cosmology and other sciences as well.
Looks like most of the BS passed. In my opinion a very sad day for Texas and our education system.
rickrock305
03-14-10, 11:38
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt!
Once again Rickrock enters the fray on the wrong side of the facts.
There is no question that text books are the basis for liberal infiltration into the classroom. Control the circulum, control the debate. So simple even a child should be able to see it.
M_P
you're a funny guy...i never said there wasn't, i simply asked a question. :rolleyes:
Looks like most of the BS passed. In my opinion a very sad day for Texas and our education system.
According to the report in http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/the-revision-thing/, what exactly are you opposed to?
goodoleboy
03-14-10, 13:06
I'm a high school history teacher in NC. Our state was considering revising our history curriculum starting in 2012. Our local board of ed called in all the teachers to discuss the proposed revisions to the curriculum. I couldn't believe what they were proposing. Here are a few examples:
1. US History taught in high school would not begin until the end of reconstruction (1877) and go to the present. My problem with that: You just chucked out colonization, the Revolution, the Constitution, War of 1812, Civil War, Slavery, Westward Expansion, etc. How am I supposed to get kids to understand the Civil Rights movement if they've never heard of slavery?
2. World History would be done away with and replaced with "World Studies." The curriculum for this course would begin in 1950 and go to the present and all topics would be taught from the standpoint of only how these events influenced the United States. Now, World History isn't like a music cd. You can't skip the songs in the front and still appreciate those at the end, none the less substitue yourself in place of the original audience. This creates a very 1-sided view of history with no foundation.
3. Any US History prior to 1877 would be taught in grade school along with World History prior to 1950. Elementary school teachers aren't specially trained in history, and have consistently sent kids to us that have been misinformed about history. They teach kids such lies as Christopher Columbus discovering America, the Pilgrims and the Indians got along perfectly, and Abraham Lincoln never told a lie.
We pitched a fit when we heard of these new proposed revisions and prepared letters to send to the state board regarding the foolishness of what they were proposing. As of today, most of the counties in the state bombarded the state board with so much negative feedback that they have thrown out all previous proposals and are going to start over again from scratch.
The moral of this story is to pitch a fit statewide and things might go your way. Sometimes I wonder where they find the idiots that write these curriculum standards. I hate seeing our society de-value History, and refuse to look at world events through anyone's eyes but our own.
Heavy Metal
03-14-10, 13:06
Liberals want to change history, conservatives want to change science. Both are idiots in this case and should stay out of teaching.
School is the place of Historical facts, Scientific Theory, and Mathematical Proofs. There is no place in it for Politics or Religion.
Damn those Conservatives for trying to change the fradulent science of gorebull warming!
Where did I mention Global Warming?
Oh wait, I didn't But nice try at a straw man argument.
Oh and by the way, the science is not fraudulent. Now Al Gore is, but he isn't a scientist, he is just a person trying to misrepresent science.
Heavy Metal
03-14-10, 13:56
Where did I mention Global Warming?
Oh wait, I didn't But nice try at a straw man argument.
Oh and by the way, the science is not fraudulent. Now Al Gore is, but he isn't a scientist, he is just a person trying to misrepresent science.
You mentioned Science, not I, there is no strawman unless you are agreeing with me that Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently constituted, is a fradulent science.
You can't have it both ways sparky. Pick one.
Actually no I don't agree with you. Liberals just seem to want us to think we are the ONLY cause of global warming, which is complete and total BS.
And even if I did completely agree, you seem to be implying that since you don't think Global Warming is real then all science is wrong.
... then all science is wrong.
just another religion, man.
Are you really trying to claim that science is a religion?
Religion requires faith in the unknown. Faith by its nature has no proof. You simply believe something to be true. I am not saying that this is bad for a religion, but it has nothing to do with science.
Science requires the ability to take data and determine what the results are. The data gathered must be observable, measurable and empirical. Results must then be repeatable.
To claim that science is just another religion requires a lack of understand of the very basis for what science is.
