What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[tas8831]

'Scientists' told us how much cleaner diesels were, and then we found out the devious deceptions, and now, frankly, you don't care.

This all started with your reply on page 1 about having to learn things in school that don't really matter, like calculus.

Are you this bored?

 

[tas8831]

... and you replied:-
See, there you go again disparaging science.

And this seems to be your problem......... you think that I disparage SCIENCE, but I don't...

What we call SCIENCE today is what we rubbish and forget about tomorrow, all the time preening our arrogance as intellectuals, when in fact we're just a bunch of silly monkeys who developed enough to smash everything up......... that's not SCIENCE, that's idiocy.

Wow, your posts are totally coherent and internally consistent!

 

[gnostic]

The antagonism is coming overwhelmingly from only factions of Christianity, such as the Southern Baptists, and the non-denominational churches. Groups that usually identify themselves as Evangelicals.

Don’t forget the JW. They are really big in indoctrination to the Watch Tower dogma.

 

[gnostic]

The first anti-science film I recall clearly was Spielberg's ghastly "Close Encounters (1977)". This was the first anti-rational sci-fi story I came across and I still recall how appalled I was as I left the cinema.

Actually, this film had different effect on me: it bored me to tears.

I thought it was even more boring than the Space Odyssey, and that’s saying a lot.

 

[sooda]

Don’t forget the JW. They are really big in indoctrination to the Watch Tower dogma.

I agree the groups that are anti-science tend to be fundamentalists and evangelicals. I mean .. If they are going to be raptured any minute why bother with pollution or climate change?

 

[gnostic]

Well there is science say the observation of global climate change and there is politics. So are you complaining about science or politics?

Those politicians who opposed global change, were more often than not, have little to no background in science education, and therefore have very little authority to say what is or isn’t science.

Most of them have backgrounds in law (eg lawyers), economics and journalism (usually political journalists), so the majority of these politicians are not experts in science.

 

[gnostic]

If they are going to be raptured any minute why bother with pollution or climate change?

I loved this line. It’s funny but also true.

 

[gnostic]

I have no problem with science — my own background is scientific — but I have considerable problems with scientism. So long as there have been scientists like Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan, etc who set themselves up as prophets of atheism and dishonestly (or at best ignorantly) claim that their scientific background confers some sort of authority on them, they are bound to bring unjustified discredit on science.

Sorry, but I am no fan of any of them, including Hawking.

But from what I understand Hawking was less anti-religion, as he seemed far more welcoming to religions.

Beside all that, the word prophet is only ever used in religion, particularly Abrahamic religions. That to me, is your dishonesty, in misusing this word.

 

[sooda]

I loved this line. It’s funny but also true.

I know and it gets on my last nerve. Rapture my fanny.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the above....... I had no idea.

That is not streaming.
It's not for me to suggest the subject matter for average kids in your area, but 'general education' here tends to end at 16 yrs and pupils will have from 3 to about 8 Secondary school and/or Ordinary level qualifications according to their abilities and disabilities, and then move on the Advanced education in about 2-3 subjects. Some children leave school at 16yrs and go into college education for foundation training...... I spoke with a 16yr old only yesterday who attends college for health and hygene studies because that is the entry level qualification to train for Social Services work.

Here, we have mandatory school between ages 5 and 18. High school starts at age 14 (usually) and people don't go to college until 18 or 19.

But apart from elementary Chemistry and Biology the other subjects that you mentioned are inappropriate. Biology could focus better on reproduction, calculus is totally unnecessary for average intellects that will be in everyday employments, world history is far too complex a subject etc etc.....

I strongly disagree. Biology should look at the diversity of life, and calculus *is* a basic part of math these days. Are we trying to train our students for the jobs they had 50 years ago? or are we trying to train them for the jobs they will have in *their* future? Because *their* future will be tech dominated, require programming skills, the ability to think through a plan and actualize it (programming!), knowledge of the basics of most areas of science, and the ability to speak at least one other language.

You're tending to think of the fastest, most capable pupils all the time, it seems. Education is about preparing everybody adequately for their future chances and roles in the community. Calculus?

Yes, calculus: the study of how things change and how to present that mathematically. I assure you that the people these students will be competing with will have calculus in high school. The US is one of the few places that does not. And the ability to think thorugh a problem and get a solution is fundamental.

