Science standards under threat in Arizona

[ecco]

Here is the latest. Small dose aspirins do nothing to prevent heart attacks, so?

I think your above comment is a good representation of your inability to understand even basic concepts. You read or listen through the lenses of your own biases and fail to truly comprehend what was really written or said.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is nowhere close to what I said and you know it. What I did say is that science, as established by working scientists, is what should be taught in a science class.

Now, if you have objections to the science of the day, write them up, send them into a peer reviewed journal, get them published and debated *in the correct forum*. The point is that the correct forum for debate is NOT the high school classroom, where those in the debate are not knowledgeable about the subject, but rather in the professional science journals, where they are. When a consensus, or even an actual debate, is found in the professional journals, then that consensus or debate can be introduced into the classrooms.

I'd also ask you when scientists advocated a flat earth. Anyone with any actual knowledge about that subject knew the earth isn't flat after, say, 400BC.

So... again, school is a place where we should indoctrinate, and we just ought to eliminate those pesky debate clubs and all related Socractic and Hegelian discourse, you know, questioning the status quo, because at every given moment, all science is absolutely right.

Scientists and leading university persons warned Columbus about the demons that would eat him if he sailed off the edge of the Earth. Which demons are eating you this week, Polymath?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not what he said at all or even implied. Why use this tactic? Shouldn't you be striving to be honest? Is the fact that you probably cannot find a single creationist that is not a science denier that hard to deal with?

School, like a forum, is a place for some discussion, some debate, some indoctrination/rote learning. I dislike when skeptics say general (false!) statements like "we shouldn't debate evolution in school (but we can debate other things, right?)!"

 

[Polymath257]

So... again, school is a place where we should indoctrinate, and we just ought to eliminate those pesky debate clubs and all related Socractic and Hegelian discourse, you know, questioning the status quo, because at every given moment, all science is absolutely right.

Scientists and leading university persons warned Columbus about the demons that would eat him if he sailed off the edge of the Earth. Which demons are eating you this week, Polymath?

Considering that science as we know it didn't exist at the time of Columbus (it didn't really get going until the 1600's), this is, at best, a poor debate tactic.

Now, we actually test our theories and require them to *be* testable. That is why they are accepted by the scientists. And that is why the best science, as defined by those working in the area, should be what is taught. We shouldn't be wasting time with flat-earthers or creationists in a science class. Again, they may well be appropriate for sociology classes.

And no, I said absolutely nothing about what can be said or debated *in a debate class*. But science class isn't a debate class. Nor, for that matter, is a math class, nor a history class. In each, the best of what professionals have to say about the subject is what should be taught.

If you want to teach a religious viewpoint, feel free to go to your local church and promote anything you want. That isn't the role of public schools.

 

[Cooky]

School, like a forum, is a place for some discussion, some debate, some indoctrination/rote learning. I dislike when skeptics say general (false!) statements like "we shouldn't debate evolution in school (but we can debate other things, right?)!"

Every 40 years the science community has to re-write almost everything. In truth, our quest for knowledge will never be satisfied.

Where do these blood bags come off thinking they will ever understand it all? Where does their desire to learn even come from? Rocks and acids they say.

...They downplay the complexity of life, where every hair is predetermined and measured. Yes. Measured.

 

[Jose Fly]

So... again, school is a place where we should indoctrinate, and we just ought to eliminate those pesky debate clubs and all related Socractic and Hegelian discourse, you know, questioning the status quo, because at every given moment, all science is absolutely right.

So again, provide a standard by which creationism gets taught in science class, but the KKKs views on race don't.

You've dodged this question so many times now, it's obvious you're deliberately ignoring it. The question now is, why?

 

[Jose Fly]

Every 40 years the science community has to re-write almost everything.

Huh. I'm thinking back to what I was taught in science classes 40 years ago, and I can't think of anything significant that's changed. Given your reference to "almost everything", it should be quite easy for you to name some major re-writes that I'm forgetting.

