New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Jose Fly]

Not if they are absent for religious reasons, such as a surprise Satanic conclave. These are very important for Satanists, many of whom must read heavy metal magazines during school hours and smoke in the woods.

That's usually what gets these sorts of laws (if this bill becomes one) in the end. The Christian conservative legislators craft them with the assumption that it's all about protecting Christian students and Christian viewpoints, but at some point a student from a different religion exercises the same rights and suddenly the legislators are like "what the heck's going on here?"

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's usually what gets these sorts of laws (if this bill becomes one) in the end. The Christian conservative legislators craft them with the assumption that it's all about protecting Christian students and Christian viewpoints, but at some point a student from a different religion exercises the same rights and suddenly the legislators are like "what the heck's going on here?"

In this case its just political pandering, yes. The people writing the bill are, however, looking out for your interests by making it duplicitous and vague -- either them or their staff. This law won't enshrine anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

No its a fail for no completion of work.

Yes. That how grades work son. If someone says 1+1=3 that answer is wrong.

So I guess we can add this to "Shad's Greatest Hits", along with...

There's no link at all between "We're ready to buy javelins" and "I need a favor though".

Providing multiple sources showing that J. Biden was acting in concert with the EU, IMF, and Congressmen from both parties does not show it to be so and is merely "throwing a bunch of links" at you.

And now, giving a student an F for being absent is not penalizing the student, but giving a student an F for giving the wrong answer is penalizing the student.​

Once again, thanks for your time. It's been entertaining and quite revealing.

 

[Shad]

So I guess we can add this to "Shad's Greatest Hits", along with...

There's no link at all between "We're ready to buy javelins" and "I need a favor though".

Providing multiple sources showing that J. Biden was acting in concert with the EU, IMF, and Congressmen from both parties does not show it to be so and is merely "throwing a bunch of links" at you.

And now, giving a student an F for being absent is not penalizing the student, but giving a student an F for giving the wrong answer is penalizing the student.​

Once again, thanks for your time. It's been entertaining and quite revealing.

You are still refusing to answer my question which was for the point of clarification. You are still transparent. Yawn. Now you are babbling instead of getting to the point of this topic. Try again son.

An F is not a punishment. It is an assessment. Yawn. Words are hard for you it seems.

 

[Jose Fly]

In this case its just political pandering, yes.

Most definitely.

The people writing the bill are, however, looking out for your interests by making it duplicitous and vague -- either them or their staff. This law won't enshrine anything.

LOL....your tax dollars at work!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please forgive me for butting in...But I keep thinking of this extreme hypothetical example, ( and I know I'm exposing my bias by saying this )... What if a student gives the correct scientific answer to a question on a test followed by a smug disclaimer: "** Except that all this is not true because it's not in the Bible. **" In this (admittedly ridiculous) scenario do you think the religious commentary should be ignored?

Yes.

If I were the teacher and got that answer, whether orally in a discussion or in writing on a test, I would indicate that personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, and in the case of discussion, are a misuse of classroom time. If that subject were evolution, I would say that our topic is what evolutionary science teaches us, not how people feel about it.

If, however, the student wanted to challenge some of what was taught, and mentioned that he was a creationist, that would be useful for the teacher to know in answering any questions. But they need to be questions about the science motivated by religious beliefs, not bare statements of belief. Once again, the class exists to teach evolutionary science, not to discover what students think about it.

if I was in process to become a science teacher... doesn't it make sense to avoid Ohio?

Again, yes.

It also makes sense not to put your child in an Ohio public school, or even to live in Ohio if one has the option. Why would you want to be subject to a legislature that would pass such a bill? What next? And after that?

 

[cladking]

Part of the goal of the public educational system is to produce educated individuals that are capable of making the decisions necessary in a free society. This is ultimately what keeps our system running and, unfortunately, it is broken by those attempting to bring their religious agendas into the public schools. What we end up with is an *uneducated* populace that seems to be unable to deal with a wide range of basic scientific facts intelligently. This is ultimately dangerous.

Education failed long ago. There aren't enough educated people to fill all the positions necessary to run civilization already.

They close swimming pools all over the country in electrical storms and force swimmers out into parking lots because the decision makers don't know any science at all. They spend millions of dollars in thunder detectors and pay people to monitor them.

We may as well do our best to enjoy spiraling down the drain and not hurt kids' feelings just because they don't have the answer.

 

[cladking]

Speaking of spiraling down the drain, some pools have such powerful recirculation pumps that they've disemboweled kids who tried to block them.

 

[ecco]

What a lying dog you are.

Is this a permissible comment in these forums? If it is, there's a lot of people I need to go back to and flat out call them liars.

 

[Moz]

Is this a permissible comment in these forums? If it is, there's a lot of people I need to go back to and flat out call them liars.

Well the liar tag gets thrown around on here a lot but probably not the dog thing. I expect to be in some sort of trouble for that but it was in response to being called a liar first by manipulating wikipedia so i thought something more was going on. I have since clarified this and we have both appologized.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Please forgive me for butting in...

But I keep thinking of this extreme hypothetical example, ( and I know I'm exposing my bias by saying this )...