Religion and Science have nothing to do with each other. While there are times when the two clash, it tends to be a case where science has proven something written in the bible or other religious text to be false. Such as the Flat earth Theory, the Geocentric model of the universe, or Creationism. None of these issues in any way impact the belief in a god, nor are they meant to.
Hell, most scientist are Christians!
negative. those qualities you list as requirements are total BS. those are the requirements you're told exist for scientific conclusions to occur, by the scientists who draw those conclusions.
but how many of the science-believing people of this world, assuming that's even true, do anything other than hear someone say "did you hear that they _______," and simply accept it as cannon?
just as the priests of old claimed that they were receiving the WORD from GOD Himself.
there's absolutely no difference between science and any other religion.
Your tin foil is showing.
Do you really feel there is some big conspiracy in the world among scientist to defraud the population?
Think about the advances that science has given us as a world in the past 100 years. Electricity, flight, the microchip, space travel, etc, etc , etc. I could go on for days and still not list everything.
Yet you think this is all a conspiracy and claim science is just another religion? If not for the science you seem to hate, the average life expectancy for a human would be less than 30 years and we wold be living in basic housing using bronze tools.
rickrock305
03-14-10, 15:42
negative. those qualities you list as requirements are total BS. those are the requirements you're told exist for scientific conclusions to occur, by the scientists who draw those conclusions.
but how many of the science-believing people of this world, assuming that's even true, do anything other than hear someone say "did you hear that they _______," and simply accept it as cannon?
just as the priests of old claimed that they were receiving the WORD from GOD Himself.
there's absolutely no difference between science and any other religion.
Sorry, but this is funny. And 100% wrong.
John_Wayne777
03-14-10, 15:48
Are you really trying to claim that science is a religion?
Religion requires faith in the unknown. Faith by its nature has no proof. You simply believe something to be true. I am not saying that this is bad for a religion, but it has nothing to do with science.
Genuine science is based in fact an in evidence.
There are, however, plenty of examples of "science" being used as a tool for pushing a particular agenda, just as there are examples of history, literature, and other academic pursuits being used for the same purpose.
Religion and Science have nothing to do with each other.
Both can be hijacked in an effort to gain access to checkbooks or to get control o the keys of power.
The geopolitical push for economic and social measures to combat "global warming" are an example of that phenomenon.
Genuine science is based in fact an in evidence.
There are, however, plenty of examples of "science" being used as a tool for pushing a particular agenda, just as there are examples of history, literature, and other academic pursuits being used for the same purpose.
Both can be hijacked in an effort to gain access to checkbooks or to get control o the keys of power.
The geopolitical push for economic and social measures to combat "global warming" are an example of that phenomenon.
I don't disagree with you at all. Anything can and will be misused by unscrupulous people. Global warming is actually the perfect example. Scientist have just about as much disdain for people who are using Global warming to push their own agenda as they do for the people who deny it exists.
However this is no reason to attack science and claim it is all false or some big conspiracy.
Your tin foil is showing.
Do you really feel there is some big conspiracy in the world among scientist to defraud the population?
Think about the advances that science has given us as a world in the past 100 years. Electricity, flight, the microchip, space travel, etc, etc , etc. I could go on for days and still not list everything.
Yet you think this is all a conspiracy and claim science is just another religion? If not for the science you seem to hate, the average life expectancy for a human would be less than 30 years and we wold be living in basic housing using bronze tools.
you wanna try connecting the dots a little before posting? when did i ever say or imply anything about conspiracies? did i say or imply science was wrong? i'm talking about faith- if you want to get into the truths or lack of truths of various religions, thats a whole separate topic.
all i said was that for the masses of science believers, you need just as much faith in those who spoon feed you scientific doctrine as those spoon-fed other religious doctrine. my point is that people take bullshit as easily as truth- all it takes is someone at a podium/alter pontificating, and the masses bow down to the Almighty ________ of their chosen faith. Science, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Hindi, doesn't matter.
most Americans will fall for bad science just as easily as bad interpretations of the Koran- do you disagree?
all i said was that for the masses of science believers, you need just as much faith in those who spoon feed you scientific doctrine as those spoon-fed other religious doctrine. my point is that people take bullshit as easily as truth- all it takes is someone at a podium/alter pontificating, and the masses bow down to the Almighty ________ of their chosen faith. Science, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Hindi, doesn't matter.
