Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

toonkee

58% of Republicans surveyed said universities have a negative impact

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

There are people who "know" ET is false and creationism is true. 

You both can't be right, but you could both be wrong.  

 

No. One can be demonstrated and the other must be taken on faith.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

No, it shouldn't and no, it doesn't. An opinion or a faith-based conviction is not the same as a scientific theory. Based on your logic, the Truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be taught in school if there are enough ironic hipsters supporting the idea. At some point, you need to differentiate between actual academic research and nonsense. 

So we should just reject the will of the people to decide how their children should be taught? 

If so, who should decide for them,  the Fed gov't?  

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Agreed.  But in less than one class period you could explain there are opposing views and where to go to learn more about them.  

A philosophy class would be the period to do it. Not a science class. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

A philosophy class would be the period to do it. Not a science class. 

Even then you're giving equal time to the fundies, assuming both courses are required. 

 

 

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

So we should just reject the will of the people to decide how their children should be taught? 

If so, who should decide for them,  the Fed gov't?  

People who understand a. the subject matter and b. the scientific method. Scholarship is not a popularity contest, and not everyone has a vote. I know that sounds elitist (and scholarship by its very definition is - to some degree - elitist), but look at it this way: Let's say you are a logistics manager of a grocery store chain, and you just figured out a way to keep produce on the shelves longer while reducing the amount of stuff that has to be thrown away unsold. Who do you want to consider your ideas? Management and your peers, or the guys who collect the carts and smoke pot before every staff meeting? Same thing with education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

People who understand a. the subject matter and b. the scientific method. Scholarship is not a popularity contest, and not everyone has a vote. I know that sounds elitist (and scholarship by its very definition is - to some degree - elitist), but look at it this way: Let's say you are a logistics manager of a grocery store chain, and you just figured out a way to keep produce on the shelves longer while reducing the amount of stuff that has to be thrown away unsold. Who do you want to consider your ideas? Management and your peers, or the guys who collect the carts and smoke pot before every staff meeting? Same thing with education.

It sounds both elitist and authoritarian.

Thete are creationists who understand the scientific method quite well. Many are scientists themselves.

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

I believe if parents choose to place their kids in a religious schools where they learn opposing views, that is their right. 

I believe if the majority of voters in a district want opposing views taught in public schools, that too is their right. 

Where did you read of my antipathy towards universities? And does my antipathy extend to all universities? 

 

But what alternative is there?  Poof the human race just popped up out of nowhere?  Sorry but religious tales have zero business in a science classroom.  And if your religion is so inflexible that they won't change their dogma to reflect what science has proven, then maybe you need a new religion. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mugtang said:

But what alternative is there?  Poof the human race just popped up out of nowhere?  Sorry but religious tales have zero business in a science classroom.  And if your religion is so inflexible that they won't change their dogma to reflect what science has proven, then maybe you need a new religion. 

Intelligent Design is the most common alternative view and one held and promoted by the Discovery Institute. 

The much less common view made somewhat well known by (I think) Francis Crick, states we were essentially seeded by aliens. 

There are those who simply believe neither ET or ID is correct any no one has a clue. 

People who hold that view believe they got some traction with a statement by a leading ET guy, Gould, I think, when he said something along the lines   that "We know it happened, we're just trying to figure out how." 

That statement also gave some ammo to the rather weak argument that it takes as much faith to believe in ET as it does to believe in creation.  

I've  seen some debates between ET and ID guy's a few years ago. The ID guy's did surprisingly well in some, got their ass handed to them in others and there were some that I'd call a draw. 

I do recall a debate, mid 90's I think, were lawyer with training in ET and a belief in creation, absolutely dismantled an ET hot shot.  I heard the second debate was clearly won by the ET guy.  I didn't see that one. 

 

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Even then you're giving equal time to the fundies, assuming both courses are required. 

 

 

 

Both courses shouldn't be required. Science classes should take precedent amongst the lower education. If there is room and demand for a philosophy class, so be it. But alternatives to science should not be taught in science classes. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Intelligent Design is the most common alternative view and one held and promoted by the Discovery Institute. 

The much less common view made somewhat well known by (I think) Francis Crick, states we were essentially seeded by aliens. 

There are those who simply believe neither ET or ID is correct any no one has a clue. 

People who hold that view believe they got some traction with a statement by a leading ET guy, Gould, I think, when he said something along the lines   that "We know it happened, we're just trying to figure out how." 

That statement also gave some ammo to the rather weak argument that it takes as much faith to believe in ET as it does to believe in creation.  

I've  seen some debates between ET and ID guy's a few years ago. The ID guy's did surprisingly well in some, got their ass handed to them in others and there were some that I'd call a draw. 

I do recall a debate, mid 90's I think, were lawyer with training in ET and a belief in creation, absolutely dismantled an ET hot shot.  I heard the second debate was clearly won by the ET guy.  I didn't see that one. 

 

 

There is no scientific view that has falsified evolution. All the views challenging it are philosophical. It's fine to take a scientific view of the question and at its base say evolution is still a theory. It is a theory, albeit one where the evidence is stacked almost uniformly on one side and vacant on the other. Skepticism is required for a thing to be science, it's what science is and how it has come to alter humanity like it has. But to say that alternatives should be taught in science classes argues that things with zero evidence should be taught alongside something that has a lot of evidence, that isn't science. It has no place in science classes.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

There is no scientific view that has falsified evolution. All the views challenging it are philosophical. It's fine to take a scientific view of the question and at its base say evolution is still a theory. It is a theory, albeit one where the evidence is stacked almost uniformly on one side and vacant on the other. Skepticism is required for a thing to be science, it's what science is and how it has come to alter humanity like it has. But to say that alternatives should be taught in science classes argues that things with zero evidence should be taught alongside something that has a lot of evidence, that isn't science. It has no place in science classes.

