Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
73 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (10 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,414 Year: 5,162/23,288 Month: 283/1,784 Week: 170/211 Day: 18/60 Hour: 9/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Negative Impacts on Society
hitchy
Member (Idle past 3577 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 1 of 222 (89078)
02-27-2004 3:18 PM


From the recent events happenning in Ohio, Oklahoma and Georgia, I think now would be a good time for us to discuss the negative impacts on society that can and have occurred when governments attempt to "educate" society with a political platform instead of real science.

For instance, the Leyshanko affair in Soviet Russia was at least partially responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of people.
Political ideas did away with genetics and Darwinian evolution b/c these ideas were not "communist" like Lamarkism. Political and religious idealogies are not science. Even worse, anti-science ideas proferred by politicians to the public at large only increase ignorance of the one thing that keeps us from being a third world country--our technology. By watering down or misrepresenting certain areas of science education, politicians harm their constituents instead of helping them. Just look at Soviet grain production in the 1950's and 60's!?!

Anyone else want to join in?

One more thing, if you haven't heard about the Oklahoma disclaimer bill, some state politico inserted an amendment for the disclaimer into a bill that would allow school systems to buy materials that would aid in the education of blind children and adults!!! WTF!?!


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 5:15 PM hitchy has responded
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 4:09 PM hitchy has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 3:38 AM hitchy has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2004 11:00 AM hitchy has responded
 Message 142 by redwolf, posted 04-20-2004 12:02 PM hitchy has not yet responded

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 222 (89117)
02-27-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hitchy
02-27-2004 3:18 PM


That was, Lysenko.
Anyways, it would be nice if we had science in schools, instead of warmed over rehash of times past taught mostly by people without much of a clue. Is it gonna happen? I am not holding my breath...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hitchy, posted 02-27-2004 3:18 PM hitchy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2004 5:18 PM Tamara has not yet responded
 Message 4 by hitchy, posted 02-27-2004 5:31 PM Tamara has responded
 Message 156 by kofh2u, posted 04-22-2004 6:55 PM Tamara has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 222 (89119)
02-27-2004 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tamara
02-27-2004 5:15 PM


That was, Lysenko.

I think that when you're translating names from another alphabet, spelling is always approximate.

Anyways, it would be nice if we had science in schools

I think that we should have classes about both current science and the history of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 5:15 PM Tamara has not yet responded

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 3577 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 4 of 222 (89123)
02-27-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tamara
02-27-2004 5:15 PM


Oops...
Sorry about the mistake. Anyway, negative impacts?

Also, sorry if you had a bad science education. Hindsight being 20/20 eventually convinces you that everything you've done or been exposed to in the past could have been better. Sorry if we are not doing a great job. So much to do and so little time. Adding other BS, like textbook disclaimers, only adds to the problems. Sometimes I will hear "why do we have to learn this?" from a student. I cannot wait to see the day one of my students says, "hey, we don't have to learn this! It says so right here inside our textbook."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 5:15 PM Tamara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 7:22 PM hitchy has responded

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 222 (89139)
02-27-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hitchy
02-27-2004 5:31 PM


lure'em in...
Crashfrog:
quote:
I think that when you're translating names from another alphabet, spelling is always approximate.

Huh? Lysenko in cyrillic is also Lysenko. I figured, he gets such bad rap nowadays, at least we can spell his name properly...

Hitchy, Yeah, I agree about those text book disclaimers.

Well, you know, if you want kids to be intrigued by science, make it as exotic and even forbidden as you can. Heck, turn science classes into a secret society that only the chosen few can enter. Or... well, but then we'd have to do away with the paradigm of schools as kid coops.

As for pseudoscience... well, we all deal with it. What's your cure?

[This message has been edited by Tamara, 02-27-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hitchy, posted 02-27-2004 5:31 PM hitchy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2004 10:01 PM Tamara has not yet responded
 Message 7 by hitchy, posted 03-01-2004 11:39 AM Tamara has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 222 (89157)
02-27-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tamara
02-27-2004 7:22 PM


Huh? Lysenko in cyrillic is also Lysenko.

Is it? My bad. Guess I should have asked my russian-speaking wife (no, she's not a mail-order russian bride or something) before I shot my mouth off.