 

[Polymath257]

Every 40 years the science community has to re-write almost everything. In truth, our quest for knowledge will never be satisfied.

Where do these blood bags come off thinking they will ever understand it all? Where does their desire to learn even come from? Rocks and acids they say.

...They downplay the complexity of life, where every hair is predetermined and measured. Yes. Measured.

The question isn't whether we understand it all, or even whether we ever will. It is a question of standards, and whether we should be debating those hypotheses that have been disproved and are no longer debated in the scientific community. New ideas are always welcome. Ideas that have been thoroughly demolished, not so much.

And, once again, the place to debate these things is NOT in the political arena. It is NOT in high schools. It *is* in legitimate scientific journals where the detailed evidence can be debated with attention to detail and taking the necessary time.

 

[Polymath257]

Every 40 years the science community has to re-write almost everything. In truth, our quest for knowledge will never be satisfied.

Really? Care to point out one major topic that was widely accepted 40 years ago and is not now? The one I can think of right away concerns the cosmological constant (accelerated universal expansion). Now, 40 years ago, we didn't know whether there were planets around other stars. Now we do. We didn't have good accuracy on the age of the universe. Now we do.

But re-written, as opposed to updated in details?

 

[Shaul]

You are comparing a tool to a whole branch of math.



No I said because computers are common commodities the average user has knowledge beyond what the introductory courses teach. I told you exactly what type of programs are taught. Only an idiot and seniors these days needs to learn basic windows uses.



Again the introductions courses teach nothing that isn't common knowledge. I do not think you have any idea what the intro programs cover.





Again it is a waste of money to teach what is already common knowledge

No, I didn’t compare a tool to a whole branch of mathematics. You wrote “Computers are a common commodity thus use and knowledge is widespread due to common use. Introduction to CS is mostly redundant for the younger generation but useful for the older ones which never had a PC in their home.” I pointed out that knowing how to use a tool (computers) can’t substitute for an entire branch of knowledge (computer science). I gave an analogy that knowing how to use a calculator is no substitute for learning arithmetic. So the calculator I mentioned is comparable to the computer you mentioned. Both are tools. The arithmetic that I mentioned, a branch of knowledge, would be comparable to the computer science you mentioned, another branch of knowledge. The tools are in contrast to the fields of knowledge, not comparable. Which is precisely what I wrote and was the point I made.

As I wrote before, saying someone doesn’t need to learn the branch of knowledge, computer science, because they are familiar with one of its tools, computers in this case, is ridiculous. To say teaching computer science is a “waste of money” while teaching evolution absolutely necessary shows that your values are askew to the point of causing grave insult and damage to our youth’s education.

 

[Shad]

The claim is an unknown, unseen, nonhuman mystery creature which is a common ancestor to apes and man. Here is another claim. All sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction via the laws of physics and chemistry alone. It is blind faith and the case is overstated.

Nope. There are fossils and genetic data.

Jeez dude i thought it was the search for truth. If the search is limited via prejudice, then certain possibilities are eliminated from the get-go. Then they will always come up with the wrong answers based not on evidence but on ginned up standards. It is my understanding that priests did exorcisms, not medically trained personnel. Assuming that sort of thing were to happen today, it would most likely be a priest and not a Doctor. They don't bleed people today, put leeches on them. Here is the latest. Small dose aspirins do nothing to prevent heart attacks, so? What is your point? Other than cherry picking?

My point was the lack of medical axioms results in so-called professionals of their era to conclude schizophrenia was not a natural mental condition but a spiritual matter requiring spiritual professionals to cure. Ergo without practical limits schizophrenia was seen as demonic possession

You said common ancestor is axiomatic. Your words.

No I didn't. I said science uses axioms. You have reading comprehension issues or just are making things up

Now you partial quote me. If it is axiomatic, then they would examine the same evidence and all come to the same conclusion. Just like they do with many other things. Like tracking a trajectory to the moon. Historical sciences aren't as exact since they go by inference. Cannot test their assumptions against what happened in the past.

