Religions > Atheism > In the News: Minnesota Science Standards: Man denies note to panel is threatening
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2003 03:59:28 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: Minnesota Science Standards: Man denies note to panel is threatening |
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
----------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/7266557.htm
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Minnesota Science Standards: Man denies note to panel is threatening |
15 Nov 2003 05:06:51 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
----------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/7266557.htm
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "August Pamplona" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Minnesota Science Standards: Man denies note to panel is threatening |
15 Nov 2003 04:52:21 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
----------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/7266557.htm
J. Spaceman
If any "Intelligent Design" crap makes it into the standards, I'll
be so fucking embarrased! Some folk would be happy to turn Minnesota
into Alabama because they have lower taxes over there or some such *****.
August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
15 Nov 2003 05:23:03 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the parents and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of a
social study rather than science?
and before someone grabs up the banner and starts shooting flames; fanatics and
zealots need not reply. debaters only please, i want to know the argument, not
the doctrine.
tedd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
15 Nov 2003 01:10:35 PM |
|
|
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message news:<F0otb.530$Wl4.4975@news.uswest.net>...
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the parents and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their personal
denomination?
Apparently the fundies are yet another branch of those pinko commie
Leninists who want to take education out of the hands of the family
and put it in the hands of the state-controlled schools.
Of course, that the fundies really want is to use schools to "educate"
YOUR kids, not THEIRS.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
18 Nov 2003 12:02:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:16:46 +0000 (UTC), catshark
<catshark@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
As I stated elsewhere, I was playing Devil's advocate in response to Tedd's
request for a discussion of "arguments" people advance for teaching
creationism in some form in public schools. What would be a good thing is
having good arguments, convincing to people in the middle, why they are
wrong and science educators are right.
Uh, how about "evolution happens, creation doesn't"? How about "Want
to teach creationism? Produce an example of it happening now."?
2.) taxes pay for a variety of things,
While this may vary some from state to state, almost all local schools are
funded (in major part) by local property taxes specifically earmarked for
the schools, which does not pass through the "general fund".
ALL states (AFAIK) use state money to fund education in significant
part, and that money comes from the general fund, or from
state-sponsored gambling which replaces general fund moneys.
I think you will find that, in large part, local school budgets (outside of
capital funds for school buildings) comes from local property taxes.
I won't just repeat what I said, but your remark was non sequitur.
It is recognized by the courts that *all* local school property tax payers
have a legal interest in how that money is spent
But not any inherent "right" to decide what's taught.
including in the curriculum of the schools
Citation?
I may have overstated there.
VERY much. We have school boards and boards of education to make
those decisions.
It seems you also have to have a child in the school district to get standing. See, for instance:
HERDAHL v. PONTOTOC COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
<http://home.olemiss.edu/~llibcoll/ndms/feb96/96d0029p.html>
Since the educational level of the people in my community affects me,
my living here would give me standing. Try that on for size. (The
success of my schools also affects the value of my property in the
school district, giving me a very direct standing. Houses around here
are sold by school district, not by post office.)
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
17 Nov 2003 11:51:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:29:33 +0000 (UTC), catshark
<catshark@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Hey! It was *you* who wanted to know what the arguments are for teaching
some sort of creationism in public schools.
And you haven't come up with one yet.
is a 'fact' reality or is 'reality' a fact?
please be specific, or general, or evasive, doesnt mater, just twist it to fit
the reality you choose.
Now you are getting the idea!
But you aren't.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
15 Nov 2003 03:56:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> posted in alt.atheism:
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the parents and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of a
social study rather than science?
I'm not sure. Is mythology more properly taught as history?
Psychology (abnormal)?
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
16 Nov 2003 11:43:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the parents and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of a
social study rather than science?
and before someone grabs up the banner and starts shooting flames; fanatics and
zealots need not reply. debaters only please, i want to know the argument, not
the doctrine.
tedd.
Ok, I was just doing what Tedd Jacobs wanted when he asked "to know the
argument, not the doctrine". I made an argument based on past experience
with IDology and an assessment of how a better political case could be made
for teaching some form of creationism in public schools. Little did I know
how close the IDiots were on my heels. A post this morning in t.o. points
to this new article on the Discovery Institute's web site that rehearses
much of what I said here.
