Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 10:51 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,225 Year: 12,261/19,786 Month: 2,042/2,641 Week: 551/708 Day: 110/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 238 (711145)
11-15-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
11-14-2013 10:38 PM


Re: Your opinions don't really count
This next story on the other hand suggests that there's a lot that's wrong with American education that has nothing to do with creationism: Boy with D and C on report card is "honor" student, the sort of thing that must be attributed to "liberal" stupidity that wants everybody to FEEL they do well without regard to how well they actually do.

Shouldn't it be attributed to the fact that all his other grades were As? Like the article says?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 11-14-2013 10:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 11-15-2013 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2013 5:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 238 (711209)
11-15-2013 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
11-15-2013 2:48 PM


Re: Your opinions don't really count
I suppose so. Didn't the Principal explain that they use a formula of some sort, and that half the student body are on the honor roll?

You didn't get on the honor roll when I was in school with a D or even a C on your report card. You had to score in the upper upper, not the fiftieth percentile.

I'm surprised to find you explaining this away. I would have guessed you had stricter standards for achievement.

I'm not explaining it away, I'm just explaining it. That's the explanation.

In this instance I don't know what my "standards for achievement" should be, since I have only the vaguest idea of what an honor roll is. Also, I have no idea what Homecoming is and why it requires a Queen, and I can never remember if it's a good thing or a bad thing to be on the Dean's list. I was educated somewhere else, remember?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 11-15-2013 2:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 41 of 238 (711287)
11-16-2013 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
11-16-2013 7:53 PM


Shouldn't education be about teaching students how to think, not what to think?

Could you make this proposal more concrete? For example, instead of teaching them the periodic table, we should do what? Teach them the scientific method and give them some boxes of matter, let them figure it out?

The benefit of education is that we do not personally have to repeat the process of discovery that took our species thousands of years to accomplish. If we did then even the smartest among us would probably get no further than the Late Neolithic. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

By teaching them a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones?

So we should teach them, what, that the Holocaust didn't happen? That germs don't cause disease? That Bush planned 9/11? There's your controversy.

As for the "broad spectrum", perhaps you could give some idea of how this is to be achieved, once again flesh out your ideas. Is the teacher meant to stand in front of the class saying: "The Holocaust happened, no it didn't, yes it did, no it didn't"?

The creation issue was involved in science education at least somewhat more 50 years ago than it has been in the last couple of decades. The U.S. government is having a much harder time paying its bills now than it was 50 years ago.

There is something to be said for teaching students "how to think" which is that they'd be too ashamed to put forward drivel like that as an argument. But a quick course on critical thinking would achieve that, it needn't be at the expense of teaching them scientific facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 11-16-2013 7:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 43 of 238 (711289)
11-16-2013 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
11-16-2013 9:14 PM


Re: Neil
Surely that's satire.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2013 9:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 238 (711293)
11-16-2013 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coyote
11-16-2013 9:27 PM


Re: Neil
This, on the other hand, is for real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2013 9:27 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 238 (711485)
11-19-2013 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
11-18-2013 8:30 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Oh, and there are no pawns in the scientific community who aren’t paid by the special interests of atheism and liberalism?

Of course not --- there's no need to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 78 of 238 (711674)
11-21-2013 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by marc9000
11-20-2013 3:49 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Particularly regarding #2, the tyrants of the religions of 250 years ago could correctly say the evidence of their religion was empirical.

Why do you say that they'd have been correct in so saying?

For religion to be empirical in the (now obsolete) sense 2 you'd have to have a bunch of people who knew that certain rituals were effective in (for example) bringing rain or curing disease, but had no underlying theory why it should work --- i.e. no theological framework: people who said "It's a funny thing, but if I kneel down and say "Please let it rain amen" then it rains. Damned if I know why."

But instead, then as now, it didn't work but they had a theory as to why it should.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:49 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 79 of 238 (711675)
11-21-2013 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
11-20-2013 3:31 PM


No, the first step would be to make sure they know that science isn't the only source of knowledge, that when the U.S. was founded, and it was being determined what would be good or bad for it, that science had very little to do with it.

No-one thinks it did, so that step would seem to be superfluous.

Teaching them how to think, not what to think, as one example, would be to make sure they understand what Federalist Paper #10 was about, including the definition of what a 'faction' is.

That would be teaching them what to think.

You don't seem to have answered my question. Let's continue with chemistry as an example. How would you go about teaching chemistry if you taught them not what to think, but how to think?

That's for sure, if we give in to atheist, liberal, global warming factions, all the irreversible problems it is sure to cause could have been avoided if only those who allowed it to happen had known something about the tyrannies of history.

These vague ramblings do not answer my point.

No, history shows that it did.

Well, you and I agree that this is what history shows, but Holocaust deniers say that it shows the opposite. Now, according to you we should teach "a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones". Wouldn't this include teaching Holocaust denial?

That's not controversial.

Well, there are people who deny it. So yes it is. Should we therefore teach "the broad spectrum"?

I'm sure most atheists/liberals in the scientific community consider any discussion about U.S. financial problems to be "drivel" because most of them don't have even a high school level knowledge of economics.

And those who do would consider what you posted about economics to be drivel.

Of course not, I'm sure atheist liberal courses on critical thinking would include nothing more than science, and have little to do with history, economics, morals, etc.

And this is only one of many things you're wrong about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:31 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Pressie, posted 11-21-2013 11:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 238 (718478)
02-06-2014 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jaf
02-06-2014 7:42 PM


Hey guess what I have spend a fortune in private education to ensure my son isn't brainwashed into thinking he's nothing but a monkey.

A less original thinker than your good self might have saved a lot of money by just buying him a mirror. I'm sure he'd have figured it out eventually.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jaf, posted 02-06-2014 7:42 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Jaf, posted 02-06-2014 9:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 238 (718482)
02-06-2014 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Jaf
02-06-2014 9:33 PM


You really didn't understand my post at all, did you? Try reading it again, but this time without being stupid.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Jaf, posted 02-06-2014 9:33 PM Jaf 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 © 2019