7 ms·

Sorry - but you verify very little at school. It is an indoctrination system. IMO. Feel free to provide a specific example though, where you verified somethi

Sorry - but you verify very little at school. It is an indoctrination system. IMO. Feel free to provide a specific example though, where you verified something at school.

kalenx 6y ago
I verified a _lot_ at school. Simple stuff, sure, but it's the method which matters, not the thing you verify. I guess it may depend on the education systems, but seeing it as an 'indoctrination system' is just dishonest, given that by _definition_ you want to change the minds of the children. There is no --or so little-- spontaneous learning when you reach something more complicated than the basic action/immediate consequence a toddler uses.
- feralimal 6y ago
  To all those that are telling me how much verification is going on, I want to offer this very simple and basic question. How was water proven to you to be made up of 2 gases? Please don't refer me to youtube videos where a showman's pop is made, and we see some water droplets from the air condensate on the bottle. I want to see 2 gases being added together and making a liquid, that is water. We are apparently on a planet that is mainly water... surely this isn't too much to ask? You might think this is basic, and it is. If you review this information, you will recognise just how little you actually know.
  - godelzilla 6y ago
    And how was the "law of supply and demand" verified? smh
  - kalenx 6y ago
    It isn't much to ask at all, but what you describe makes little sense. 1) What's the issue with "showman pop and some water droplets"? What's the difference between producing 1 mL or 1 gallon of water in terms of _verification_? 2) You can verify it in various ways, including obtaining back oxygen and hydrogen from water. You can measure the weight of the water you've used (and derive the number of molecules), and the weight of the gases you obtain (and again check that it matches what you've provided). 3) Sure, your sensors (eyes, ears, etc.) are not accurate/fast enough to literally see two H2 molecules and one O2 molecule creating two H2O. If you feel that this in itself is enough to impede verification then we have an issue. You can always go back to a point where your eyes are enough to validate an hypothesis and build from there, so everything holds. But you seem to be asking that for _every_ scientific proof in our modern world, which is just mischievous.
    - feralimal 6y ago
      I want to see a gas canister that say oxygen, that is tested and proved to be so. I want to see a gas canister that say hydrogen, that is tested and proved to be so. Then I want the gases put into some sort of container, where some sort of process is undertaken, and water is poured out. It should be straightforward, with no trickery or slight of hand trickery. It must be simple to do that surely??! Feel free to post a video.
      - kalenx 6y ago
        It is extremely simple to do that. But you won't accept it. You would say the gas canister containing oxygen to be "unproved", or the ignition source to be "unproved to be so", or the camera to be "unproved to truly reflect the reality", or the container in which the gases are put in "unproved to be empty". You do not really care about knowing, you care about being right. And there's nothing I can do for you on this regard.
        feralimal 6y ago
        Seriously, post a video of you doing that. Or someone else's. If you think I will refute it whatever the case, what can I do? I can only say that I will watch in good faith. If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?
        kalenx 6y ago
        Sure, here's the first youtube result I got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g > I can only say that I will watch in good faith. You won't. > If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you? Of course my threshold of acceptance is lower than yours! This whole discussion, my point was that your "threshold of acceptance" is ridiculously, insanely high. For instance, I do think that the BBC guy in this video is acting in good faith. Also, given the two following hypothesis: - Thousands of people around the globe have been putting up complex magic tricks and keep the secret for more than two centuries to make me believe that a gas can burn an produce water; - Hydrogen and oxygen mixed together and ignited produce water vapor. The latter is far, far more likely than the former.
  - abawany 6y ago
    I recall doing an experiment in high school where I added a drop of HCl to water and then applied an electric current to the water in the vessel - there were two vents and applying a flame to one of the areas near the bubbling electrodes resulted in a clean flame pop, a signature of hydrogen. Edit0: syntax corrections.
devcpp 6y ago
Are you deliberately missing the point? You follow a logical chain of building up a roughly coherent view of the world. Not as good as following the kind of thorough reasoning that goes into a research paper (since you always have access to "the right answer") but better than most alternatives that can be mass-produced at that level.
simonh 6y ago
I did give examples. My own children are going through high school here in the UK right now, they are 15 and 17 and both study physics and chemistry. They spend a significant portion of their science education performing experiments themselves in labs, that's exactly what lab work is for - to test the things you are being taught. Maybe it's different in the US, if you are American, but did you really not do experiments in science class at school? Did your teachers really not explain how to apply the scientific method practically? Anyone can test the theories of basic mechanics, gases and electricity with household objects and surely must do this at school right? I happened to go on to do Physics at University, although I transferred and eventually graduated in Computer Science. Of course the work you do there is more advanced, but it builds on the basic principles of investigation, verification and experimentation started at school. About 95,000 students study physical science subjects University level here in the UK every year.
- derivagral 6y ago
  I'm in USA northeast, and we did experiments in (private) highschool & college around chemistry (calories burned, mole weights, etc) and physics (measure a spring's K, speed, light/sound wave refractions, surface tension of water+soap, etc). Not so much in biology but I think I would've hated that kind of wetwork.
- implements 6y ago
  You had to perform and write up a practical experiment for the A-Level Physics final exam in the 1980s - I remember it fondly because a friend accidentally set his on fire to everyone’s suppressed amusement!
- godelzilla 6y ago
  This is a narrow view of science. If they're taking one or two courses on physical science, what are their other classes? Do they examine the hypotheses and evidence in economics, history, etc.? Or is their course load just 10% physical science and 90% indoctrination?

