Lettow still makes the state look more ridiculous.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/tennessee-science-bill-al_n_1368261.html?ref=education
QuoteTennessee Science Bill Allowing Discussion Of Creationism In Schools Passes State Senate
The Tennessee state Senate passed a bill Monday that protects teachers who allow student to question and criticize "controversial" scientific theories like evolution.
The Senate voted 24-8 for SB 893, which would allow teachers to help students "understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories" like "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
"The idea behind this bill is that students should be encouraged to challenge current scientific thought and theory," Republican state Sen. Bo Watson told The Tennesseean. Watson is the bill's sponsor.
The proposal also instructs teachers on how to comfortably and appropriately "address students' concerns about certain scientific theories" within a curriculum established by the Board of Education. The bill would not affect the state's science curriculum.
Democratic opponents of the bill, however, question whether the motives behind the measure are more political than educational. Democratic Sen. Andy Berke said the bill would cast Tennessee in a negative light, referencing the state's historical battleground for evolution in education.
"We're simply dredging up the problems of our past with this bill that will affect our future," Berke told The Tennessean. "I'm a person of faith. If my children ask, 'How does that mesh with my faith?' I don't want their teacher answering that question."
The measure has also drawn staunch opposition from several groups, including the National Center for Science Education and the American Civil Liberties Union. In a statement to legislators, eight Tennesseans who are members of the National Academy of Science said the bill will likely lead to "scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution," the Knoxville News-Sentinel reports.
"By undermining the teaching of evolution in Tennessee's public schools, HB368 and SB893 would miseducate students, harm the state's national reputation, and weaken its efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy," the statement reads.
A version of the legislation passed the state House last April, and now the revised Senate version returns to the House for a vote. Gov. Bill Haslam said Monday he would discuss the bill with the state Board of Education.
"It is a fair question what the general assembly's role is," he said. "That's why we have a state board of education."
The move among Tennessee lawmakers is one of several across the country that seeks more wiggle room for discussion or of intelligent design in public schools. Indiana legislators in January moved forward on a bill that would allow school districts to decide whether to include creationism alongside teachings of evolution in science curriculum.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/indiana-senate-creationism-teaching-bill_n_1234185.html?ir=Education
Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Missouri have also considered similar bills designed to encourage critical examination of evolution theory.
Research from two Pennsylvania State University professors revealed last year that the majority of public school biology teachers in the U.S. shy away from teaching evolution because they're either unwilling or unprepared to teach it: some advocate creationism while others are afraid to address the topic for fear of controversy.
According to results of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federal test known as the Nation's Report Card, less than half of U.S. fourth-, eighth- and 12-th grade students were considered proficient in science.
will the students be encouraged to challenge current theological thought and theory?
Will this be applicable to all scientific theories?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.cheezburger.com%2Fcompletestore%2F2011%2F2%2F12%2F49b38982-f8da-4a4f-81a4-a0e33e4d8d1b.jpg&hash=7cfa12dacfb295719524c68ac24fe527002a8465)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation)
No it's not. :contract:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FTroll_b8fb24_2877618.jpg&hash=e465eeeaf027facb6bd47416a6179c278e5f56c3)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 04:10:29 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FTroll_b8fb24_2877618.jpg&hash=e465eeeaf027facb6bd47416a6179c278e5f56c3)
Nice Red "X" :lol:
Now I see two... :huh:
I'll have to try the cat and butter thing. I dont believe that. 40-50 foot drop test should confirm the results.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 22, 2012, 04:17:29 AM
I'll have to try the cat and butter thing. I dont believe that. 40-50 foot drop test should confirm the results.
When you launch the cat, be sure to use proper grain load.
We have had that in Texas forever and what it meant for me was 'ok so there is this creationism thing...but enough about that on to the science curriculum'. And it seems like this is the same thing as it will not impact the science curriculum. Maybe I am just ignorant but I do not see the harm in just mentioning this issue in schools.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:22:19 AM
Maybe I am just ignorant but I do not see the harm in just mentioning this issue in schools.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning it in school--
Sunday School.
Quoteand appropriately "address students' concerns about certain scientific theories" within a curriculum established by the Board of Education.
LOL, like the students are the ones with the concerns. Just come out and say it, "students' Bible-thumping parents' concerns".
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:22:19 AM
We have had that in Texas forever and what it meant for me was 'ok so there is this creationism thing...but enough about that on to the science curriculum'. And it seems like this is the same thing as it will not impact the science curriculum. Maybe I am just ignorant but I do not see the harm in just mentioning this issue in schools.