All I can say is, if the responses I got in this thread are representative
of the rhetoric from the pro-science side in the next round of political
battles with the IDiots, we are in deep kimchee.
[And no one yet found the fatal flaw in my original proposal.]
Below are some excerpts (citations removed):
<http://www.jis3.org/samplearticle.htm>
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
THE EDUCATIONAL DEBATE OVER DARWINISM
John Angus Campbell
University of Memphis
"Rhetoric is central to public life, at least in a democracy, because the
rationale of public policy must be intelligible to all who are to be
governed by it, and whose tax dollars support it."
"When science teachers insist that neither creation science nor ID is
science, and Darwin's theory is, they are met with the proposal that both
Darwin's theory and challenges to it be taught and students be left to make
up their own minds. Science teachers understandably respond that science is
not democratic, and the curriculum of a science class cannot be settled by
citizens dictating what will qualify as science."
"The "Darwin only" approach, while motivated by a laudable desire to
preserve the integrity of science, violates that integrity by
overprotectiveness. Eugenie Scott and others are correct in insisting that
science is not democratic. But this is far from saying that only confusion
would result if teachers used discussion and debate to teach why creation
science and ID are rejected by most scientists. Nor can the want of time,
coupled with proliferating examples of controversial topics that would
allegedly overwhelm the curriculum, be accepted as a basis for dismissing
the idea of critical inquiry into scientific first principles as
educationally legitimate . . . But the question, why do some ideas count as
science and others not, is as pertinent a question as one can ask in a
science class."
"Though science educators target creation science and ID as enemies of
science, their real opponent would seem to be the late philosopher of
science, Thomas Kuhn. So strongly is what Kuhn called "normal science"
identified with science in the contemporary classroom that to most students
Kuhn's idea of "scientific revolution" would seem like an oxymoron."
" . . . Martin Eger (1989) contrasts today's dogmatic Darwinism with values
clarification, which requires critical questioning of even the most
"unquestionable" values. The assumption of values clarification is that
students' moral beliefs should be backed by good reasons; otherwise, they
rest on mere prejudice . . . [D]ogmatism and the unquestioning acceptance
of authority in science, versus skepticism and critical questioning in the
humanities, is flatly incoherent."
"Particularly in a time when science affects so many aspects of life . . .
the public is ill-served by any approach to science education that
discourages critical thinking and rewards deference to authority."
"In a fast-changing intellectual landscape, in which today's conventional
wisdom is tomorrow's nonsense, learning how to demarcate science from
non-science is an important, and open, dialectical/rhetorical question to
be taught as part of science, and not to be relegated to the humanities or
social sciences. If some students end up rejecting Darwinism because they
are not persuaded of its truth, or reject or accept creation science or ID,
having had an opportunity to examine the facts, and hear and read the
arguments on all sides, these outcomes must be counted as successes of an
open, liberal system of education. The point, after all, of science
education in a democracy is not to convince students of the truth of
current scientific theories, but to teach them what they are, and why they
are current, and by sharpening student minds through argument, qualify
students, as citizens and future scientists, to judge and see possible
alternatives."
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The devil is in the details.
Science explains them.
Intelligent design explains them away.
- Mark VandeWettering -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
15 Nov 2003 07:36:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the parents and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of a
social study rather than science?
and before someone grabs up the banner and starts shooting flames; fanatics and
zealots need not reply. debaters only please, i want to know the argument, not
the doctrine.
Umm . . . ok:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with respect
for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious view is in the
majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an *alternative* to
anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is deeply inimical to those
beliefs? Even if they are not in the majority, doesn't respect for the
minority dictate that their views be given acknowledgement, at least, if
they are going to be forced to pay for the schools?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Bludgeoning moribund Equidae for fun and profit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
15 Nov 2003 10:36:26 AM |
|
|
"catshark" <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r4acrvoa96mb5fppnf6oar47jtj6fdlbpf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the
parents and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their
personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of
a
social study rather than science?
and before someone grabs up the banner and starts shooting flames;
fanatics and
zealots need not reply. debaters only please, i want to know the
argument, not
the doctrine.