What if a student gives the correct scientific answer to a question on a test followed by a smug disclaimer:

"** Except that all this is not true because it's not in the Bible. **"

In this ( admittedly ridiculous scenario ) do you think the religious commentary should be ignored?

Yes. Ignored, so long as the science was accurate (with respect to science). Free Speech, and all that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is this a permissible comment in these forums? If it is, there's a lot of people I need to go back to and flat out call them liars.

Heh...no.
But it was a nice touch to see both people involved in that discussion reach a point of agreement and mature discorse.
That's a good result.

 

[exchemist]

Is this a permissible comment in these forums? If it is, there's a lot of people I need to go back to and flat out call them liars.

Yeah see @lewisnotmiller's remarks.

In fact, as I so often do on these forums, I have learned something new from this incident. It seems that some pages of Wiki can be quite dynamic. So if you think somebody is misquoting or misrepresenting a Wiki article, it pays to check the edit history of the article (somethingI have now learned how to do) before loosing off both barrels!

Unfortunately, it seems I am out of time to edit the the post in which I made the original accusation, to set the record straight.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you. I also wish to apologize, the timing seemed strange and i jumped to a conclusion. The "gotcha' made me feel like i'd been set up tp look like a liar but coincidence is a part of life sometimes i guess.

Thanks and yes, I don't have edit rights to Wiki!

Clearly, that particular article is fairly dynamic. I looked further back and it seems up to 9th October it said the crisis was most acute in the social and behavioural sciences. (This in fact is in line with my previous understanding.) On that date this was changed, to the extremely broad category of life sciences and then narrowed once more to medicine on 16th November. By bad luck this was in between when you copied it and when I read it.

It seems the key thing the editors were trying to bring in, in addition to the social sciences (which we physical scientists tend to regard as a bit flaky) is the doubtful nature of some commercially-driven pharmaceutical research.

There does not appear to be any suggestion in the article that this crisis applies right across the physical sciences or in biology generally.

 

[tas8831]

The Big Bang theory of cosmic expansion and evolution is confirmed in the main. It is correct, What you just wrote is incorrect, and is easily disproven by learning the science. Instead, you chose faith and went off the rails..

We must remind ourselves that these are the same folks that engage in extreme mental gymnastics to declare that the Scripture that condones slavery really doesn't, because (fake) reasons and (phony) interpretations...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't think we are discussing the same thing. I think this law is not impeding that. That what the argument is about. I don't think we're going to derail Science and destroy a generation of students, which is kind of what you're describing there.

Off topic I think our public school system works too much like a factory, churning through students who pass instead of requiring them to master things. It is failing many students. Part of this is because its not cost effective to insist upon lectures all day. Some students don't need lots of lecture time, and we could save a lot of money by letting them do self study. The school assumes, however, that lecture time is needed. Whats needed is that they study, perform a certain a mount of coursework and then pass examinations. Lectures were effective when school about reciting, and the students would recite together in order to remember things. They'd memorize piles of information that way, droning on with their group voices. That was a good factory method which worked, but then when school subjects become more individual and the process become internal we kept on keeping the students sitting in rows. We turned schools into baby sitting services, and they stopped efficiently teaching.

You're just diverting attention with all this.

You basically said that if they are being asked anything, then they are being asked "what they believe." In my opinion, this is you trying to denigrate the value of useful/applicable knowledge to the level of religious belief, so that everything you can possibly "believe" gets the same valuation in the classroom - so that religious beliefs and studies can reach toward a realm "above scrutiny."

Oh... and don't think I didn't notice that the post I replied to was deleted... likely by yourself. I understand why, and I am sure you do as well.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Twas not a tirade i was just pointing out how IDEOLOGY clouds a lot of this stuff. The fact that you used the made up term "gender fluid" shows how much the ideology has infected the subject of human biology.

I used the term "gender fluidity" as a stand-in for the ridiculously long, complicated discussion one would have to have to impart all that that simple term stands for. That's it. If you don't know what the term means, just say so.

If you had a beautiful precocious 6 year old "Tomboy" grand daughter you would not be so blasé about the subject.

What is this supposed to mean? Seriously, what are you getting at here? If I had a precocious tomboy grand-daughter do you know what that would mean? I mean truly mean? That I had a grand-daughter. Another member of my family to cherish and make sure understood that I did. That's it. You wouldn't even see the slightest waiver from me on this. None of that is odd or outlandish. A tomboy? SO WHAT? If you really wanted to get me, you'd ask what I would think if I had a child or grandchild who believed (or wanted to believe) they were a unicorn. And that would be a different story, certainly. In that case, because I loved them, I'd explain to them that unicorns have particular attributes that they, themselves don't possess. That they can feel like a unicorn on the inside as much as they want or need to - but that they must accept that on the outside they are not presented as a unicorn, and prepare them for the fact that no one is going to believe them - nor should they. But, I don't "love" Joe Shmoe on the street. And if Joe Shmoe believes he's a unicorn, then as long as he leaves me out of it, I do not care.

