Negative Impacts on Society

The purpose of schools are to share expensive resources and to teach how to learn.If there is to be time spent on the Christian Creation Story, it should be simply as that. story time. Not Science because it is not Science. Not Theory because it is not Theory, but a story.And it should be covered right along with Small Bearded Man, The Council of Birds, the Rg Vedic and all the other equally valid Creation Myths.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

School is a community, one that, at its best, reflects the larger community which it serves. In this, instruction which is comprehensive and as free of biasis as possible is its goal. The purpose is not to pre-set the students' thoughts, but to create a foundation for later thinking.

---

The public school system is biased, biased towards being areligious. Not non-religious, or anti-religious, but devoid of sponsoring one religion over another. By teaching the Judeo-Christian creation story, this line would be crossed. By teaching the areligious theory of evolution, no matter how limited, the public school is still staying within it's mandate. The same could be said for health class. When was the last time you heard about faith healing having equal time with normal western medicinal techniques? Should we have witch doctors come and talk about how good spirits keep STD's away? After all, equal time is the creationist mantra.

I wonder if we allow religion into schools which among this list should we include. How much time should we devote to each of these in the course of a school day?

This might seem silly, but I think the best answer is that the majority of time should be devoted to those religions other than the locally dominate one. For example, in a Christian area it might be that the majority of time was spent on all the others and only a small portion on Christianity.But religion should also be incorporated into almost every subject. Math for example is incomplete unless you understand the Islamic revolution in mathmaetics. In addition, any study of science would be incomplete without and understanding of the part that Islam played in maintaining science during the Dark Ages and then the rennaisance that swept up from the Caliphs of Spain into northern Europe.Even a cusory glance at history will show that so much of it was driven by religious beliefs and so a study of religion must be part of every history class.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dear Kofh2u,I'm sorry if you find my manners to be lacking but your continual refusal to back up anything you say with more than handwaving suggests that your view of science is that it is some sort of post-modern relativist liberal arts discipline where everyones answer is equally valid.I didn't say that the number you misstated was shocking. What I said was shocking was you holding up what was essentially a piece of fiction as an example of a 'good' history of science.Avogadro created no number as 'his' number, his name has been associated with the value known as 'Avogadro's number' because of his hypothesis relating to gases which we have discussed previously.Can you quote from Avogadro's manuscript to show where he said any of the things you attributed to him, even showing what you say is a rough paraphrase would be fine.Einstein, Planck, Millikan, Loschmidt et. al had a pretty open field since the varying theoretical bases of their estimates were all tenable sources. Such theoretical attempts have been superceded however by our current ability to actually directly measure the number of atoms in a specific volume.You have bought no pearl to my attention, do you contend that 6.22X10^23 was not in fact a misstatement but an alternative suggestion for Avogadro's number? This hardly jibes with your hypothesis that the number is actually just a little under 6X10^23.Can you be more specific about what wonderful insight you think you have revealed to us?As to your final point, no you are not correct. There has to be some scepticism in our scientific methodology. Self correction and self review are some of the most important aspects of scientific endeavour. If something goes completely against what we think to be true then it must be subjected to the hardest scrutiny, if it then withstands that then the current theories will have to shift to allow for something with hard theoretical/evidentiary backing. Science is full of examples where a previous paradigm has had to make way as new understanding was gained. These understandings were gained with proper experimental work however, not with claiming to have a value for Avogadro's constant derived purely from a theoretical basis superior to that derived from direct observation.I'll admit that I have been a bit brusques if you'll admit that your example of 'good' science history was a load of made up claptrap bearing absoloutely no resemblance to the actual facts surrounding Avogadro's work in relation to the number to which his name is attached.Where I went to school things certainly weren't taught as a history of science, maybe its just a different school system type thing.TTFN,WKP.S. I relise this is getting pretty much totally of topic, I'll see if I can get a thread up on the 'Kofh Number' so we can discuss your theories.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 04-28-2004]