Umm . . . ok:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with respect
for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious view is in the
majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an *alternative* to
anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is deeply inimical to
those
beliefs? Even if they are not in the majority, doesn't respect for the
minority dictate that their views be given acknowledgement, at least, if
they are going to be forced to pay for the schools?
If people want their kids to learn about creationism, they should send them
to Sunday school. Teaching a so-called alternative to evolution in a science
classroom would require that teachers learn something about it, develop a
curriculum around it, spend time teaching it, and then test for knowledge of
it. It would also be necessary that some cogent explanation of it exist in a
textbook. All of this effort would have to be expended _and paid for_, yet
the gain in student knowledge would actually be negative. Why would anybody
want to do that?
Not only that, but you'd have to make the teachers teach it. Shall we then
force all teachers to learn and teach christian fundamentalist doctrine?
How's that going to work in our system? Even if they did teach creationism,
they would not be able to prevent intelligent children from mercilessly
ridiculing such inane ideas. So the net result for creationists would be
negative as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
15 Nov 2003 01:18:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:36:26 +0000 (UTC), "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"catshark" <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r4acrvoa96mb5fppnf6oar47jtj6fdlbpf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the
parents and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their
personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of
a
social study rather than science?
and before someone grabs up the banner and starts shooting flames;
fanatics and
zealots need not reply. debaters only please, i want to know the
argument, not
the doctrine.
Umm . . . ok:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with respect
for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious view is in the
majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an *alternative* to
anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is deeply inimical to
those
beliefs? Even if they are not in the majority, doesn't respect for the
minority dictate that their views be given acknowledgement, at least, if
they are going to be forced to pay for the schools?
If people want their kids to learn about creationism, they should send them
to Sunday school. Teaching a so-called alternative to evolution in a science
classroom would require that teachers learn something about it, develop a
curriculum around it, spend time teaching it, and then test for knowledge of
it. It would also be necessary that some cogent explanation of it exist in a
textbook. All of this effort would have to be expended _and paid for_, yet
the gain in student knowledge would actually be negative. Why would anybody
want to do that?
Isn't effort one of the things teachers get paid (with tax dollars) to
expend? And what gives *you* the *political* right to make the judgment as
to what constitutes "student knowledge"?
Not only that, but you'd have to make the teachers teach it. Shall we then
force all teachers to learn and teach christian fundamentalist doctrine?
There are many fundamentalist teachers who are expected to learn and teach
evolution.
How's that going to work in our system? Even if they did teach creationism,
they would not be able to prevent intelligent children from mercilessly
ridiculing such inane ideas. So the net result for creationists would be
negative as well.
If the religious views were in the majority (as they are in many areas in
the U.S.), who would be doing the ridiculing? The <cough> 'nerds'?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.
- Daniel Defoe -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
15 Nov 2003 12:42:08 PM |
|
|
fDale <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"catshark" <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r4acrvoa96mb5fppnf6oar47jtj6fdlbpf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the
parents and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their
personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of
a
social study rather than science?
and before someone grabs up the banner and starts shooting flames;
fanatics and
zealots need not reply. debaters only please, i want to know the
argument, not
the doctrine.
Umm . . . ok:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with respect
for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious view is in the
majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an *alternative* to
anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is deeply inimical to
those
beliefs? Even if they are not in the majority, doesn't respect for the
minority dictate that their views be given acknowledgement, at least, if
they are going to be forced to pay for the schools?
If people want their kids to learn about creationism, they should send them
to Sunday school. Teaching a so-called alternative to evolution in a science
classroom would require that teachers learn something about it, develop a
curriculum around it, spend time teaching it, and then test for knowledge of
it. It would also be necessary that some cogent explanation of it exist in a
textbook. All of this effort would have to be expended _and paid for_, yet
the gain in student knowledge would actually be negative. Why would anybody
want to do that?