Nonsense as axioms do not lead to the same conclusion by everyone. God is an axiom yet here we are with thousands of dead and current religions not in agreement.

Your unwelcome advice will get all the attention it deserves.

Block me or take your discussion to Christian DIR. I can freely comment in this thread.

What makes you guys think we come here for your advice? We don't so why not just keep it to yourselves.

Projection and a rant because someone dared to correct you.

In the meantime why not show me how smart you are by making your axiomatic case for an ape/human unseen, unknown, nonhuman, common ancestor? Because it sounds more like blind faith and that is not science. Pictures are not evidence. Bones do not come with lineage attached.

Strawman based on your distortion of me comment.

Bones contain DNA... Heard of it? Heck it is used in modern forensics......

And genetics? If we are addressing DNA then they compare, sample with sample, in the present and the further back we go the more theoretical it gets. You have not one thing in the present to extrapolate back to the deep past to infer a mystery creature.

Common genetic similarity establish this.

No sample comparison is pretty standard these days from criminal investigations to parentage.

What is happening here is fitting the evidence into a model ginned up in the 19th century. Assume conclusion. So you have not made your case and all these ad nauseam appeals to science ignores the fact most do not make their life decisions based on ginned up and restricted definitions of science by God deniers. The majority of court convictions are not based on forensics but different types of evidence. Like testimony. It is all evidence. That means they do not, in court restrict the search to one type and refuse to consider the other types.

Another rant.

They do not say this case will be tried on science evidence alone. All other types will be ignored.

Other types of evidence are not reliable that's why.

That is the way it is in real life. Aside from all that when they do use science evidence in courts they can still come to the wrong conclusions. Case in point.

Dover trial....

The Duke Lacrosse players. They had DNA evidence (multiple semen samples) from Crystal Magnum none of which fit the accused which was exculpatory and they went ahead and tried them anyway. In spite of the evidence.

An independent company was used by Nifong (prosecutor) and falsely reported by Nifong. Nifong was charged with ethics violations and let go. Hence a bias was present and found. People are not perfect, new flash....

The science guy took the stand and the truth had to be dragged out of him. He had to know the accused was innocent or he had his head way up his arse but he never revealed until on the stand under oath. Then he went silent in front of reporters. Great day for science. Will forfeit truth for cash. Willing to let innocent kids go to prison.

Yup and Meehan was fired for it.

The science was right. The people backing the government were deceptive. You placed blame on the wrong thing.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

School, like a forum, is a place for some discussion, some debate, some indoctrination/rote learning. I dislike when skeptics say general (false!) statements like "we shouldn't debate evolution in school (but we can debate other things, right?)!"

Once again you bear false witness against your neighbor. There is no indoctrination. If you want to claim that the burden of proof is upon you. Second, I do not know of any evolution debates. Ignorant creationists repeating PRATT 's and lies are not debating. If there was a debate it might be interesting, instead all we are doing is correcting the errors of creationists.

 

[Shad]

No, I didn’t compare a tool to a whole branch of mathematics.

No you used a tool in math in a comparison with computers

You wrote “Computers are a common commodity thus use and knowledge is widespread due to common use. Introduction to CS is mostly redundant for the younger generation but useful for the older ones which never had a PC in their home.” I pointed out that knowing how to use a tool (computers) can’t substitute for an entire branch of knowledge (computer science).

Hence why I confined my point to introduction classes. Something which you ignored. I never said common use makes everything an expert on say IT, administration, services, etc. The intro course teach basics like how to use windows. Did you need a class to figure out how to use windows? Send an email? Use MSword? The only people I know that need this course are seniors and those outside first world nations that do not have PCs as common commodities.

I gave an analogy that knowing how to use a calculator is no substitute for learning arithmetic. So the calculator I mentioned is comparable to the computer you mentioned.

My point was confined to introduction course. Only a fool needs a course to figure out how to use a calculator when doing simple math like addition.

Both are tools. The arithmetic that I mentioned, a branch of knowledge, would be comparable to the computer science you mentioned, another branch of knowledge. The tools are in contrast to the fields of knowledge, not comparable. Which is precisely what I wrote and was the point I made.