Sorry - but you verify very little at school. It is an indoctrination system. IMO. Feel free to provide a specific example though, where you verified something at school.

kalenx 6y ago

I verified a _lot_ at school. Simple stuff, sure, but it's the method which matters, not the thing you verify. I guess it may depend on the education systems, but seeing it as an 'indoctrination system' is just dishonest, given that by _definition_ you want to change the minds of the children. There is no --or so little-- spontaneous learning when you reach something more complicated than the basic action/immediate consequence a toddler uses.

feralimal 6y ago
To all those that are telling me how much verification is going on, I want to offer this very simple and basic question. How was water proven to you to be made up of 2 gases? Please don't refer me to youtube videos where a showman's pop is made, and we see some water droplets from the air condensate on the bottle. I want to see 2 gases being added together and making a liquid, that is water. We are apparently on a planet that is mainly water... surely this isn't too much to ask? You might think this is basic, and it is. If you review this information, you will recognise just how little you actually know.
- godelzilla 6y ago
  And how was the "law of supply and demand" verified? smh
- kalenx 6y ago
  It isn't much to ask at all, but what you describe makes little sense. 1) What's the issue with "showman pop and some water droplets"? What's the difference between producing 1 mL or 1 gallon of water in terms of _verification_? 2) You can verify it in various ways, including obtaining back oxygen and hydrogen from water. You can measure the weight of the water you've used (and derive the number of molecules), and the weight of the gases you obtain (and again check that it matches what you've provided). 3) Sure, your sensors (eyes, ears, etc.) are not accurate/fast enough to literally see two H2 molecules and one O2 molecule creating two H2O. If you feel that this in itself is enough to impede verification then we have an issue. You can always go back to a point where your eyes are enough to validate an hypothesis and build from there, so everything holds. But you seem to be asking that for _every_ scientific proof in our modern world, which is just mischievous.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    I want to see a gas canister that say oxygen, that is tested and proved to be so. I want to see a gas canister that say hydrogen, that is tested and proved to be so. Then I want the gases put into some sort of container, where some sort of process is undertaken, and water is poured out. It should be straightforward, with no trickery or slight of hand trickery. It must be simple to do that surely??! Feel free to post a video.
    - kalenx 6y ago
      It is extremely simple to do that. But you won't accept it. You would say the gas canister containing oxygen to be "unproved", or the ignition source to be "unproved to be so", or the camera to be "unproved to truly reflect the reality", or the container in which the gases are put in "unproved to be empty". You do not really care about knowing, you care about being right. And there's nothing I can do for you on this regard.
      - feralimal 6y ago
        Seriously, post a video of you doing that. Or someone else's. If you think I will refute it whatever the case, what can I do? I can only say that I will watch in good faith. If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?
        kalenx 6y ago
        Sure, here's the first youtube result I got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g > I can only say that I will watch in good faith. You won't. > If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you? Of course my threshold of acceptance is lower than yours! This whole discussion, my point was that your "threshold of acceptance" is ridiculously, insanely high. For instance, I do think that the BBC guy in this video is acting in good faith. Also, given the two following hypothesis: - Thousands of people around the globe have been putting up complex magic tricks and keep the secret for more than two centuries to make me believe that a gas can burn an produce water; - Hydrogen and oxygen mixed together and ignited produce water vapor. The latter is far, far more likely than the former.
- abawany 6y ago
  I recall doing an experiment in high school where I added a drop of HCl to water and then applied an electric current to the water in the vessel - there were two vents and applying a flame to one of the areas near the bubbling electrodes resulted in a clean flame pop, a signature of hydrogen. Edit0: syntax corrections.

devcpp 6y ago

Are you deliberately missing the point? You follow a logical chain of building up a roughly coherent view of the world. Not as good as following the kind of thorough reasoning that goes into a research paper (since you always have access to "the right answer") but better than most alternatives that can be mass-produced at that level.

simonh 6y ago

I did give examples. My own children are going through high school here in the UK right now, they are 15 and 17 and both study physics and chemistry. They spend a significant portion of their science education performing experiments themselves in labs, that's exactly what lab work is for - to test the things you are being taught. Maybe it's different in the US, if you are American, but did you really not do experiments in science class at school? Did your teachers really not explain how to apply the scientific method practically? Anyone can test the theories of basic mechanics, gases and electricity with household objects and surely must do this at school right? I happened to go on to do Physics at University, although I transferred and eventually graduated in Computer Science. Of course the work you do there is more advanced, but it builds on the basic principles of investigation, verification and experimentation started at school. About 95,000 students study physical science subjects University level here in the UK every year.

derivagral 6y ago
I'm in USA northeast, and we did experiments in (private) highschool & college around chemistry (calories burned, mole weights, etc) and physics (measure a spring's K, speed, light/sound wave refractions, surface tension of water+soap, etc). Not so much in biology but I think I would've hated that kind of wetwork.
implements 6y ago
You had to perform and write up a practical experiment for the A-Level Physics final exam in the 1980s - I remember it fondly because a friend accidentally set his on fire to everyone’s suppressed amusement!
godelzilla 6y ago
This is a narrow view of science. If they're taking one or two courses on physical science, what are their other classes? Do they examine the hypotheses and evidence in economics, history, etc.? Or is their course load just 10% physical science and 90% indoctrination?