Not only that, but you'd have to make the teachers teach it. Shall we then
force all teachers to learn and teach christian fundamentalist doctrine?
How's that going to work in our system? Even if they did teach creationism,
they would not be able to prevent intelligent children from mercilessly
ridiculing such inane ideas. So the net result for creationists would be
negative as well.
"God done it." That can be covered in 30 seconds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Will" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
19 Nov 2003 12:28:28 PM |
|
|
(Walter Bushell) wrote in message news:<1g4gugr.147y3zjro3ibN%>...
fDale <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"catshark" <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r4acrvoa96mb5fppnf6oar47jtj6fdlbpf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with respect
for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious view is in the
majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an *alternative* to
anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is deeply inimical to
those
beliefs? Even if they are not in the majority, doesn't respect for the
minority dictate that their views be given acknowledgement, at least, if
they are going to be forced to pay for the schools?
You're confused. American republican-democracy is based, in part, on
the concept that Minority rights have to be protected against the will
of the Majority. So, even if the vast majority of citizens are
professing Christians, Judaism cannot be proscribed or prohibited, and
atheists can't be forced to acknowledge Christ. There are limits, of
course. An Air Force Captain, who happened to be an orthodox Jew, was
forbidden to wear a yarmulke while in uniform. The case proceeded to
the Supreme Court, and the Captain lost. Depending on the severity of
the problem, a Christian Scientist cannot forbid medical treatment to
his child.
In the case of the public schools, there are limits to minority rights
as well. Sure there are religious minorities who object to the
teaching of evolution. If that's the case, their recourse is to
request that their children not be forced to attend classes in it. If
that means not studying any course in biology, since evolution is
woven throughout most biology texts, then they should be able to pull
their children out of biology classes, and, substitute another science
-- physics or chemistry or whatever. The solution is not found in
adjusting the biology class to meet the demands of the minority
because this would impinge on everyone else. Teaching "creationism" as
a reasonable alternative to evolution would constitute an adulteration
of the class that would impinge on rights of all other students.
Suppose, as a fundamentalist believer, my religious dictates taught me
that slavery, polygamy, the keeping of concubines, and the suppression
of women were Godly and pure. Suppose I futher objected to classes in
civics and social studies that did not offer, as a Bible-based
alternative to the nuclear family, a serious discussion of the theory
of male-dominated polygamist unions, the keeping of slaves, and the
maintenance of a coterie of female concubines. Would it be my
inalienable right to have this presented in class for all the
students? Is it the duty of the majority to respect my beliefs to the
extent of teaching them?
The fact that religious fundamentalists "pay" for schools through
their taxes is irrelevant to the argument. I "pay" for the Department
of Agriculture, for the Drug Enforcement Administration, for schools
although I have no children of school age, for the food that prisoners
eat, for medical research, for universities I have never attended, for
the rebuilding of Iraq. I pay for lots of things and my only say in
how that money is spent is through my elected representatives, locally
and nationally. The fact that I "pay" for anything through my taxes
does not bolster or enhance my rights in any special way.
Will
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
15 Nov 2003 10:32:44 PM |
|
|
"catshark" <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r4acrvoa96mb5fppnf6oar47jtj6fdlbpf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the parents
and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their
personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of a
social study rather than science?
and before someone grabs up the banner and starts shooting flames; fanatics
and
zealots need not reply. debaters only please, i want to know the argument,
not
the doctrine.
Umm . . . ok:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with respect
for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious view is in the
majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an *alternative* to
anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is deeply inimical to those
beliefs? Even if they are not in the majority, doesn't respect for the
minority dictate that their views be given acknowledgement, at least, if
they are going to be forced to pay for the schools?
this seems flawed;
1.) there is no law that states children must attend a public school. (there are
private, charter, and homeschooling options available.)
2.) taxes pay for a variety of things, including institutions and organizations
that participate in and fund alot of "evolutionary" research. (meaning, just
because you pay taxes is no justification for implementing you're own control
over institutions funded by your taxes. if that was the case we could all be
generals of the army).