What about when the ID guys, who hold some of the same degrees as the ET guy's, want to challenge the validity of the evidence and the conclusions they reach from said evidence? 

 

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

A poli sci or journalism prof is still staying in their lane when they are talking politics.   But not social science profs or many others. 

There has even been high school and even grammar school kids getting an ear full of political bullshit from people who are supposed to be teaching the 3 R's. 

Some of them make the news when parents hear of it. 

I only took a couple poli sci courses, but the prof (I chose the same guy after the first class) rigorously examined, praised, and criticized each political position we went through and never - NEVER - seemed partial to any of them. The closest I saw was when he mentioned in grad school he read the diaries of men who decided to drop the bomb instead of an invasion (it was 10 years ago, I don't remember whose diaries he was reading). He said that he was appalled by the decision to drop the bomb but after reading the personal diaries it was clear that the decision was made because the actors at the time felt like it was the course with the smallest human cost to end the war quickly. IIRC at the time Japan was on the cusp of mass famine anyway and it was estimated that a conventional invasion would have cost 20x as many civilian casualties as the bombs did. He said it really, really allayed his horror at the decision and made him appreciate that the decision makers at the time were taking moral considerations into account. 

12 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I think a lot of people in college would be better of learning a trade, and the workforce would be better off as well.  There is a serious need for electricians, welders etc...

The USA does higher education better than anyplace in the world.  Our University system is something all Americans should take great pride in.  It is a parents responsibility to attempt to influence their kids not to pick a worthless major.

One thing I would say is that trades need to be part of a general high school education. Yes science etc is important but IMO a year of electrical shop/intro to welding/wood shop in 9th grade would give far more people a basic knowledge that would let them at least do handyman work, or at least learn handyman work, if need be. 

10 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

I had some woman who was a GOP bigwig in Wyoming when I was in the 5th Grade who would regularly rant about the Clintons in class. Great lady though. 

I suppose I was mistaken earlier, we heard constant griping about how stupid the level of standardized testing was and how NCLB had its priorities out of whack. I never really considered it that political though as it was stuff that was affecting us daily. 

9 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

anti-intellectualism always works out well for everyone. i applaud the GOP.

It is funny, I would say at this point there is a bit more anti intellectualism on the right than the left in this country (not that there is any kind of void of it on the left). Globally it seems like it has tended to be the opposite, see Mao and Pol Pot. Part of it may be that the right has often been staunchly in favor of the church and priests tend to be at least somewhat intellectuals. 

7 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Both courses shouldn't be required. Science classes should take precedent amongst the lower education. If there is room and demand for a philosophy class, so be it. But alternatives to science should not be taught in science classes. 

Eh.... I'd disagree somewhat on your priorities. IMO a basic philosophy course is a foundational class to understanding what science is. A chemistry class without epistemology is just trivia, might as well be learning alchemy except the chemistry you learn works 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Political science is social science. 

 

Ive never shared a political view in a class I've been in charge of.

I think it's hard to be a teacher and not have your biases spill in to your curriculum, in particular in the social sciences.  This isn't a criticism of you or anyone else.  It's more a statement of who we are as people, and in general

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

For things I believe, I agree with you. But I don't believe evolution to be true. I know it to be true. 

I don't really know how anyone can dismiss it.  

You can sit there and pour bleach solutions on bacteria and make it happen before our eyes.  You can sit there and expose bacteria to amoxicillin, and eventually you will have an amoxicillin resistant strain of bacteria.  It's not arguable.  The changes that occur in larger organisms occur over significantly longer periods of time than those that occur in a species that has a 5 hour lifespan, but it happens, over time.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

So we should just reject the will of the people to decide how their children should be taught? 

If so, who should decide for them,  the Fed gov't?  

 

I think that's probably what private schools are for.

Nobody knows everything, but you can believe in God and still accept that the Earth is billions of years old given the manner in which we're measuring carbon decomposition.  I don't see a reason to teach a bible story about how the Earth was created in a public school where there are varying belief systems.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

I think that's probably what private schools are for.

Nobody knows everything, but you can believe in God and still accept that the Earth is billions of years old given the manner in which we're measuring carbon decomposition.  I don't see a reason to teach a bible story about how the Earth was created in a public school where there are varying belief systems.

This is  pretty much in line with Catholic thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RoscoesDad
28 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

I think that's probably what private schools are for.

Nobody knows everything, but you can believe in God and still accept that the Earth is billions of years old given the manner in which we're measuring carbon decomposition.  I don't see a reason to teach a bible story about how the Earth was created in a public school where there are varying belief systems.

Exactly.  If you want your kids to go to bible study or seminary, you certainly have that option as that is your personal choice.  The public schools are there to teach general curriculum.  If you don't like libtard colleges or HS, feel free to apply to Faith Lutheran, St. Bonny,  Liberty or Oral Roberts or TCU. 

That said, I have a big problem with home-schoolers for many reasons.  Most of these kids end up being wide-eyed weirdo cult member robots with limited social skills.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...