Clearly, you know you're wrong, just from your own later descriptions of university level pupils who you have known who clearly could not do such things.......... and the failure probably lies because somebody is setting the bar too high rather than aiming for achievable goals...?

No, the failure rate at universities is because the bar isn't set high enough at the lower levels. The goals are achievable for a general population, but we have to start early and continue to promote education throughout. We do a very poor job of that.

Probably because calculus and world history is being shoved at them rather than basic comprehension and elementary mathematics, etc.

Elementary mathematics (through long division) should be solidly understood by the end of elementary school (6th grade=12 years old). After that, move directly into algebra, geometry and trigonometry without repeating ourselves every year.

You or another on this thread didn't like the idea of pupils thinking and researching for themselves!

You misunderstood me. Students don't have the basics to do *real* research, for the most part. They *should* be encouraged to think through problems and how to ask good questions. They shoudl also be shown the best techniques for finding answers (i.e, science). But they simply don't have enough below the graduate level to actually do the real research that leads to answers to some of the more fundamental questions; for these, the best thing is to learn what others have done (as tentative understanding) and encourage them to go on to graduate school themselves.

If your lesson plans are rubbish, and it looks like your schools are in trouble from your description, it's not the lesson-plan technique (which offers equal education and chance for all within the same streamed range).

I reckon its because you call them students, lecture them rather than use 'involved and inclusive deliveries' in bite sized chunks and set the bars far too high. Fast kids will reach these bars to go on faster in higher streams, slower kids will get optimised education at slower speeds with easier subject matter.

Lectures are on technique. Homework to encourage drill of the ideas is another, encouraging questions in class is another. The only 'lesson plan' that is ever needed is an idea of what should be covered and an enthusiasms and knowledge of the subject. And a willingness to go offtrack if the students need it.

Basic computer programming?
That's why they can't 'long-divide'!!
You set the bars high up and many not-only don't make it, but they never got taught the basics! This is all elitism in education.

Are we talking about college? or elementary school? We should be doing basic programming in elementary school as well as long division. By the time they get to college, these skills shoudl be solidly understood.

Of course teachers cannot program.......... but many of them are jolly good teachers!

Not for what the students are going to need for *their* lives. They need programming skills. If the teachers don't know how to program, they cannot teach that.

Kids that can't add and multiply probably got stuffed with complex and totally unnecessary 'stuff'. I don't know how your schools teach, but if children are interested then they learn very very fast, but to sit 'em down and lecture them is educational death.

Again, the failure is at the elementary school level. They don't know how to add and multiply because of the stupid way they are taught at the elementary level. Maybe if we actually set high goals for them and expect them to learn, they will rise to the occasion (if we have teachers that are worth their pay, that is).

 

[sooda]

Here, we have mandatory school between ages 5 and 18. High school starts at age 14 (usually) and people don't go to college until 18 or 19.



I strongly disagree. Biology should look at the diversity of life, and calculus *is* a basic part of math these days. Are we trying to train our students for the jobs they had 50 years ago? or are we trying to train them for the jobs they will have in *their* future? Because *their* future will be tech dominated, require programming skills, the ability to think through a plan and actualize it (programming!), knowledge of the basics of most areas of science, and the ability to speak at least one other language.



Yes, calculus: the study of how things change and how to present that mathematically. I assure you that the people these students will be competing with will have calculus in high school. The US is one of the few places that does not. And the ability to think thorugh a problem and get a solution is fundamental.



No, the failure rate at universities is because the bar isn't set high enough at the lower levels. The goals are achievable for a general population, but we have to start early and continue to promote education throughout. We do a very poor job of that.



Elementary mathematics (through long division) should be solidly understood by the end of elementary school (6th grade=12 years old). After that, move directly into algebra, geometry and trigonometry without repeating ourselves every year.



You misunderstood me. Students don't have the basics to do *real* research, for the most part. They *should* be encouraged to think through problems and how to ask good questions. They shoudl also be shown the best techniques for finding answers (i.e, science). But they simply don't have enough below the graduate level to actually do the real research that leads to answers to some of the more fundamental questions; for these, the best thing is to learn what others have done (as tentative understanding) and encourage them to go on to graduate school themselves.