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach (was: Re: In the News...) |
15 Nov 2003 11:09:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:32:44 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"catshark" <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r4acrvoa96mb5fppnf6oar47jtj6fdlbpf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0311150159.3cda33e5@posting.google.com...
Didn't someone on T.O. publish this guy's letter to the Minn. Science
Standards Committee just a couple of days ago?
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Members of Minnesota's science standards committee knew their work
would include some debate on the questions of evolution vs.
creationism.
Still, some were taken aback to hear a grim biblical reminder of what
awaits them if they don't provide schoolchildren with both sides of
the argument.
Bryce Gaudian, who heads a creationist group in southern Minnesota,
recently sent a packet of materials to the 40 members of the committee
that's deciding the new academic science standards, which will guide
instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms for years to come.
is religious belief, or a "belief in ones own God" a personal and private
matter? if such is the case, wouldnt it be the responsibility of the parents
and
not the public schools to educate their children on the basis of their
personal
denomination? secondly, if taught in the public school system, wouldn't
religion, as an ideological faith based system, fall under the purview of a
social study rather than science?
and before someone grabs up the banner and starts shooting flames; fanatics
and
zealots need not reply. debaters only please, i want to know the argument,
not
the doctrine.
Umm . . . ok:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with respect
for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious view is in the
majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an *alternative* to
anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is deeply inimical to those
beliefs? Even if they are not in the majority, doesn't respect for the
minority dictate that their views be given acknowledgement, at least, if
they are going to be forced to pay for the schools?
this seems flawed;
Oh, really? . . .
1.) there is no law that states children must attend a public school. (there are
private, charter, and homeschooling options available.)
But all are required by law to meet certain minimum requirements (that is
what the "state standards" flaps in Ohio and Minnesota are about).
2.) taxes pay for a variety of things,
While this may vary some from state to state, almost all local schools are
funded (in major part) by local property taxes specifically earmarked for
the schools, which does not pass through the "general fund". Of course,
state and Federal monies also wind up going to the schools but it is
relatively minor in the operational budget.
including institutions and organizations
that participate in and fund alot of "evolutionary" research. (meaning, just
because you pay taxes is no justification for implementing you're own control
over institutions funded by your taxes. if that was the case we could all be
generals of the army).
It is recognized by the courts that *all* local school property tax payers
have a legal interest in how that money is spent, including in the
curriculum of the schools, and may sue if it is not being "properly" spent.
Well, this has been fun but but it is late here. There is a much more
basic and (for the time being) inescapable reason why what I proposed
cannot be implimented. I'm somewhat dismayed that no one has picked up on
it yet.
Maybe by morning . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
A concise definition of legal ethics:
" . . . having been bought a lawyer is supposed to stay bought."
-- Louann Miller --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
18 Nov 2003 05:19:41 PM |
|
|
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> writes:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with
respect for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious
view is in the majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an
*alternative* to anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is
deeply inimical to those beliefs?
The problem is that science is inherently *not* democratic, and
so one's "beliefs" regarding the consequences of this inherently elitist
system are not significant. Facts are simply facts; they cannot be
wished away.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
With the advance of biogenetics, it is not so much that we are losing
our dignity and freedom but that we realise we never had them in the
first place. - Slavoj Zizek
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
18 Nov 2003 08:19:12 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:1069197625.422764@yasure...
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> writes:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with
respect for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious
view is in the majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an
*alternative* to anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is
deeply inimical to those beliefs?
The problem is that science is inherently *not* democratic, and
so one's "beliefs" regarding the consequences of this inherently elitist
system are not significant. Facts are simply facts; they cannot be
wished away.
Actually, science is COMPLETELY democratic. There's no "scientific fact"
that is considered "scientific fact" for ANY reason other than because
people (the majority or at least plurality of the current generation of
practicing scientists) say that it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
18 Nov 2003 08:33:33 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nrAub.5293$sb4.2574@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:1069197625.422764@yasure...
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> writes:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with
respect for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious
view is in the majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an
*alternative* to anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is
deeply inimical to those beliefs?