You are still missing the point. Science has nothing to do with faith or belief, it has to do with observation and theory(scientific theory). By calling science a faith or religion you are misrepresenting it. There is no doctrine.
John_Wayne777
03-14-10, 16:12
I don't disagree with you at all. Anything can and will be misused by unscrupulous people.
...and unscrupulous people are the key to the whole bit. The scruples of many in our society pushing for various agendas are less than stellar.
Global warming is actually the perfect example. Scientist have just about as much disdain for people who are using Global warming to push their own agenda as they do for the people who deny it exists.
I fail to see that disdain expressed in anything approaching as public or vitriolic a manner as the "deniers" are treated to.
In fact, "deniers" who are scientists and who raise legitimate scientific objections are often treated rather terribly...like being shut out of the peer review process because their conclusions don't match the agenda of those doing the reviewing.
However this is no reason to attack science and claim it is all false or some big conspiracy.
Science practiced as true science is not a problem.
What produces the objections raised here are typically instances of "science" (only part of the story if that much) being used as an unassailable weapon of propaganda in a political and cultural war. "We use SCIENCE, and therefore are your betters!" is the problem, not a guy giving a lecture to other PHD's about the formation of nucleic peptide chains.
True science results in decoding the entire human genome. Science as propaganda results in Al Gore talking about hockey-stick graphs and commercials about the plight of poor polar bears.
True science results in decoding the entire human genome. Science as propaganda results in Al Gore talking about hockey-stick graphs and commercials about the plight of poor polar bears.
Can I steal this line? Please. I love it. I think it pretty much sums up the entire debate.
Business_Casual
03-14-10, 16:22
you're a funny guy...i never said there wasn't, i simply asked a question. :rolleyes:
Thank you. I'm here to help!
M_P
You are still missing the point. Science has nothing to do with faith or belief, it has to do with observation and theory(scientific theory). By calling science a faith or religion you are misrepresenting it. There is no doctrine.
i was the one making the point- how could i be missing it? YOUR point is subjective and irrelevant to my point, which is not subject to anything but understanding.
but i'll indulge you: are you a physicist? have you spent your life conducting scientific experiments and observing outcomes? i don't think you have... i suspect that you get ALL of your scientific understanding, as do i, from the reportings of others. i suspect you've fallen for bad science a time or two, just as i probably have. "faith" is NOT exclusive to the traditional belief systems known as "religion." to believe in ANY belief system written by other people, you MUST have "faith" in it. if you have not observed cause-and-effect first hand, but believe it anyway, then you are no different than the men and women of Israel watching Moses descend from the mountain.
rickrock305
03-14-10, 17:48
i was the one making the point- how could i be missing it? YOUR point is subjective and irrelevant to my point, which is not subject to anything but understanding.
no, its not subjective. how he described science is a fact, there is no room for subjectivity there.
"faith" is NOT exclusive to the traditional belief systems known as "religion." to believe in ANY belief system written by other people, you MUST have "faith" in it.
no.
science is peer reviewed and repeatable. therefore scientist "A" produces a theory and publishes it along with all relevant information and experiments on how he came up with that theory. then scientists "B" thru "Z" take his experiments and test them, pick them apart, and see if they are verifiable and repeatable. then all these scientists' results are also published. there is no faith in this process. all this is public information and verifiable. faith does not enter into the equation at anytime.
if you have not observed cause-and-effect first hand, but believe it anyway, then you are no different than the men and women of Israel watching Moses descend from the mountain.
no. because i don't take one scientists word for it. i take the scientists word only after it has been tested and verified by his own scientific peers, people who know the subject in much greater detail than you or I, through verifiable and repeatable methods. one cannot repeat or independently verify moses coming down from the mountain
no, its not subjective. how he described science is a fact, there is no room for subjectivity there.
no.
