4 ms·

> it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you a

> it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? > manipulate people a lot easier. So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?

Oletros 9y ago
> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Lev1a 9y ago
"People" who spout nonsense again and again for some form of monetary gain or to live out and push on others their religious superstitions want to force their stance into the public eye through proposals like this. > My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science. > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.
taylodl 9y ago
Where do these critical thinking skills to detect bullshit come from? Look at all the bullshit we inherited from Aristotle. No one even thought to think it was bullshit until people came along and said "let's see" and actually started performing experiments and thus introducing the Scientific Age. Ask any small child which will object will fall faster: a 10 Kg weight or a 5 Kg weight and they'll unanimously say the 10 Kg weight. So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit. It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion. So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything. Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  You are entirely missing the point. The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit (or selective truths) (for what ever reasons), so no side should be forced to silence...
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit I expect that you can provide examples of this. Until now, the ones spouting bullshit is the anti science one.
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      >I expect that you can provide examples of this http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fda-drugs-safety-20170509-story.html http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fda-drug... So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit? Or is it not bullshit because that is the best we could have done, but we still sold it as legit, without saying about the flaws in our process, which is why I mentioned selectively saying the truth... I am pretty sure one can come up with other serious cases where "science" of today turned out to be bullshit later. The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example. Pretty sure that have been similar issues recently regarding diet, pesticide use, use of plastics and stuff like that... EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...
eesmith 9y ago
"what is there to loose" Time. There is a lot to cover in school. Time spent to cover all of the bullshit is time taken away from other topics. How much time should be spent in showing that bullshit like phrenology, blood type personality theory, Kirlian auras, the Hollow Earth theory, baraminology, and orgone energy is actually bullshit, and what existing topics should be covered less? Cost of training. Young Earth Creationists over the last 56 years (dating from Henry Morris's "The Genesis Flood") have assembled a large collection of crappy arguments, every one of which has been shown to be invalid. Many of the counter-arguments are collected in sites like talkorigins.org. However, it takes specialized knowledge to be able to counter each one. For an example from the talkorigins.org FAQ, suppose a student in physics class asks "I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?" How many physics teachers do you know are aware of Barry Setterfield's C-Decay hypothesis and the details of its flaws? How much time would it take to train all teachers to be able to show that each argument is bullshit, rather than simply say it's bullshit then move on?
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  If a teacher does not know how to refute a claim or answer a question, they should research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question. I mean, not everyone has to be taught about everything... Of course there are topics that are way above the heads of teachers. But these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think. Just because some topics are super hard does not mean that all such things should be taken on faith in science...
  - Oletros 9y ago
    The bill is not to answer question, the bill is for removing material
  - eesmith 9y ago
    You expressed an ideal view of what teaching should be, and could be if there is the time and funding for it. However, you did not actually address my points. When is the teacher supposed to research it? Teachers are already busy at school, and many end up also working at home. Will they get extra time at work for this research, or will it be more unpaid work for them at home? Or will some existing demands on their time be removed, and if so, which ones? Will those demands be eliminated, or will the school hire additional staff? When is the teacher supposed to explain it to the student? Which other topics should be covered less or skipped? On top of that, this is the state of Florida, which has been deprofessionalizing teachers. The state removed tenure a few years ago, and switched to yearly contracts. Lawyers for the state argued in court that "reports card are meaningless and don't show if someone can read at grade level". (See http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/06/fl-death-to-public-education.html http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/06/fl-death-to-publi... for more examples.) This is the state that won't require 20 minutes of daily unstructured playtime for elementary school because 'There is a lot of emphasis on performing well on the mandated tests,” United Teachers of Dade president Karla Hernandez-Mats said. “Therefore teachers focus on utilizing every minute of instructional time.” http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article131811014.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-po... This despite research showing how important recess is for the physical, mental, and social development of elementary school children. That development isn't on the standardized tests. Neither are oddball/bullshit questions. Florida is doing all it can to de-incentivize a teacher from taking the time to "research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question".

