4 ms·

Given your opposition to ideologically-driven information vacuums I take it you don't support the public school system?

by fleitz 13y ago

superuser2 13y ago
I support biology, chemistry, and physics classes. You have a right to be taught what is known in these areas, how we got there, and what it means about our world. Consider human evolution (bio), carbon dating (bio/chem), origin and expansion of the universe (physics). The history portion of chemistry presented us with the scientific process and the story of how we formulated, experimentally tested, and refined our models of matter, often proving the Church wrong in its blind acceptance of ancient philosophers' conjectures. This is a way of thinking to which every person deserves exposure, and some parents aren't comfortable with it. In physics, we used telescope measurements to calculate the rate of expansion and age of the universe. Results were not consistent with some parents' readings of Genesis. I'll buy brainwashing in subjective areas like history, current events, economics, and literary analysis but not in science. The public school system is problematic, but it at least allows access to books and websites which are screened only for sexuality, not for reality.
- fleitz 13y ago
  So pot has been scientifically proven to have no medicinal value? I remember them telling me this in science class, so apparently science is full of BS too.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    I remember them telling me this in health class, which was pretty obviously full of shit. Even by the guidelines handed out in English class for evaluating sources, it wasn't the slightest bit credible. We found the teacher on CCAP pleading out to THC possession 15 years ago. My chemistry teacher, introducing organic chemistry, told us about an O-Chem final in college and how "no amount of mind-altering substances in the world could make that okay. Believe me, I tried." We discussed alcohol literacy - understanding "proof" in chemical terms. We also did the equations for freebasing cocaine, and talked (in broad strokes) about making meth.
- jimzvz 13y ago
  I'll buy brainwashing in subjective areas like history, current events, economics, and literary analysis but not in science. Wow. I think the most important thing to teach children is to be open to ideas. The universe may be billions of years old or a couple of seconds old with initial conditions that indicate a different history. Humans may be intelligent actors in a computer simulation equivalent in some other universe that we have no way of perceiving. We may all just exist in the imagination of some being we could never understand. Science is just a tool to make sense of what we can but it is not the be all and end all. If anyone is going to brainwash my kids, I would hope that it is me and not some government with their own objectives and emergent quirks. An accurate as possible representation of history, current events, philosophy and economics is just as important as a solid introduction to the state of scientific discoveries/methods/theories is to a young mind.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    I was conceding to fleitz that there's room in those subject areas for a particular interpretation to be pushed over others. I had a great and very academic APUSH teacher with a PhD and we often joked about the hilariously pro-America bias in our textbook. These things should still be taught, objectively and well like you say, but in these areas I wouldn't dismiss outright the claim that the state often has a bias. My physics and chemistry teachers were very clear that they were teaching us a process and where it's led us for now, not the be all end all truth. We laughed at ancient chemistry (fire comes from phlogiston, an element with sometimes negative mass) and then discussed the possibility that what we're taught now could be just as hilarious in another hundred years. My physics teacher was well-versed in the current frontiers of particle physics and encouraged us to understand uncertainty. The lesson wasn't "the universe is x years old," the lesson was "hey look, we can use these measurements and some provably sound mathematical tools to come up with a number which, if certain pretty good assumptions hold true, is the age of the universe. If someone disproves the assumptions or the data, then our number is wrong, but that's really exciting because it will lead us to new understanding." I guess what I'm really supporting here is the scientific mindset. Some people who value faith feel very threatened by that, don't want their children going anywhere near it, and hold them out of school. I think the children deserve to learn about it anyway, and decide on their own what to accept.

Given your opposition to ideologically-driven information vacuums I take it you don't support the public school system?

by fleitz 13y ago

Given your opposition to ideologically-driven information vacuums I take it you don't support the public school system?

I support biology, chemistry, and physics classes. You have a right to be taught what is known in these areas, how we got there, and what it means about our world. Consider human evolution (bio), carbon dating (bio/chem), origin and expansion of the universe (physics). The history portion of chemistry presented us with the scientific process and the story of how we formulated, experimentally tested, and refined our models of matter, often proving the Church wrong in its blind acceptance of ancient philosophers' conjectures. This is a way of thinking to which every person deserves exposure, and some parents aren't comfortable with it. In physics, we used telescope measurements to calculate the rate of expansion and age of the universe. Results were not consistent with some parents' readings of Genesis. I'll buy brainwashing in subjective areas like history, current events, economics, and literary analysis but not in science. The public school system is problematic, but it at least allows access to books and websites which are screened only for sexuality, not for reality.

fleitz 13y ago
So pot has been scientifically proven to have no medicinal value? I remember them telling me this in science class, so apparently science is full of BS too.
- superuser2 13y ago
  I remember them telling me this in health class, which was pretty obviously full of shit. Even by the guidelines handed out in English class for evaluating sources, it wasn't the slightest bit credible. We found the teacher on CCAP pleading out to THC possession 15 years ago. My chemistry teacher, introducing organic chemistry, told us about an O-Chem final in college and how "no amount of mind-altering substances in the world could make that okay. Believe me, I tried." We discussed alcohol literacy - understanding "proof" in chemical terms. We also did the equations for freebasing cocaine, and talked (in broad strokes) about making meth.
jimzvz 13y ago
I'll buy brainwashing in subjective areas like history, current events, economics, and literary analysis but not in science. Wow. I think the most important thing to teach children is to be open to ideas. The universe may be billions of years old or a couple of seconds old with initial conditions that indicate a different history. Humans may be intelligent actors in a computer simulation equivalent in some other universe that we have no way of perceiving. We may all just exist in the imagination of some being we could never understand. Science is just a tool to make sense of what we can but it is not the be all and end all. If anyone is going to brainwash my kids, I would hope that it is me and not some government with their own objectives and emergent quirks. An accurate as possible representation of history, current events, philosophy and economics is just as important as a solid introduction to the state of scientific discoveries/methods/theories is to a young mind.
- superuser2 13y ago
  I was conceding to fleitz that there's room in those subject areas for a particular interpretation to be pushed over others. I had a great and very academic APUSH teacher with a PhD and we often joked about the hilariously pro-America bias in our textbook. These things should still be taught, objectively and well like you say, but in these areas I wouldn't dismiss outright the claim that the state often has a bias. My physics and chemistry teachers were very clear that they were teaching us a process and where it's led us for now, not the be all end all truth. We laughed at ancient chemistry (fire comes from phlogiston, an element with sometimes negative mass) and then discussed the possibility that what we're taught now could be just as hilarious in another hundred years. My physics teacher was well-versed in the current frontiers of particle physics and encouraged us to understand uncertainty. The lesson wasn't "the universe is x years old," the lesson was "hey look, we can use these measurements and some provably sound mathematical tools to come up with a number which, if certain pretty good assumptions hold true, is the age of the universe. If someone disproves the assumptions or the data, then our number is wrong, but that's really exciting because it will lead us to new understanding." I guess what I'm really supporting here is the scientific mindset. Some people who value faith feel very threatened by that, don't want their children going anywhere near it, and hold them out of school. I think the children deserve to learn about it anyway, and decide on their own what to accept.