science is peer reviewed and repeatable. therefore scientist "A" produces a theory and publishes it along with all relevant information and experiments on how he came up with that theory. then scientists "B" thru "Z" take his experiments and test them, pick them apart, and see if they are verifiable and repeatable. then all these scientists' results are also published. there is no faith in this process. all this is public information and verifiable. faith does not enter into the equation at anytime.
no. because i don't take one scientists word for it. i take the scientists word only after it has been tested and verified by his own scientific peers, people who know the subject in much greater detail than you or I, through verifiable and repeatable methods. one cannot repeat or independently verify moses coming down from the mountain
says who?
rickrock305
03-14-10, 18:19
says who?
uhhh, the scientific method. the method upon which ALL science is conducted.
:rolleyes:
http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/scien_method/AppendixE.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
http://biologycorner.com/resources/scientific_method.gif
uhhh, the scientific method. the method upon which ALL science is conducted.
:rolleyes:
i'm intimately familiar with the scientific method. i've been very interested in science my entire life. i love it. even in my adulthood i spend hours on wikipedia and astrophysics websites reading different theories on why the universe seems to be accelerating in expansion, dark matter/energy, or zip through the cosmos in Celestia, and looking up the history of the discovery of cosmological complexes and such. sometimes i get on a nanophysics kick and read up on quantum field theory, clicking through links that might take me anywhere through the vast world of physics. i don't generally understand half of what i'm reading, because i'm not a physicist, but i dig what i am able to grasp without any formal education in the physical sciences. i spend just as much time reading about science as i do reading my bible. probably more, often enough. and i find no conflict between my dual faiths. one helps me understand the other, and visa versa.
none of this has anything to do with my mother ****ing point, however, and i cant believe you cant grasp it. what am i doing when i'm reading my bible? reading shit other ****ers wrote, and supposedly verified through first-hand experience. what am i doing when i'm reading about science? reading shit other ****ers wrote, and supposedly verified through first-hand experience. i have to have just as much faith to believe what i read in science journals as i do to believe in what i read in the bible. i have to trust that i'm not being fed a line of shit, because i, personally, have zero evidence, beyond what i'm told, that any of it is true.
I am sorry but you really are missing the point.
The fact is that that science you admit you don't fully understand can be reproduced. If you went and got the education you could complete the same tests and get the same results as those scientists did.
If I drop two objects of different mass/weights and they land at the same time I am repeating a test performed by scientists. It doesn't require faith or belief to see the results. If I look through a powerful telescope at the cosmos and know the proper calculations I can figure out the same results that cosmologist have come to.
I don't think you are intentionally misrepresenting science. But you are misrepresenting what it is no the less.
John_Wayne777
03-14-10, 19:57
uhhh, the scientific method. the method upon which ALL science is conducted.
Here's the problem with that:
I don't claim to be an elite academic, but I do have some academic credentials. Let's say we're discussing the political role of the Chinese bourgeoisie following the 1911 revolution up until the second Sino-Japanese war of 1937. Let's say that I assert that the bourgeoisie functioned as an autonomous defacto government in the absence of a strong central authority until the military coup of 1927. Let's say I base that claim on a rich library of primary source evidence.
How do you as a layman evaluate the veracity of what I've claimed? How do you evaluate the quality of my sources and, just as importantly, the validity of the conclusions I've made based on examination of the data?
If you respond by reviewing what other historians say about my assertions, that would be a good start...but not a guarantee. What background do the historians have that make their critiques valid? Are they experts in Chinese history of the caliber of Esherick, Cohen, or Spence? Are they familiar with the sources I'm using and the potential strengths and weaknesses present in them? Are they able to spot an attempt to shape the argument through source selection?
Etc.
It should be readily apparent that as a layman you will very quickly be out of your depth in trying to form critical judgments based on what is going on in the peer review process...so at some point you rest your conclusions about the particular item on faith.
Frankly I do not have the qualifications necessary to intelligently contribute to the debate on a unified field theory of physics or to debate the differential diagnosis of a paranoid schizophrenic or to contest a particular prescription from a cardiologist based on his knowledge of cardiac electrophysiology. Neither, I am willing to wager, do you. We rely on a system of credentials to tell us the people who are capable of making those kind of judgments...we have faith in them.