I see no problems with having a comparative religions class in high school, as I think it would be good to introduce other concepts from those religions.I believe that this was tried in California, and was shut down because of complaints from a vocal minority ... fundamental christians.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes.That sounds like a good idea.The Kofh Number.Now we are being both courteous and grounded on the same level. In such an atmosphere of academic acknowledgement, even the most strange though sincere claims can be examined in the silence of others skepticism, to which they are entitled, but I emphasize the "silent.'Any school, even the unmentioned institution of your own attendance, "updates" the up and coming science students with what is assumed to be "known." In the case of Avogadro's Number, 1 Mole, we have had a figure clearly prefaced by the words, "accepted." But, as these posts show, not understood as accepted but as in stone.To me very, very small credit posting on your new thread the actually number, well below the "accepted" figure will prove to either by reduced to nonsense after intelligent deliberation or a stroke of genius that corrects Einstein, among others.Nevertheless, this exercise serves to demonstrate three important aspects of our new age, if we can assure that those tenets of this new age are employed in such intercourse as we are having here.1) We now will know the exact number of particules in Avogadro's one mole for any molecular weight of a substance.2) The person, kofh, making the purely theoretical identification of that number, will be demonstrating that the major ingredient in science is the mental reflections, not the laboratory experimentation, (though that is an essential and necessary, though not sufficient element of empirical inquiry). i.e.; thinking in the mode of Logical/mathematical Intelligence.3) In kind, kofh, (an unknown to be unknown before and after because obviously kofh is not the real name), will imitate the same distain held by Avogadro, who, in the lack of response to his amazing deduction of the unit Mole, replied that he had no desire to insist, and no interest in a personal acknowledgement. He was satisfied simply in that he was wise enough to understand.I look forward for the opportunity to demonstarte that science builds straigth up while some attention to the details beneath , beyond "acceptance," can be useful.[This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-28-2004]

You state:
"The purpose of schools are to share expensive resources and to teach how to learn."The purposes of school, for there are a number, is another subject.Your statement of belief that one of those purposes IS to "teach how to learn," is akin to the idea of teaching starving people how to fish, as opposed to giving them fish. But it is an erronous belief concerning academic education.The fact of the matter, admitted openly by teacher training colleges, and usually volunteered by teaching professors, in fact, is that "we' do not know how to teach.That teaching is an art, (as every certified teacher will attest to), can be supported in the augument evidenced on the teaching certifications by the state. Teachers and certified in the Art of teaching.... this or that.Second, we have only one (1) hypothesis on how students learn.The "learning Cycle Theory" of Bruner.It is inadequate, and lacks any specifics which might aid in the classroom directly. Beyond the the three stages which closely resemble the less academically refined version of learning to swim, (1) Enactive Stage: "throw him in the water," followed by the (2) Iconic Stage of Learning, by which it is assumed the student gets the general picture, notably in my analogy, that he will soon drown unless he moves on successfully into the next stage. That stage is the (3) Symbolic Stage, meaning that in the swimming case, he lives and can write, discuss, explain, etc about just how he did it.[This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-28-2004]

I am unclear in just what point you are making.Some of what you say seems to sgree with my definite of the purpose of free public education, in regard specifically to elementary and Secondary levels of education.perhaps, if you have another point of view concerning ome aspect of this you might be more specifically direct in your comments concerning that.As far as the "witch doctor" point, yes, if that educational experience is taking place where witch doctors in fact are a significant element in the culture being publically educated. If, for instance, Native American "medicine men" are significantly present in the larger community, (and I have no idea if they do presently), yes, what do they have to say.The point I am making is that the school is not to indoctrinate on these issues. It is not the school's job to interrogate nor denigrate witch doctors practicing in the community which support that practice.By the way, the study of these ancient arts has provided much modern medicine coming out of the Amazons and Africa.

quote:

---

As far as the "witch doctor" point, yes, if that educational experience is taking place where witch doctors in fact are a significant element in the culture being publically educated. If, for instance, Native American "medicine men" are significantly present in the larger community, (and I have no idea if they do presently), yes, what do they have to say.

---

I apologize for not making my point clearly in the previous post, hopefully this reply will clarify things. The danger that many see in taking an areligious position within public education (private education is outside of this argument) is that local communities will be Westernized, as in the case of Native Americans on reservations. This is a real fear, but this can be avoided by avoiding indoctrination, as you mentioned later in your post above. However, this doesn't mean that we have to ignore real, scientific research as a concession to local religious leaders. Prefacing education with phrases such as "according to present scientific knowledge" is a legitimate approach, showing that this branch of knowledge has come to a certain conclusion but leaving personal truths open for interpretation.

quote:

---

By the way, the study of these ancient arts has provided much modern medicine coming out of the Amazons and Africa.

---

As confirmed by scientific investigation using scientifically accepted methodologies. I would argue that even certain African rituals offer a psychological benefice to the patient, but no amount of chanting will cure a person of HIV. School should be about what we have confidence in, and the community should foster what people have faith in. Schools should reflect the values of the surrounding community without injecting the religious dogma of the community.Hopefully I haven't muddied the waters again.

Dear Kofh2u,There is now a Avogadro's number Vs The Kofh number Thread in the 'Is it science?' forum.I look forward to your comments, and to no longer deviating this thread.TTFN,WK[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 04-28-2004]

We are very much in agreement in almost all you say.One difference is that chanting.I believe the chanting would work satisfactorily, especially in Africa today, if tge chanting was done throughout the entire day with the knees tightly pressed together by the girls as they said, "No, no, no... " over and over. The men ought do the same, but always when sitting on a thich heavy board.