Then again she's in Thailand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 7:22 PM Tamara has not yet responded

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 3577 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 7 of 222 (89563)
03-01-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tamara
02-27-2004 7:22 PM


Re: lure'em in...
Cures for what ails ya!?! Well, we could raise public awareness and badger our politicians about the differences btwn good science and bad science and crap. I think one of the major roadblocks to science education is the overall feeling of anti-intellectualism in our country. These textbook disclaimers are found in southern states and the midwest. I wonder where the bible belt starts, ends adn buckles? People are also interested in what they perceive as easy. Look at how many times you have done something just well enough to get by. You probably did it, you just didn't put into it what you should have. Now, let's realize that that is around the norm, in general, in our country. People perceive science as too hard or too geeky or those scientists are braniac know-it-alls that you don't want to know. Comments...I would write more but I have a class. Thanks for listening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 7:22 PM Tamara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:53 AM hitchy has not yet responded

  
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 222 (94058)
03-23-2004 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by hitchy
03-01-2004 11:39 AM


Re: lure'em in...
Hitchy~

I have to say that I am not in disagreement here. Students at my high school, when complained about what was being taught as portion of the adminstrative-regulated curriculum, angered me as much as it did the teacher. I remember many times wanting to stand up and say, "shut up and let the teacher talk!"

I have learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones over the years. In other words, I can learn a little something from everybody--without swallowing everything they say--even if I disagree with them on one or two topics. Being that teaching high school science is a career that I have never attempted to pursue, I can sit here at my computer and tell you, with great honesty, that I have high respect for teachers who put up with so much b/s coming from uneducated students who only want to learn what interests them. Evolution and creation is a topic that interests me like crazy--like most controversial issues--to the point where if I hear the people behind me on the airplane talking about it I would feel inclinded to lean over the armrest and participate in their discussion.

I understand also that creationists are often viewed from the secular world as being narrow-minded and having tunnel-vision to real science. The truth is, creationists and evolutionists alike have contributed to modern science (every high school science teacher I know is an evolutionist) and yet Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Thomas Barnes (U of Texas), Samuel Morse, Johnathen Wells (doctor from Berkely) and many other scientists are either creationists or at least carry heavy criticisms of evolution. That leads me to the conclusion that is pertinent to this thread: taxes should not further nor hinder the cause of any theory of origin.

What I have said to many people in a face-to-face discussion on the topic of government and education is this: "want a great comprimise? How's this: nobody gets what they want!" Evolutionists, for the most part, want to rid all public schools of the discussion of creation as a valid theory; likewise, most creationists I know want evolution taken out of school science classrooms. I myself want both to be discussed through a non-government-regulated cirriculum. Sounds a little far-fetched, I know, but truly if evolution and creation were both taken out of context, the science classroom would flourish (I believe) on the study and observations and the advancements of true science (keeping in mind that "Science" = "knowledge gained through ovbservation and experimentation").

Just a few thoughts. Sorry if I seem confrontational (just voicing my opinion on how the schools should regulate the science classroom).

Sincerely,
Servant


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by hitchy, posted 03-01-2004 11:39 AM hitchy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2004 6:01 AM Servant2thecause has not yet responded
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2004 8:12 AM Servant2thecause has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Riley, posted 03-23-2004 3:08 PM Servant2thecause has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 3:19 PM Servant2thecause has not yet responded
 Message 17 by nator, posted 03-24-2004 5:32 AM Servant2thecause has responded

  
crashfrog
Member
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 222 (94061)
03-23-2004 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:53 AM


Evolutionists, for the most part, want to rid all public schools of the discussion of creation as a valid theory;

Actually, we'd love to have that discussion. There's nothing that we'd rather see more than creationism allowed to stand on nothing but its own merits.

What we don't want is creationism presented as vaild theory, without the discussion.

By all means, let it be discussed in the school, and then, can we move on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:53 AM Servant2thecause has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16064
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 10 of 222 (94091)
03-23-2004 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:53 AM


Re: lure'em in...
I'd love to know why you included Wells in your list. Other than a few co-authored papers relating to his PhD work, what scientific work has he done ?