Even though we believe that there are good reasons to look at credentials and peer review, (and there are) I can point to numerous examples where both have failed to reach an objectively true conclusion or, worse, have been abused to empower a certain political/cultural/social aim. I can point to entire movements in history that proclaimed "science" to be the foundation of their world view and yet were as objectively as far removed from any scientific reality as the legions of Boxers who thought that through chanting and spirit possession rituals they were made invulnerable to bullets. Often while masses may claim science as their foundation, they are utterly unqualified to actually tell good science from bad, as the global warming debacle demonstrates. Those at concerts equating global warming "deniers" with the perpetrators of the holocaust are no more rational than the terrorists who don't aim because they think Allah will guide their bullets.
As I noted earlier, science practiced as science is objective and rational. Science is not always practiced as science, nor is it always used as science. In our society today there is a pernicious blurring of the line between those two concepts that has been ongoing for decades. Science as brought up in political debates is usually more on the end of an article of faith than on the end of the classification and explanation of phenomena. Science improperly used can be turned into an opiate for the masses...and there are forces in our society who seek to do exactly that.
rickrock305
03-14-10, 20:01
none of this has anything to do with my mother ****ing point, however, and i cant believe you cant grasp it. what am i doing when i'm reading my bible? reading shit other ****ers wrote, and supposedly verified through first-hand experience. what am i doing when i'm reading about science? reading shit other ****ers wrote, and supposedly verified through first-hand experience. i have to have just as much faith to believe what i read in science journals as i do to believe in what i read in the bible. i have to trust that i'm not being fed a line of shit, because i, personally, have zero evidence, beyond what i'm told, that any of it is true.
no, i totally understand your point and it is not accurate.
the difference is, with science you (or others) can independently verify and experiment with and reproduce the results yourself as scientists do all the time. thats how theories like gravity are proven to be true.
religion cannot be independently verified and reproduced.
rickrock305
03-14-10, 20:12
Here's the problem with that:
I don't claim to be an elite academic, but I do have some academic credentials. Let's say we're discussing the political role of the Chinese bourgeoisie following the 1911 revolution up until the second Sino-Japanese war of 1937. Let's say that I assert that the bourgeoisie functioned as an autonomous defacto government in the absence of a strong central authority until the military coup of 1927. Let's say I base that claim on a rich library of primary source evidence.
How do you as a layman evaluate the veracity of what I've claimed? How do you evaluate the quality of my sources and, just as importantly, the validity of the conclusions I've made based on examination of the data?
If you respond by reviewing what other historians say about my assertions, that would be a good start...but not a guarantee. What background do the historians have that make their critiques valid? Are they experts in Chinese history of the caliber of Esherick, Cohen, or Spence? Are they familiar with the sources I'm using and the potential strengths and weaknesses present in them? Are they able to spot an attempt to shape the argument through source selection?
Etc.
.
you're comparing apples to oranges.
what you are talking about is history, which is VERY different from science.
It should be readily apparent that as a layman you will very quickly be out of your depth in trying to form critical judgments based on what is going on in the peer review process...so at some point you rest your conclusions about the particular item on faith.
Frankly I do not have the qualifications necessary to intelligently contribute to the debate on a unified field theory of physics or to debate the differential diagnosis of a paranoid schizophrenic or to contest a particular prescription from a cardiologist based on his knowledge of cardiac electrophysiology. Neither, I am willing to wager, do you. We rely on a system of credentials to tell us the people who are capable of making those kind of judgments...we have faith in them.
no, we don't have faith in them. we have independent scientific review. thats not faith, thats independently verifiable fact. big difference.
Even though we believe that there are good reasons to look at credentials and peer review, (and there are) I can point to numerous examples where both have failed to reach an objectively true conclusion or, worse, have been abused to empower a certain political/cultural/social aim. I can point to entire movements in history that proclaimed "science" to be the foundation of their world view and yet were as objectively as far removed from any scientific reality as the legions of Boxers who thought that through chanting and spirit possession rituals they were made invulnerable to bullets. Often while masses may claim science as their foundation, they are utterly unqualified to actually tell good science from bad, as the global warming debacle demonstrates. Those at concerts equating global warming "deniers" with the perpetrators of the holocaust are no more rational than the terrorists who don't aim because they think Allah will guide their bullets.