Again my point was confined to intro courses. Ergo your tool point missed the mark. More so there are no courses to teach someone how to use a calculator.

As I wrote before, saying someone doesn’t need to learn the branch of knowledge, computer science, because they are familiar with one of its tools, computers in this case, is ridiculous. To say teaching computer science is a “waste of money” while teaching evolution absolutely necessary shows that your values are askew to the point of causing grave insult and damage to our youth’s education.

Again I was talking about intro courses and why those are wasted resources as it does not teach anything beyond common use. Now if these course were changed to something like coding I would agree. However you never proposed any actual course nor subject. Hence I talked about current programs not something you never stated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... again, school is a place where we should indoctrinate, and we just ought to eliminate those pesky debate clubs and all related Socractic and Hegelian discourse, you know, questioning the status quo, because at every given moment, all science is absolutely right.

Scientists and leading university persons warned Columbus about the demons that would eat him if he sailed off the edge of the Earth. Which demons are eating you this week, Polymath?

To add to @Polymath257 's post. No, the reason that early "scientists" nixed Columbus's early attempts was that they were not idiots. They knew how large the Earth is, at least much more accurately than Columbus did. They knew the sort of ships that were available could not make that journey. Columbus both overestimated how large Europe and Asia are and grossly underestimated the distance sailing West to India would be. The claim that others thought the world was flat was an American myth.

Christopher Columbus - Wikipedia

 

[dimmesdale]

Nope. There are fossils and genetic data.

And they extrapolate all that back to an unknown mystery creature. It is junk science.

My point was the lack of medical axioms results in so-called professionals of their era to conclude schizophrenia was not a natural mental condition but a spiritual matter requiring spiritual professionals to cure. Ergo without practical limits schizophrenia was seen as demonic possession

Well i am not an expert on exorcisms but i think the Catholics rule all that before they start the ritual. If for example talking in a different or obsolete language. You have no point. They all update. That is why they stopped bleeding patients as cures.

No I didn't. I said science uses axioms.

It sounds like damage control on your part since the context was the mystery creature you believe in by faith. Why don't you just admit you believe in the mystery nonhuman common ancestor. Where is all the mountains of evidence?

God is an axiom yet here we are with thousands of dead and current religions not in agreement.

If they all agreed then critics would find another excuse to whine. If they are Theists, then none would agree with atheists.

Block me or take your discussion to Christian DIR. I can freely comment in this thread.

I could also just ignore. That being if it is too difficult for you to have a civil discussion. It is probably a stacked deck here. Not a level playing field. If i decide to stick around, which is unlikely then i may look into it. As it is i don't have a lot of time for rudeness. It is unprofessional and nobody has to put up with it. I don't know what you do but in my field folks like you would be out the door.

Dover trial....

That was in one county. It really meant nothing. There are plenty of Bibles in schools. Teachers also teach the Bible at churches. Students do reports on Bible stories. It depends on which part of the country the school is located. Students find evolution boring. They don't give a rip. The best thing is students challenging which sparks some interest with other students. None of it is experimental, historical is less reliable, not even considered science by many in the experimental fields. Critics never make the distinction so you are on thin ice in the first place. Not one of you has made any sort of case for the common ancestor mystery creature you all believe in via faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And they extrapolate all that back to an unknown mystery creature. It is junk science.
Well i am not an expert on exorcisms but i think the Catholics rule all that before they start the ritual. If for example talking in a different or obsolete language. You have no point. They all update. That is why they stopped bleeding patients as cures.
It sounds like damage control on your part since the context was the mystery creature you believe in by faith. Why don't you just admit you believe in the mystery nonhuman common ancestor. Where is all the mountains of evidence?
If they all agreed then critics would find another excuse to whine. If they are Theists, then none would agree with atheists.
I could also just ignore. That being if it is too difficult for you to have a civil discussion. It is probably a stacked deck here. Not a level playing field. If i decide to stick around, which is unlikely then i may look into it. As it is i don't have a lot of time for rudeness. It is unprofessional and nobody has to put up with it. I don't know what you do but in my field folks like you would be out the door.
That was in one county. It really meant nothing. There are plenty of Bibles in schools. Teachers also teach the Bible at churches. Students do reports on Bible stories. It depends on which part of the country the school is located. Students find evolution boring. They don't give a rip. The best thing is students challenging which sparks some interest with other students. None of it is experimental, historical is less reliable, not even considered science by many in the experimental fields. Critics never make the distinction so you are on thin ice in the first place. Not one of you has made any sort of case for the common ancestor mystery creature you all believe in via faith.