Do we have to know... NOPE. I actually think this stuff is so much of a wank that it should be left out all together. Interest in that can be pursued in later education if the child is interested. You ask :What happens if we don't know?" nothing happens, the sun still comes up tomorrow, the birds will still sing.

My point is though.... If we not know what 95% of reality consists of then teaching the GUESSES about the 5% we can see as knowledge that has to be believed is just crazy.

"In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" AND "We don't actually know what 95% of the Universe is made of but we are kinda sure about this 5%" are both declarations of faith and should probably be treated the same until a winner is declared.

No... this is not the situation by a long shot. They are not on equal footing AT ALL. One of the two declares that the answers are already known WITHOUT EVIDENCE, and that they have had those answers "from the beginning." The other is actively engaged in finding out the answers USING NOTHING BUT EVIDENCE, investigating everything, and trying to make sure we're sure enough on one topic to produce useful results before moving onto the next. Which of those two sounds like the more rational approach to investigation? Seriously... which one? I dare you to answer.

The pieces of cosmological science that accurately predict actions and interactions of the cosmological players involved (that is, planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.) are what are important.

Why is this important? Considering that 95% of it is unknown any observations are just guess about what is really going on. It can ALL be thrown out tomorrow.... Wild New Study Suggests The Universe Is a Closed Sphere, Not Flat

Why is this important? Are you being serious here? Umm... because without it we wouldn't have any hope of understanding our failings toward Earth's environment. Without it our species has no hope of possibly leaving this planet when it someday becomes unlivable in the far distant future. Maybe you don't care about these far-future generations of humans... but I do, and I think providing them actual, APPLICABLE/USEFUL knowledge about the universe surrounding them is a billion times better an idea than passing onto them the UTTER CRAP that is religious "knowledge." And SO WHAT if any particular finding can be thrown out tomorrow in favor of something that models our universe/nature BETTER? DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT WE WERE GOING TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT BETTER MODEL USING "RELIGION?" Don't make me laugh.

 

[Ponder This]

Yup... My logic was a little hampered by my knee-jerking... ( why does it keep doing that ?? )

Maybe it would help if you ( or anyone ) would please provide an example of how religious freedom is protected by this bill. That's the part that I'm missing.

Isn't giving a religious answer to a science question, similar to baking a cake for a poetry assignment? Does a baker's freedom to express themselves ( by baking a cake ) need to be protected while completing an assignment in an English Literature class?

There have been court cases involving religious freedoms in schools recently, such as lawsuits to prevent students from praying, but also doing things like requiring a student to recite the Muslim call to prayer. So there are real religious freedoms that are being trespassed upon.

More specifically an essay or an art piece that contains religious content such as a depiction of Jesus or discussion on Qu'ran is something a student should be allowed to submit if he has the choice of expression. There are many ways that religious content may be acceptable in the completion of assignments. And students should be penalized when their content is relevant and satisfies academic standards but happens to contain religious content. You mentioned poems and that's another example of of a place where religious content shouldn't be either penalized or rewarded. A poem about Buddha, for example, would contain what people would call religious content, but the poem should be judged by academic standards and relevance rather than religious content. This seems obvious to me, so I do wonder why don't others see this as obvious?

Are some people simply anti-religious? Because that has no place in a society of religious tolerance.

 

[Ponder This]

Pretty simple...."You gave me an F on my answers that were expressions of my religious beliefs. That's penalizing me for the religious content of my work, which is illegal."


Because the answer is entirely religious content, which means that's what the grade was based on.


That's the main problem with the law...it's self-contradictory.

"God did it" does not conform to academic standards or relevance in science. The argument your making is on the level of a joke. "I believe that science is wrong" may be an expression of a genuine religious belief, but a student can't be rewarded or penalized for religious content. The student has to meet academics standards and relevance. This is clear in the law. The argument that the teacher cannot give an F because it would penalize the student for religious content does nothing more than betray a lack of reading comprehension. It's not a valid argument supporting the answer that "The Earth was created 10,000 years ago." To give other than an F would be to reward the student for religious content and that is prohibited by the law.

 

[Ponder This]

Ya know, both of the major political parties America complain that the other side is gullible and easily fooled by political marketing and talking points. Which is why I am surprised that either party would endorse policies which undermine teaching critical thinking skills in the public schools..

A question to the crowd:

Do we all agree that if a student answers a scientific question with a religious answer, that this demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills? ( ... or perhaps sleep deprivation... )

I think the most likely reason is that the student has the capability to think critically but is being a smart-*** because he doesn't actually want to. For similar reasons, students will draw pictures in the margins and change the lettering of questions and write comments like "Math is Stupid". In the majority of cases, it probably has far less to do with critical thinking capability as it does with the fact that the student is being asked to do work and doesn't want to do work.

Please forgive me for butting in...

But I keep thinking of this extreme hypothetical example, ( and I know I'm exposing my bias by saying this )...

What if a student gives the correct scientific answer to a question on a test followed by a smug disclaimer:

"** Except that all this is not true because it's not in the Bible. **"

In this ( admittedly ridiculous scenario ) do you think the religious commentary should be ignored?

It would be irrelevant to the answer. I think it could be treated as if the student had written "Science is stupid". What would you do in that case?