Mind you I don't know if Barnes has done anything much either, apart from the silly argument about the Earth's magnetic field (why DO YEC's use "uniformitarian" to dismiss arguments for na old Earth when they're quite happy to assume extreme uniformitatianism whenever it's convenient ?). I rather doubt that he's in the same league as Newton or even Mendel.

And isn't it interesting that the others you cite are all dead. Aren't there any significant living scientists who are creationists ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:53 AM Servant2thecause has not yet responded

  
Riley
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 222 (94157)
03-23-2004 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:53 AM


Re: lure'em in...
taxes should not further nor hinder the cause of any theory of origin

Why? Assuming for the moment the claim that evolution furthers some "cause", what is it about "origin" that is unique and uniquely sacrosanct? Should economics classes refrain from furthering or hindering any theory of personal property? Should history classes avoid the taint of statism? Should hygene courses avoid any suggestion they promote allopathy? What makes origin beliefs special?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:53 AM Servant2thecause has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 222 (94161)
03-23-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:53 AM


Re: lure'em in...
I may have read too much into the LAW IN RHODE ISLAND but it seemed to me that the state rule to have no DOUBLE HIGHER EDUCATION was meant to keep if not taxes but rather any idea of seperation of c&s from affecting the learning of its younger citizens. There may be two different churchs in the state that were seperated (or the seperation of RI from MASS etc)but if only ONE SCHOOL taught each different field this theological difference that Williams tried to better WOULD NOT EFFECT EDUCATION. I wish this and not a state by state basis ruled Bush's thinking on C&S but instead he seems to have sided with a particularity on this particular(c/e) which for me I had id'd with Lutheranism. I doubt anything close is coming from K however. we have double learning going on on this board but should the nation ever learn from our own faliures to communicate it would be better for the states too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:53 AM Servant2thecause has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20644
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 13 of 222 (94179)
03-23-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hitchy
02-27-2004 3:18 PM


add to the program
Some of the things that I see missing are a good foundation in logical thinking and the ability to find information to enhance self-learning. I think this is becoming more critical as we move further into the information age where the sheer mass of information means that it cannot be taught in a traditional (rote?) manner. This would go a long way to giving science classes a better base before the start of classes. Non-logical thinking pervades society from credit card debt to buying maximum oversized drinks in places where refills are free (as if the size of the cup regulates how much you can drink).

Teach a child to think and to learn and then introduce subjects to think and learn about to expand the horizons.

We also see increased compartmentalization of ideas as specialties become more diverse and evolve language for their purposes that do not "interbreed" with languages from other disciplines - a phylogenic tree of knowledge if you will. I think people should be very careful to introduce concepts that cannot be conveyed outside a special area, and would like to see more done with crossover "renaissance" thinking.

I also wonder if we (as Americans) shouldn't consider a modification to the public school system, ending mandatory education one year earlier, but add on optional public education for those who want to pursue higher education. Take senior year out of high school and combine it with a freshman college level course in a two-year (Associate degree?) course. Half of the senior year is wasted anyway right? And a lot of the freshman year at colleges is spent bringing students "up to speed" for later college level classes: this would reduce college course loads (and overall tuition costs). Develop an optional public school system that is not encumbered by students that don't want to learn for those who want to go further.

{{gets down off soap-box and wanders off into the crowd}}


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hitchy, posted 02-27-2004 3:18 PM hitchy has not yet responded

  
Stipes
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 222 (94324)
03-24-2004 1:31 AM


This maybe a little off topic, but I was wondering if anyone could answer my question.

Servant2thecause stated this:

"Being that teaching high school science is a career that I have never attempted to pursue, I can sit here at my computer and tell you, with great honesty, that I have high respect for teachers who put up with so much b/s coming from uneducated students who only want to learn what interests them. "

Why is it bad that students only want to learn what interests them? I don't ask that question in a sense to challenge that statement, I honestly just would like someone to clarify for me. Thanks.


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 1:36 AM Stipes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20644
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 15 of 222 (94325)
03-24-2004 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Stipes
03-24-2004 1:31 AM


Why is it bad that students only want to learn what interests them?

If you don't know squat about a topic how do you know if it interests you?

should one be protected from bad moments in history?

synergy of information learned from topic (A) applied to topic (B) when (A) of little interest and (B) of high interest

etc...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Stipes, posted 03-24-2004 1:31 AM Stipes has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020