Can we mention "that vaccination causes autism" in schools too as an alternative hypothesis to vaccines wiping out polio and smallpox? Maybe we can have the career counselors in high school talk about how chiropractors, homeopaths, and astrologists are wonderful and respectable career choices as well. There is absolutely no harm in polluting our nation's children with pseudoscience instruction from the government. It's not like it legitimizes it in the minds of the public at all.
i went to catholic school so we had the whole creationism thing, which is fine, but they were good enough to keep it out of science class. I blame protties. Damn literalists.
Quote from: HVC on March 22, 2012, 10:53:20 AM
i went to catholic school so we had the whole creationism thing, which is fine, but they were good enough to keep it out of science class. I blame protties. Damn literalists.
Nobody ever mentioned creationism in Catholic school to me.
Question: Was there a previous law that prohibited students from questioning a scientific theory before?
Quote from: Fate on March 22, 2012, 09:41:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:22:19 AM
We have had that in Texas forever and what it meant for me was 'ok so there is this creationism thing...but enough about that on to the science curriculum'. And it seems like this is the same thing as it will not impact the science curriculum. Maybe I am just ignorant but I do not see the harm in just mentioning this issue in schools.
Can we mention "that vaccination causes autism" in schools too as an alternative hypothesis to vaccines wiping out polio and smallpox? Maybe we can have the career counselors in high school talk about how chiropractors, homeopaths, and astrologists are wonderful and respectable career choices as well. There is absolutely no harm in polluting our nation's children with pseudoscience instruction from the government. It's not like it legitimizes it in the minds of the public at all.
Some of those make good money. It's the counselor's job to help kids find good paying jobs (has long as they're not illegal).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2012, 11:07:03 AM
Quote from: Fate on March 22, 2012, 09:41:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:22:19 AM
We have had that in Texas forever and what it meant for me was 'ok so there is this creationism thing...but enough about that on to the science curriculum'. And it seems like this is the same thing as it will not impact the science curriculum. Maybe I am just ignorant but I do not see the harm in just mentioning this issue in schools.
Can we mention "that vaccination causes autism" in schools too as an alternative hypothesis to vaccines wiping out polio and smallpox? Maybe we can have the career counselors in high school talk about how chiropractors, homeopaths, and astrologists are wonderful and respectable career choices as well. There is absolutely no harm in polluting our nation's children with pseudoscience instruction from the government. It's not like it legitimizes it in the minds of the public at all.
Some of those make good money. It's the counselor's job to help kids find good paying jobs (has long as they're not illegal).
Those aren't good jobs. They're nothing but scam artist professions that are little better than lawyers or Republicans.
Quote from: Fate on March 22, 2012, 09:41:21 AM
Can we mention "that vaccination causes autism" in schools too as an alternative hypothesis to vaccines wiping out polio and smallpox? Maybe we can have the career counselors in high school talk about how chiropractors, homeopaths, and astrologists are wonderful and respectable career choices as well. There is absolutely no harm in polluting our nation's children with pseudoscience instruction from the government. It's not like it legitimizes it in the minds of the public at all.
Sure. Probably the same way. 'There are people who believe Autism is caused by Vaccines. Here is the evidence.' That was how it worked in my classroom.
Quote from: Fate on March 22, 2012, 11:22:46 AM
Those aren't good jobs. They're nothing but scam artist professions that are little better than lawyers or Republicans.
There is no lower scum than the counselor who would advise children to become lawyers.
Retards. Slip it into the history curriculum and you could successfully argue that you're just giving students an early leg up on anthropology. :P
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 12:35:30 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 22, 2012, 09:41:21 AM
Can we mention "that vaccination causes autism" in schools too as an alternative hypothesis to vaccines wiping out polio and smallpox? Maybe we can have the career counselors in high school talk about how chiropractors, homeopaths, and astrologists are wonderful and respectable career choices as well. There is absolutely no harm in polluting our nation's children with pseudoscience instruction from the government. It's not like it legitimizes it in the minds of the public at all.
Sure. Probably the same way. 'There are people who believe Autism is caused by Vaccines. Here is the evidence.' That was how it worked in my classroom.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_B-LiOWHSedc%2FTLw3ZrI3qmI%2FAAAAAAAABiI%2FnZos7GusHaI%2Fs1600%2Fastronomy%2Band%2Bastrology.jpg&hash=44b7accc9cc5330d5d9f45a0871366866aa6be54)
OK. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2F0055_06.gif&hash=4ba82391e0e6350618cfcb898337c0f7219aa0e1)
There are a lot of people who actually believe that it is illegal to pray in school in the US. That is not the case. I think it's illegal to for a teacher to lead the class in prayer or any religious ceremony in a public school, but that's not the say as saying prayer is illegal.