As I noted earlier, science practiced as science is objective and rational. Science is not always practiced as science, nor is it always used as science. In our society today there is a pernicious blurring of the line between those two concepts that has been ongoing for decades. Science as brought up in political debates is usually more on the end of an article of faith than on the end of the classification and explanation of phenomena.
interesting you bring up global warming, because that is a perfect example of science and the peer review method at work. yes, people who are not scientists have perverted the results for their own political or economic gain. but there is no consensus on the anthropogenic global warming theory from scientists. it has not held up to the peer review process. that is the scientific method at work.
Heavy Metal
03-14-10, 20:38
You mentioned Science, not I, there is no strawman unless you are agreeing with me that Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently constituted, is a fradulent science.
You can't have it both ways sparky. Pick one.
Actually no I don't agree with you. Liberals just seem to want us to think we are the ONLY cause of global warming, which is complete and total BS.
And even if I did completely agree, you seem to be implying that since you don't think Global Warming is real then all science is wrong.
Uuuuuhhhhh....do you understand what the word 'anthropogenic' means?
John_Wayne777
03-14-10, 20:44
you're comparing apples to oranges.
what you are talking about is history, which is VERY different from science.
What I am talking about is a field of study that vastly exceeds your qualifications to make judgments in it compared to a field of study that vastly exceeds your qualifications to make judgments in it. Thus what is independently verifiable and what is merely sold as being so is beyond your ability to judge in most cases. You can take my assertions about the Chinese bourgeoisie at face value, or you can read some books on it...which you can take at face value, or you can go look at the sources used by the authors to write the books...which you can take at face value, or you can attempt to counter with other sources because of potential biases in the sources....
Etcetera, etcetera.
yes, people who are not scientists have perverted the results for their own political or economic gain.
...including scientists and scientific journals which are supposed to use peer review.
but there is no consensus on the anthropogenic global warming theory from scientists.
...and yet we hear repeatedly that the science is "settled"...which is the point I've been making. The scientific process is perpetual, which is why one study says eggs are good for you while another says eggs are for you. Each can be completely valid because one examines a certain subset of factors and the other examines a completely different subset of factors which lead to a radically different conclusion. When dealing with complex systems or issues, what data you look at and how you collect it has a tremendous impact on the end result. This is why real scientists are careful to qualify their statements and their conclusions.
The alarmists who have been predicting the doom of mankind due to an ice age until the 80's and now due to global warming today and their impact on the political climate demonstrates nicely how dangerous "science" can be in the wrong hands. There are, of course, other more extreme examples.
it has not held up to the peer review process. that is the scientific method at work.
...given that objections to the theory have been given scarce air time and that there's pretty good evidence that those with an agenda have actively attempted to hijack the peer review and grant funding processes to shape the outcome of research, I don't share your rosy assessment that science worked.
Often when history has been turned into myth, it goes unnoticed for decades partially because of collusion, partially because of a sort of academic groupthink that can settle into the field, and partially because of a lack of information. When science has been turned into political argument it's often just as difficult to spot.
theblackknight
03-14-10, 20:46
In reference to Texas, where the school text book controversy is happening, what exactly do these morons need? They have 12 years plus kindergarten to teach children reading, writing, math and history. How hard can it really be to pack that into 4,380 days?
M_P
Im 23,soo I havent been out that long, but aside from knowledge, kids are not taught HOW TO THINK, but simply what to think.
rickrock305
03-14-10, 20:53
What I am talking about is a field of study that vastly exceeds your qualifications to make judgments in it compared to a field of study that vastly exceeds your qualifications to make judgments in it. Thus what is independently verifiable and what is merely sold as being so is beyond your ability to judge in most cases. You can take my assertions about the Chinese bourgeoisie at face value, or you can read some books on it...which you can take at face value, or you can go look at the sources used by the authors to write the books...which you can take at face value, or you can attempt to counter with other sources because of potential biases in the sources....
