4 ms·
Yes, if people followed the law independent of the law, the law would not be needed. This holds in general. The law is to protect students against anti-religio
by gowld 7y ago
Yes, if people followed the law independent of the law, the law would not be needed. This holds in general.
The law is to protect students against anti-religious teachers who punish students for making religious statements.
- mattigames 7y agoThe law may be intended for that, the actual consequence is disregarding facts as if where opinions and growing up believing doing so its Ok.
- crazydoggers 7y agoWhy does there need to be a law to protect students who provide incorrect answers? I guess we need a law to protect students from having to read controversial books too?
- yawboakye 7y agoBecause, well, there's no correct answer. Only what's less wrong. Asimov explains better https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.ht...
- crazydoggers 7y agoTests don’t need to grade “maybe a tiny tiny tiny bit wrong” from “horribly horribly wrong and misinformed” Evolution is not contested in the slightest. Should we grade tests to allow students to believe that things fall up? If you think that’s hyperbole then that’s the problem right there. The whole evolution debate is so tiring.
- yawboakye 7y agoIt wasn’t Newton’s theory that taught us that things fall down. It’s pretty a gutter material to compare observation/reality with a theory that spans eons, a duration no one has lived entirely. That said, if the theory of evolution gives meaning to your life, makes you a good person, and opens your eyes to appreciate everything and everyone around you, in other words, if it’s your sustenance then definitely hold on to it. Because, imo, that’s what life is about. But let others find theirs and enjoy their short time here.
- crazydoggers 7y agoJust don’t make public policy decisions that effect me and my children, or vote for people who don’t want to teach science, evolution, etc in schools. You don’t just enjoy your life when you do that, but actively work at destroying others.
- crazydoggers 7y agoBTW... Asimov is rolling in his grave that you used his article this way. You’ve completely and totally missed the point. It doesn’t mean there’s “no correct answer” lol. “I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.”
- yawboakye 7y agoYou’re right. Now go enjoy your day!
- hhas01 7y agoYou mean students making religious statements like “2π = 6”? Yeah that’s definitely not right, the correct solution of course being “Burn the mathematician^W witch!”
- uryga 7y ago> The law is to protect students against anti-religious teachers who punish students for making religious statements idk, it seems more aligned with protecting the weird thing some USA¹ Christians do where they take the Bible as historical fact re: creation of the world... quoting the article: > students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs. is science class really the place to do that? are we cool with Ohio children being unfamiliar with evolutionary theory because of their religion? --- 1. i'm not sure if singling out the USA is correct here, but it's the only country where i've seen this. even here in Poland, where a lot of people are seriously religious (Christian), this sort of thing doesn't seem to happen
- XCabbage 7y agoRead the bill instead of blindly believing the article. The article is lying outright about what the bill says. Not only does it not require teachers to accept religiously-based scientifically incorrect answers, it outright forbids them from doing so, requiring them instead to grade such answers based on "legitimate pedagogical concerns". The article - and your take based on the article - are the complete opposite of the truth.
- hhas01 7y ago“Read the bill” Why? You excoriate the article for taking the bill out of context, yet you yourself take the bill out of the larger context of the Religious Right’s longrunning War Against Science. Whatever the bill’s exact wording (including more than enough carefully constructed loopholes to drive Noah’s Ark through), dollars-to-cents it’s just one more in a very long papertrail of deceptive/manipulative legislative broadsides coming from a known bunch of power-hungry liars. “it outright forbids them from doing so” Even if the bill forbids teachers marking technically-incorrect answers as “correct”, it’s still patent bullshit. Really, a blind man can see the misdirection here. A simple direct factual question that demands a simple direct factual answer which is then deliberately smothered beneath neverending mountains of irrelevant ideological bullshit; I mean, do you honestly believe there’s only one way to lie? Cos if so: where the fuck have you been for the last 10 years? This is Fake News Tactics 101: if you can’t block the truth, bury it instead. And now you want legislative immunity against all censure or criticism for students what employ it? “grade such answers based on ‘legitimate pedagogical concerns’” Uh-huh, like we don’t see the lessons they’re really being graded on. How dumb do you take us for? Delete your account.