The problem is that science is inherently *not* democratic, and
so one's "beliefs" regarding the consequences of this inherently elitist
system are not significant. Facts are simply facts; they cannot be
wished away.
Actually, science is COMPLETELY democratic. There's no "scientific fact"
that is considered "scientific fact" for ANY reason other than because
people (the majority or at least plurality of the current generation of
practicing scientists) say that it is.
So, if some form of madness swept the scientific world, and they all decided
that a dropped rock will not fall, they may, or may not, fall to the ground?
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
18 Nov 2003 09:24:49 PM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IDAub.2424$gU2.2347@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nrAub.5293$sb4.2574@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:1069197625.422764@yasure...
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> writes:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with
respect for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious
view is in the majority, why can't they include their beliefs as an
*alternative* to anything taught (in tax supported schools) that is
deeply inimical to those beliefs?
The problem is that science is inherently *not* democratic,
and
so one's "beliefs" regarding the consequences of this inherently
elitist
system are not significant. Facts are simply facts; they cannot be
wished away.
Actually, science is COMPLETELY democratic. There's no "scientific fact"
that is considered "scientific fact" for ANY reason other than because
people (the majority or at least plurality of the current generation of
practicing scientists) say that it is.
So, if some form of madness swept the scientific world, and they all
decided
that a dropped rock will not fall, they may, or may not, fall to the
ground?
If scientists collectively went mad, people would stop paying attention to
them and sense-based natural philosophy would have to find another title to
go by.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
18 Nov 2003 09:40:33 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VoBub.5351$sb4.1995@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IDAub.2424$gU2.2347@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nrAub.5293$sb4.2574@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:1069197625.422764@yasure...
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> writes:
American democracy is based on the concept of majority rule with
respect for the minority. If, in any area, a particular religious
view is in the majority, why can't they include their beliefs as
an
*alternative* to anything taught (in tax supported schools) that
is
deeply inimical to those beliefs?
The problem is that science is inherently *not* democratic,
and
so one's "beliefs" regarding the consequences of this inherently
elitist
system are not significant. Facts are simply facts; they cannot be
wished away.
Actually, science is COMPLETELY democratic. There's no "scientific
fact"
that is considered "scientific fact" for ANY reason other than because
people (the majority or at least plurality of the current generation
of
practicing scientists) say that it is.
So, if some form of madness swept the scientific world, and they all
decided
that a dropped rock will not fall, they may, or may not, fall to the
ground?
If scientists collectively went mad, people would stop paying attention to
them and sense-based natural philosophy would have to find another title
to
go by.
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data point", and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do "this", and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people, scientists or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at 300000 Kps in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
19 Nov 2003 07:56:11 PM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do "this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people, scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at 300000 Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the world has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light, and, under YOUR scenario, even
if they had, they would now deny what their measurements told them, and all
scientists in the world would deny what they had believed the day before,
etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
19 Nov 2003 08:14:23 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%bVub.7415$n56.4342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do "this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people, scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at 300000
Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the world has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light,
But you are free to do so. You may have to apply for a grant to buy a
laser, some detectors, however many meters of conduit you want that you can
seal air tight, and a kick-***** vacuum pump. You'd probably have to take
into account several other factors, travel time of the signal through wires,
and so on. Have fun.
and, under YOUR scenario, even
if they had, they would now deny what their measurements told them,
Why?
and all
scientists in the world would deny what they had believed the day before,
etc.
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
19 Nov 2003 09:19:00 PM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5qVub.3905$DX3.2148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%bVub.7415$n56.4342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data
point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do
"this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people,
scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at 300000
Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the world has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light,
But you are free to do so. You may have to apply for a grant to buy a
laser, some detectors, however many meters of conduit you want that you
can
seal air tight, and a kick-***** vacuum pump. You'd probably have to take
into account several other factors, travel time of the signal through
wires,
and so on. Have fun.
and, under YOUR scenario, even
if they had, they would now deny what their measurements told them,
Why?
Because you said a wave of madness had swept through all the scientists in
the world. Mighty peculiar madness if it only led to denial about ONE
specific observation. If you WERE talking about only one specific
observation, then you should have pointed it out some time ago. Its YOUR
scenario, afterall.