Etcetera, etcetera.
i don't think the history analogy is a good one because science, unlike history, can be independently verified and reproduced. you cannot reproduce the Chinese bourgeoisie to verify that your assertions are true and accurate. but something like the theory of gravity can be faithfully reproduced every time.
...and yet we hear repeatedly that the science is "settled"...which is the point I've been making.
but my point was that you do not hear that from scientists, only media and politicians and profiteers looking to push their agenda.
The alarmists who have been predicting the doom of mankind due to an ice age until the 80's and now due to global warming today and their impact on the political climate demonstrates nicely how dangerous "science" can be in the wrong hands. There are, of course, other more extreme examples.
science (unlike religion) does not predict the future. they can make a hypothesis about what they believe may happen, but nothing is proven until it has happened and has been independently verified and repeated.
...given that objections to the theory have been given scarce air time and that there's pretty good evidence that those with an agenda have actively attempted to hijack the peer review and grant funding processes to shape the outcome of research, I don't share your rosy assessment that science worked.
the science itself has worked. it has been totally politicized and twisted for profit and personal gain in the media and such. thats not science though. two different things.
Often when history has been turned into myth, it goes unnoticed for decades partially because of collusion, partially because of a sort of academic groupthink that can settle into the field, and partially because of a lack of information. When science has been turned into political argument it's often just as difficult to spot.
again, bad analogy. can't go comparing history to science as they are two very different things. the very basis of science, the scientific method, cannot be applied to history.
Im 23,soo I havent been out that long, but aside from knowledge, kids are not taught HOW TO THINK, but simply what to think.
I would expand on this and say that people are not taught how to learn, but rather how to do the least amount of work possible to pass.
John_Wayne777
03-14-10, 21:12
i don't think the history analogy is a good one because science, unlike history, can be independently verified and reproduced. you cannot reproduce the Chinese bourgeoisie to verify that your assertions are true and accurate. but something like the theory of gravity can be faithfully reproduced every time.
Do you know anything about the study of history? It doesn't sound like it. History is not the same discipline as science...but the academic process of history is not unlike the academic process of science.
Both can (and have) been corrupted in the same ways.
I would expand on this and say that people are not taught how to learn, but rather how to do the least amount of work possible to pass.
It depends on the individual. Frankly after a certain point it's about jumping through hoops to try and complete the goal.
Uuuuuhhhhh....do you understand what the word 'anthropogenic' means?
Yes. And I think humans contribute to global warming, however I do not think we are the sole cause. I also think Al Gore is an idiot who is just trying to manipulate real science to push his agenda.
They key of science it so approach it with an open mind and the willingness to be wrong.
rickrock305
03-14-10, 22:03
History is not the same discipline as science...but the academic process of history is not unlike the academic process of science.
yes, i understand peer review is an important part of how history is written. but you're either ignoring or not understanding my point that a HUGE part of science is the ability to reproduce the results of a given theory, e.g. gravity. one cannot reproduce history in order to verify the results.
Both can (and have) been corrupted in the same ways.
i wouldn't disagree with that. both have been manipulated for political and/or economic gains.
but we've gotten off on a tangent at this point. my original point was that religion and science are very different.
but we've gotten off on a tangent at this point.
We sure have.
JW777, you appear to have followed the exact same futile path you have warned others against following (see image of dog chasing it's tail). Nothing to gain here.
I retired from teaching in Texas in 2002 and remember that the state Board of Education was usually stacked with those who prefer to censor topics pertaining to evolution, birth control, sex education or any other issues that upset them. Furthermore, these folks are quick to propagandize hot topics according to their view.
Publishers print books for the rest of the nation based on the Texas editions. This is a numbers thing driven by population figures.
About Texas and kids. We have an extremely high drop-out rate, teen pregnance rate,
STD rate, and crime rate. Our achievement test scores are embarassingly low.
Maybe book content doesn't matter. Kids can't read the texts anyway.
Williejc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.