Lectures are on technique. Homework to encourage drill of the ideas is another, encouraging questions in class is another. The only 'lesson plan' that is ever needed is an idea of what should be covered and an enthusiasms and knowledge of the subject. And a willingness to go offtrack if the students need it.



Are we talking about college? or elementary school? We should be doing basic programming in elementary school as well as long division. By the time they get to college, these skills shoudl be solidly understood.



Not for what the students are going to need for *their* lives. They need programming skills. If the teachers don't know how to program, they cannot teach that.



Again, the failure is at the elementary school level. They don't know how to add and multiply because of the stupid way they are taught at the elementary level. Maybe if we actually set high goals for them and expect them to learn, they will rise to the occasion (if we have teachers that are worth their pay, that is).

Isn't Algebra 1 and 2 and geometry standard for 7th , 8th and 9th grade? It was at my school and for my children as well.

 

[oldbadger]

Buildings still fall and catch fire. That wouldn't happen if they were perfect.

That wouldn't happen if the science was right.

Diabetics are mis-medicated. That wouldn't happen if medicine were perfect.

That wouldn't happen if science had researched.

A medication intended to do good turned out bad. That wouldn't have happened if research was perfect.

Like Epilim? That wouldn't have happened if the science research had been competent. And it was sad that the truth was hidden for 40 years.

Maybe you should QuitYerB1tch1n and acknowledge all the good that science and engineering have done.

Science is fine. Is the Quasi-science, the quackery, the pseudo-science masgerading as genuine which is the problem. Big example? Global warming.

You (or yours) will be *****in' soon if yer home is at sea level.

 

[oldbadger]

10.

Wot? 10 examples?

And you provided not examples there,..........

Ah! So gave examples and you just dump them! I don't do homework for the likes of you!

But Epilim, The Grenfell Tower Fire, Using aluminium cladding in tower blocks (it burns so fast!), Global warming, Thalidomide, thousands of diabetes deaths p.a. that can be avoided, fumes in cities, Thousands of extinctions p.a. where do you want to start?

I like science, I just despise the quacks, and there are so many.

You really shouldn't offer to do things that you have no intention of doing.

Already donme on mamy previous posts.
But you are in denial.
If you're a scientist, then you'll despise the quacks as well.

 

[oldbadger]

Wow, your posts are totally coherent and internally consistent!

I knew you'd get there in the end.

Are you a scientist? If so, what do you do?

 

[oldbadger]

Here, we have mandatory school between ages 5 and 18. High school starts at age 14 (usually) and people don't go to college until 18 or 19.

Wow! The care you took with that post. Thankyou.

Let me just reply to a small part of it now.........


Ah....... it's that our titles have separated.
I went to College at 13 (your high school?) and nearly all colleges have now been reversed in to, or renamed, 'universities'. I learned teaching delivery at Christ-Church College which is now part of Kent University. etc.

But our youth can leave school at 16yrs here.

I strongly disagree. Biology should look at the diversity of life, and calculus *is* a basic part of math these days. Are we trying to train our students for the jobs they had 50 years ago? or are we trying to train them for the jobs they will have in *their* future? Because *their* future will be tech dominated, require programming skills, the ability to think through a plan and actualize it (programming!), knowledge of the basics of most areas of science, and the ability to speak at least one other language.

What % of folks will need calculus? Programming skills?
I like general science subjects..... very useful for all, and although I was taught two other languages at school I never did become even barely competent with them. Yes, I think we should all be competent in a second language, if not fluent.

Here's a problem. A young woman 'A' qualified well in 3 A-level subjects and was accepted at a Northern University to read specialised archeology in fossil remains. She was seconded to a Canadian University where she worked in the field for a year and she graduated with a first degree in her subject (I don't know its name). On leaving Uni she took a year's break and now she works for a National Daily paper in the 'Marriages, Engagements, Births, Deaths and Announcements' section of that paper.

Here's a perceived problem with your general education model.
A list of workers in one week of my life....... ( if you can't win with wit, bore 'em to death )
Only 2 workers that I met with last week need calculus! imo.
You'll know 'em, I'm sure, but what about all the others?

1. My neighbour is a painter and decorator. He earns a good living because he can paint to very high standards at a very fast speed.

2. Two men layed a new flat roof on a neighbour's porch after a bad storm. They used new technology with special sheeting and cool-lay adhesives.