"So, if some form of madness swept the scientific world, and they all
decided
that a dropped rock will not fall, they may, or may not, fall to the
ground?"
and all
scientists in the world would deny what they had believed the day
before,
etc.
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
19 Nov 2003 09:39:36 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BpWub.7499$n56.478@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5qVub.3905$DX3.2148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%bVub.7415$n56.4342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data
point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do
"this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people,
scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at
300000
Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the world
has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light,
But you are free to do so. You may have to apply for a grant to buy a
laser, some detectors, however many meters of conduit you want that you
can
seal air tight, and a kick-***** vacuum pump. You'd probably have to take
into account several other factors, travel time of the signal through
wires,
and so on. Have fun.
and, under YOUR scenario, even
if they had, they would now deny what their measurements told them,
Why?
Because you said a wave of madness had swept through all the scientists in
the world. Mighty peculiar madness if it only led to denial about ONE
specific observation. If you WERE talking about only one specific
observation, then you should have pointed it out some time ago. Its YOUR
scenario, afterall.
But I think you are missing the point.
"So, if some form of madness swept the scientific world, and they all
decided
that a dropped rock will not fall, they may, or may not, fall to the
ground?"
Okay, let me put it another way: Did the Sun, the other planets and the
stars actually orbit the earth when astronomers thought geocentrism was a
"fact"?
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
19 Nov 2003 11:16:37 PM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3GWub.4382$DX3.4063@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BpWub.7499$n56.478@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5qVub.3905$DX3.2148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%bVub.7415$n56.4342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data
point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do
"this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people,
scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at
300000
Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the world
has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light,
But you are free to do so. You may have to apply for a grant to buy a
laser, some detectors, however many meters of conduit you want that
you
can
seal air tight, and a kick-***** vacuum pump. You'd probably have to
take
into account several other factors, travel time of the signal through
wires,
and so on. Have fun.
and, under YOUR scenario, even
if they had, they would now deny what their measurements told them,
Why?
Because you said a wave of madness had swept through all the scientists
in
the world. Mighty peculiar madness if it only led to denial about ONE
specific observation. If you WERE talking about only one specific
observation, then you should have pointed it out some time ago. Its YOUR
scenario, afterall.
But I think you are missing the point.
"So, if some form of madness swept the scientific world, and they all
decided
that a dropped rock will not fall, they may, or may not, fall to the
ground?"
Okay, let me put it another way: Did the Sun, the other planets and the
stars actually orbit the earth when astronomers thought geocentrism was a
"fact"?
You tell me: is it a "fact" that the Earth orbits the Sun? How do YOU know?
Is it a "fact" that the Moon orbits the Earth? Who told you this?
Those two sets of questions don't have the same answers, BTW.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
08 Dec 2003 05:34:00 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:L7Yub.6702$sb4.2840@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3GWub.4382$DX3.4063@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BpWub.7499$n56.478@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5qVub.3905$DX3.2148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%bVub.7415$n56.4342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data
point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do
"this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people,
scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at
300000
Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the
world
has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light,
But you are free to do so. You may have to apply for a grant to buy
a
laser, some detectors, however many meters of conduit you want that
you
can
seal air tight, and a kick-***** vacuum pump. You'd probably have to
take
into account several other factors, travel time of the signal
through
wires,
and so on. Have fun.
and, under YOUR scenario, even
if they had, they would now deny what their measurements told
them,
Why?
Because you said a wave of madness had swept through all the
scientists
in
the world. Mighty peculiar madness if it only led to denial about ONE
specific observation. If you WERE talking about only one specific
observation, then you should have pointed it out some time ago. Its
YOUR
scenario, afterall.
But I think you are missing the point.
"So, if some form of madness swept the scientific world, and they all
decided
that a dropped rock will not fall, they may, or may not, fall to the
ground?"
Okay, let me put it another way: Did the Sun, the other planets and the
stars actually orbit the earth when astronomers thought geocentrism was
a
"fact"?