Oletros 9y ago

> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Lev1a 9y ago

"People" who spout nonsense again and again for some form of monetary gain or to live out and push on others their religious superstitions want to force their stance into the public eye through proposals like this. > My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science. > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.

taylodl 9y ago

Where do these critical thinking skills to detect bullshit come from? Look at all the bullshit we inherited from Aristotle. No one even thought to think it was bullshit until people came along and said "let's see" and actually started performing experiments and thus introducing the Scientific Age. Ask any small child which will object will fall faster: a 10 Kg weight or a 5 Kg weight and they'll unanimously say the 10 Kg weight. So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit. It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion. So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything. Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'

babyrainbow 9y ago
You are entirely missing the point. The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit (or selective truths) (for what ever reasons), so no side should be forced to silence...
- Oletros 9y ago
  > The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit I expect that you can provide examples of this. Until now, the ones spouting bullshit is the anti science one.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    >I expect that you can provide examples of this http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fda-drugs-safety-20170509-story.html http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fda-drug... So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit? Or is it not bullshit because that is the best we could have done, but we still sold it as legit, without saying about the flaws in our process, which is why I mentioned selectively saying the truth... I am pretty sure one can come up with other serious cases where "science" of today turned out to be bullshit later. The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example. Pretty sure that have been similar issues recently regarding diet, pesticide use, use of plastics and stuff like that... EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...

eesmith 9y ago

"what is there to loose" Time. There is a lot to cover in school. Time spent to cover all of the bullshit is time taken away from other topics. How much time should be spent in showing that bullshit like phrenology, blood type personality theory, Kirlian auras, the Hollow Earth theory, baraminology, and orgone energy is actually bullshit, and what existing topics should be covered less? Cost of training. Young Earth Creationists over the last 56 years (dating from Henry Morris's "The Genesis Flood") have assembled a large collection of crappy arguments, every one of which has been shown to be invalid. Many of the counter-arguments are collected in sites like talkorigins.org. However, it takes specialized knowledge to be able to counter each one. For an example from the talkorigins.org FAQ, suppose a student in physics class asks "I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?" How many physics teachers do you know are aware of Barry Setterfield's C-Decay hypothesis and the details of its flaws? How much time would it take to train all teachers to be able to show that each argument is bullshit, rather than simply say it's bullshit then move on?

babyrainbow 9y ago
If a teacher does not know how to refute a claim or answer a question, they should research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question. I mean, not everyone has to be taught about everything... Of course there are topics that are way above the heads of teachers. But these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think. Just because some topics are super hard does not mean that all such things should be taken on faith in science...
- Oletros 9y ago
  The bill is not to answer question, the bill is for removing material
- eesmith 9y ago
  You expressed an ideal view of what teaching should be, and could be if there is the time and funding for it. However, you did not actually address my points. When is the teacher supposed to research it? Teachers are already busy at school, and many end up also working at home. Will they get extra time at work for this research, or will it be more unpaid work for them at home? Or will some existing demands on their time be removed, and if so, which ones? Will those demands be eliminated, or will the school hire additional staff? When is the teacher supposed to explain it to the student? Which other topics should be covered less or skipped? On top of that, this is the state of Florida, which has been deprofessionalizing teachers. The state removed tenure a few years ago, and switched to yearly contracts. Lawyers for the state argued in court that "reports card are meaningless and don't show if someone can read at grade level". (See http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/06/fl-death-to-public-education.html http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/06/fl-death-to-publi... for more examples.) This is the state that won't require 20 minutes of daily unstructured playtime for elementary school because 'There is a lot of emphasis on performing well on the mandated tests,” United Teachers of Dade president Karla Hernandez-Mats said. “Therefore teachers focus on utilizing every minute of instructional time.” http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article131811014.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-po... This despite research showing how important recess is for the physical, mental, and social development of elementary school children. That development isn't on the standardized tests. Neither are oddball/bullshit questions. Florida is doing all it can to de-incentivize a teacher from taking the time to "research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question".