3. My visiting J.W. evangelist is a qualified electrician.

4. The above J.W.'s son is a bricklayer. He is highly skilled and can lay arches for bridges.

5. My mate hired a tree-surgeon to cut down/remove large overgrown trees that were dangerous. (Calculus...... yep)

6. I see my postman every day.

7. My wife is a vet's receptionist.

8. The lady over the road is a TEFL teacher. (Teaching English as a foreign language)

9. The man who lives next door is a civil-engineer working abroad in Houston, Texas. (Calculus.... yep)

10. The man over the road works on a trafic-cone laying team.

It goes on........ the shop workers, the bus driver, local gardeners, the lady who breeds rag-doll cats....

Our Societies need people with skills, many different skills, and we will not be balanced if our education system is too elitist.

I must respond to all your post later today.

 

[ecco]

Maybe you should QuitYerB1tch1n and acknowledge all the good that science and engineering have done.

Science is fine. Is the Quasi-science, the quackery, the pseudo-science masgerading as genuine which is the problem. Big example? Global warming.

You (or yours) will be *****in' soon if yer home is at sea level.

It took you over a month to respond to my comments!?!

Previously you were arguing that science is bad because it doesn't know everything.

Now you are griping about pseudo-science and giving AGW as an example.

But, that's understandable. You won't be around then, so why should care...

Rising sea levels will claim homes around English coast, report warns

Rising sea levels will claim homes, roads and fields around the coast of England, the government’s official advisers have warned, and many people are unaware of the risks they face.​

London under threat of 'sinking' as global warming makes sea levels rise, new report finds

London is among the cities identified as being at risk of major flooding, according to a new report.​

It's obvious to all thinking people that man's activities have no effect on the environment.

ETA: I just noticed from your posts that you are a JW even though your info says "deist". JW explains why you need to rant against science.

 

[oldbadger]

I strongly disagree.

Ok..... I've been able to search about a bit more now, and offer the following:

Biology should look at the diversity of life,

Ok..... but in the slower group classes biology is usually linked with chemistry and physics in one subject called 'general science', so biology will need to be less deep than you might hope for.

and calculus *is* a basic part of math these days. Are we trying to train our students for the jobs they had 50 years ago? or are we trying to train them for the jobs they will have in *their* future?

It doesn't look like this is possible. I'm not anti-calculus for faster minds, but the USA average IQ (nor the UK!) does not seem best suited to calculus studies.

These are just some of the key sentences that I saw during a brief search about the delivery of calculus to school pupils:-
125 is the lower boundary if you want to be doing it well.
or...................
Calculus likely requires a higher level of intelligence to understand (rather than memorize formulas and come away with a mishmash of incoherent facts). I'd guess around 115-120.
and
USA Most people (about 68 percent) have an IQ between 85 and 115. Only a small fraction of people have a very low IQ (below 70) or a very high IQ (above 130). The average IQ in the United States is 98.

The specialists in delivering teaching to children of various ages and abilities have to be given respect and listened to, or children are not going to be prepared for the best opportunities that their acasemic skills can cope with.

Because *their* future will be tech dominated, require programming skills, the ability to think through a plan and actualize it (programming!), knowledge of the basics of most areas of science, and the ability to speak at least one other language.

Kids are mostly very interested in IT and basic general science, a second language, History, Art, Elementary Maths, Geography and English are all great subjects, plus any that suit individual abilities.

Yes, calculus:

Other specialists seem to feel that an above average ability is required for best results here.

Lectures are on technique.

Children tend not to respond to lectures. They lose the connection with the speaker and get left behind.
Teachers (of children) do not lecture.

Homework to encourage drill of the ideas is another, encouraging questions in class is another.

All good.

The only 'lesson plan' that is ever needed is an idea of what should be covered and an enthusiasms and knowledge of the subject. And a willingness to go offtrack if the students need it.

If an educational body does not standardise curriculums and lesson plans then it simply loses control. If the body is inept then change it.

Are we talking about college? or elementary school? We should be doing basic programming in elementary school as well as long division. By the time they get to college, these skills shoudl be solidly understood.

Up to 16 years ........... after that pupils can be aimed and focused based upon the abilities that they have shown.
It's all about accurate aims and best objectives.

Not for what the students are going to need for *their* lives. They need programming skills. If the teachers don't know how to program, they cannot teach that.