You tell me: is it a "fact" that the Earth orbits the Sun? How do YOU
know?
Is it a "fact" that the Moon orbits the Earth? Who told you this?
Those two sets of questions don't have the same answers, BTW.
You still miss the point: Does whqatever I believe, or anyone else, change
reality?
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
09 Dec 2003 07:57:47 AM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hnZAb.11757$nH.968@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:L7Yub.6702$sb4.2840@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3GWub.4382$DX3.4063@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BpWub.7499$n56.478@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5qVub.3905$DX3.2148@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%bVub.7415$n56.4342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means
"data
point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you
do
"this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people,
scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at
300000
Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the
world
has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light,
But you are free to do so. You may have to apply for a grant to
buy
a
laser, some detectors, however many meters of conduit you want
that
you
can
seal air tight, and a kick-***** vacuum pump. You'd probably have
to
take
into account several other factors, travel time of the signal
through
wires,
and so on. Have fun.
and, under YOUR scenario, even
if they had, they would now deny what their measurements told
them,
Why?
Because you said a wave of madness had swept through all the
scientists
in
the world. Mighty peculiar madness if it only led to denial about
ONE
specific observation. If you WERE talking about only one specific
observation, then you should have pointed it out some time ago. Its
YOUR
scenario, afterall.
But I think you are missing the point.
"So, if some form of madness swept the scientific world, and they
all
decided
that a dropped rock will not fall, they may, or may not, fall to the
ground?"
Okay, let me put it another way: Did the Sun, the other planets and
the
stars actually orbit the earth when astronomers thought geocentrism
was
a
"fact"?
You tell me: is it a "fact" that the Earth orbits the Sun? How do YOU
know?
Is it a "fact" that the Moon orbits the Earth? Who told you this?
Those two sets of questions don't have the same answers, BTW.
You still miss the point: Does whqatever I believe, or anyone else,
change
reality?
Boikat
No, not YOU. But the fact remains that whqatever I believe does. See, you
have to be an "effective dreamer". Then everything can be whqatever you
want. The problem is that there are side effects. See, the Sun used to orbit
the (flat) Earth. But another "ED" changed it all to make the xians "go
away". "I'll make Science!" he thought. It worked, but now all the religious
people are nuts. See, they "know" they are right (and they once were), but
that was thousands and thousands of years ago. It's very frustrating for
them, but there's nothing they can do until another "ED"er comes along and
puts everything back. Then we'll be the nutcases! "Gravity sucks!" we'll
shout! Whee....!
Whqatever!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sverker Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
09 Dec 2003 01:56:22 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<%bVub.7415$n56.4342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do "this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people, scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at 300000 Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the world has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light,
Measuring the speed of light is a routine part of undergraduate
physics at many (most?) universities. Thousands of students have
done it. IOW, the physicists whose voices might actually count
in the kind of consensus you're talking about, have in most
cases measured the speed themselves.
In any case, today it can be done with equipment you can buy
yourself and set up at home. A ready-made kit with everything
you need costs less than $1000.
Best regards
Sverker Johansson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Phillips" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
20 Nov 2003 08:01:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, LawsonE wrote:
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:wCBub.2878$
[...]
But what if you didn't know they had all gone mad?
The "fact" of the matter is that in science, "fact" means "data point",
and
data points, how much something weighs, what happens when you do "this",
and
so on, is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many people, scientists
or
otherwise, hold that opinion. For instance, "light travels at 300000 Kps
in
a vacuum" will not a matter of consensus.
It certainly IS a matter of consensus. Virtually no-one in the world has
ever bothered to measure the speed of light,
I measured the speed of light in an experiment I performed in a
high school physics course over 20 years ago.
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"I'm doomed!"
"Well, you lived a good life."
"But I'm only 10!"
I said good, not long." - Timmy & Cosmo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: whos responsibility to teach |
19 Nov 2003 06:50:14 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from "Boikat"
<boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net>:
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VoBub.5351$sb4.1995@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@nowen.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IDAub.2424$gU2.2347@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nrAub.5293$sb4.2574@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@driz | | | | | | | | |