Just because you do not understand the science does not make it junk science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which "mystery creature" are you referring to?

Human Fossil Record | Learn Science at Scitable
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia
Human evolution - The fossil evidence

 

[Shad]

And they extrapolate all that back to an unknown mystery creature. It is junk science.

Define said mystery creature

Well i am not an expert on exorcisms but i think the Catholics rule all that before they start the ritual. If for example talking in a different or obsolete language. You have no point. They all update. That is why they stopped bleeding patients as cures.

No I have a point. When medical science started to use methodological naturalism all the spiritual nonsense became junk medicine. Ergo the axioms which you disregard revolutionized medicine.

It sounds like damage control on your part since the context was the mystery creature you believe in by faith.

Strawman. At no point have I talked about a mystery creature nor reference it.

Why don't you just admit you believe in the mystery nonhuman common ancestor. Where is all the mountains of evidence?

Strawman. Mystery creature is a made up term used by you. One I have never mentioned.

If they all agreed then critics would find another excuse to whine. If they are Theists, then none would agree with atheists.

Nope. Just that a shared methodology does not guarantee an absolute agreement. Like revelation.

That being if it is too difficult for you to have a civil discussion.

If you didn't strawman there would be no issue.

It is probably a stacked deck here. Not a level playing field. If i decide to stick around, which is unlikely then i may look into it. As it is i don't have a lot of time for rudeness. It is unprofessional and nobody has to put up with it. I don't know what you do but in my field folks like you would be out the door.

This isn't a job nor workplace. This isn't a discussion between experts in a field. I am not biologist and you certainly are not.

That was in one county. It really meant nothing.

You brought up court. I cited a case in which you side lost. Now you dismiss it and concede the court point you made.

There are plenty of Bibles in schools. Teachers also teach the Bible at churches. Students do reports on Bible stories. It depends on which part of the country the school is located. Students find evolution boring.

Depends on the course. Evolution was only a few chapters over 3 grade school course here; bio 10-12.

They don't give a rip. The best thing is students challenging which sparks some interest with other students.

Boredom does not equate a lack a challenge just a lack of engagement. There were plenty of students back when I was in HS that were bored, did anything but school work but were never A students. This was before an era of smartphone, wifi, etc. Ergo those students didn't lack an intellectual challenge thus it is not an educational issue. Teachers are not entertainers. More so some of the student issues are personal thus it is their and their family's problem.

None of it is experimental, historical is less reliable, not even considered science by many in the experimental fields.

Experimental isn't confined to lab work....

Critics never make the distinction so you are on thin ice in the first place.

Like you just did?

Not one of you has made any sort of case for the common ancestor mystery creature you all believe in via faith.

Another strawman

 

[Shad]

Which "mystery creature" are you referring to?

The million dollar question. Such a purposely ambiguous term could go back from Cro-Magnon to the primordial ooze

 

[ecco]

School, like a forum, is a place for some discussion, some debate, some indoctrination/rote learning. I dislike when skeptics say general (false!) statements like "we shouldn't debate evolution in school (but we can debate other things, right?)!"

Personally I would love to see evolution/creationism taught/debated starting in freshman high school. I'd also like to see Christianity, Judaism, Islam and atheism taught/debated.

I guarantee that any school that did this would be picketed by the Christian Right and a few other groups as well.