Children at Primary school (here) are learning to use computers.
I don't know you but it's possible that some 10 year olds could give you a run for your money!
I'm all for teaching kids IT at the earliestr ages.

Again, the failure is at the elementary school level. They don't know how to add and multiply because of the stupid way they are taught at the elementary level. Maybe if we actually set high goals for them and expect them to learn, they will rise to the occasion (if we have teachers that are worth their pay, that is).

I don't have intimate knowledge about teaching methods at schools today, although child management (here) seems to be a big big problem.

Hey! This morning I disconnected our old washing machine and put it outside to take to the dump. While I was unpacking the new one a lad of about 17-18 knocked on our door and asked if the old one was for dumping. I answered 'yes' and he offered to take it immediately for scrap; put it in his van and after asking if I had any more metal he left. That kid (I'm 70yrs) is going to get bny just fine and I'll bet he could leave me standing in IT knowledge. Young people can do things that (I'm guessing) you and I cannot. They've got abilities we've never even thought of. It's not going to be a 'pure science' world out there......... we need to give our youth a say in how they prepare for a world that we cannot go to.

 

[Jose Fly]

"I love the uneducated."
Taken as an endearing quip, but most likely an open insult demonstrating that even insulting them will not make them change their minds.
Sadly, I am seeing more and more anti-education memes and shares on social media, and these get 'likes' and supporting comments from people that I would not have expected to do so. It is all well and good to acknowledge that trade schools are great, but to do so while denigrating "worthless" degrees is unnecessary.**

In my experience, it most commonly extends from a type of insecurity.

1. 'Universities' require students to learn about transgender/gay issues, etc.
Maybe some do, but not all. I think mine has an anti-intolerance workshop at freshman orientation, but that is about it,. And even if all did so - we would be talking about what - maybe a 3-credit class? 3 out of 120+ credits? Oh, the fascism of it all!

What's sad is that the vast majority of those workshops and the like just give the simple messages of "LGBTQ people exist and deserve to be treated like anyone else". But to folks of a more fundamentalist bent, that's akin to "shoving it in their faces and forcing them to accept their lifestyles".

Fortunately I think that's mostly a generational thing and will soon be a relic of a bygone era.

2. Professors are millionaires - and all from tax money!
Whatever... The only millionaire professors I know of are those who pimp themselves out to Big Tobacco or Big Oil to testify or write essays claiming nicotine is not addictive and that burning fossil fuels does not pollute. Or the rare handful that make the transition to successful writer or TV guest (e.g., Sagan, Tyson, Gould). These are few and far between. The overwhelming majority make less than 100k (and those that make more than that are generally business or engineering professors, who do no more work than anyone else but get paid more because of the "market"... such BS... do I sound bitter? YES.)...

That's always funny coming from conservatives....as if suddenly they see making a good living as a bad thing.

3. Universities push liberal propaganda and are biased against conservatives.
Lots of information about this "bias" - my personal take, in my field, anyway, are that conservatives are generally not interested in teaching and doing research (unless they can make a lot of money) and thus do not apply for such positions.
And as with the transgender thing, the liberal bias thing is probably only an issue in certain classes taught by certain instructors. The only classes that I can ever remember taking that had a bias were, in fact, those with a conservative bias (an American government class, and a World History class).
In my classes, for example, I literally do not even mention politics or religion or anything that could be considered a 'liberal bias' - unless, of course, one considers science to b e a liberal thing. Which is sort of is these days, thanks to the anti-intellectualism of a certain party.
In my 20 years, I have only ever mentioned politics or religion in response to specific questions (1 student asked me if I 'believed in God or evolution' back in about 2000, and another asked me what I thought about Trump getting elected... and that is pretty much it...Oh, well, I did point out how stupid Michelle Bachmann is in my immunology class after she said that the HPV vaccine caused the child of someone at one of her rallies to become "retarded"...).

Yup. If conservatives "self deport" (to paraphrase Romney) from higher education, they can't then turn around and complain about how liberal higher education is!

 

[ecco]

Fortunately I think that's mostly a generational thing and will soon be a relic of a bygone era.

The more radical theists will continue to indoctrinate their children.

 

[Jose Fly]

The more radical theists will continue to indoctrinate their children.

Sure, there'll always be some, but I think we'll eventually get to the point where such folks are irrelevant.