Quote from: The Brain on March 24, 2012, 10:57:59 AM
OK. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2F0055_06.gif&hash=4ba82391e0e6350618cfcb898337c0f7219aa0e1)
Here's the full Chick Tract Big Daddy (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)
The point by point refutation of Big Daddy from Iron Chariots (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Big_Daddy%3F_%28Chick_tract%29)
Edit: I realize the irony of my presenting you with both sides of an issue and letting you decide while arguing that this should not be done in the classroom.
You have a wiki in place to tell you what to say to every known argument for the existence of God. :unsure: That's really weird.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2012, 11:21:00 AM
You have a wiki in place to tell you what to say to every known argument for the existence of God. :unsure: That's really weird.
A quick google of "catholic apologetics (http://www.google.no/search?q=pseudoscience&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nb-NO:official&client=firefox-a#hl=no&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&pq=pseudoscience&cp=14&gs_id=3s&xhr=t&q=catholic+apologetics&pf=p&client=firefox-a&hs=WpU&rls=org.mozilla:nb-NO%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=catholic+apolo&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f8127981a8db9cb8&biw=1363&bih=982)"
gives me one million sevenhundred and thirty thousand hits. If one makes me wierd, how wierd does 1,730,000 make you?
Quote from: Viking on March 24, 2012, 11:27:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2012, 11:21:00 AM
You have a wiki in place to tell you what to say to every known argument for the existence of God. :unsure: That's really weird.
A quick google of "catholic apologetics (http://www.google.no/search?q=pseudoscience&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nb-NO:official&client=firefox-a#hl=no&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&pq=pseudoscience&cp=14&gs_id=3s&xhr=t&q=catholic+apologetics&pf=p&client=firefox-a&hs=WpU&rls=org.mozilla:nb-NO%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=catholic+apolo&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f8127981a8db9cb8&biw=1363&bih=982)"
gives me one million sevenhundred and thirty thousand hits. If one makes me wierd, how wierd does 1,730,000 make you?
Are any of them wikis? Are all of them actually websites that promote "Catholic apologetic"? Here I can type in "Atheism Defense" http://www.google.com/search?q=Athiesm+defense&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=w0U&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=9vZtT_PhEofO2AX36t3xAQ&ved=0CB4QvwUoAQ&q=Atheism+defense&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=61ced53140c9a9e9&biw=1600&bih=766 I got 12 million and half hits. I don't think that the number of hits on Google means a great deal, but you seem to.
I think I see why you need this wiki to tell you what to say now. Carry on. :)
googling "catholic apologetics" gives 1,73 million
googling catholic defense gives 115 million
But, you do make the point that not all 1,73 million sites are catholic apologetics sites, they might be pages referring to catholic apologetics. The first 40 listed are catholic apologetics sites or sites selling books on catholic apologetics. I didn't look any further. However being shocked by what a couple of guys in Austin Texas are doing with a wiki leaves open the question what your view of what the catholic church has been doing these past 2000 years if not asserting something without evidence and then making up arguments to try and justify any counter argument.
I don't think you understand what the word apologetics means and how the Catholic Church invented it.
I understand that I don't have wiki bookmarked to give me arguments and that you do. Still, if you are happy with your Google hits numbers and what ever comfort that provides you, go for it. We all have our little crutches to get us through our lives.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2012, 12:00:43 PM
I understand that I don't have wiki bookmarked to give me arguments and that you do. Still, if you are happy with your Google hits numbers and what ever comfort that provides you, go for it. We all have our little crutches to get us through our lives.
You don't have a wiki bookmarked (I don't either, I just googled ""Big Daddy" "Chick Tract""). You do however have this
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9YiLbQtSBr0/TYZSDQXV27I/AAAAAAAAADI/BNJ2JOh0KCs/bible.jpg)
to tell you what to think.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 22, 2012, 11:22:46 AM
Those aren't good jobs. They're nothing but scam artist professions that are little better than lawyers or Republicans.
There is no lower scum than the counselor who would advise children to become lawyers.
Concur.
As I said, we all have our little crutches. My crutch is religious, yours seems to be intellectual. It's not great shame to have a little help in the areas we have problems with. Carry on.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2012, 11:37:42 AM
Are any of them wikis?
A Catholic wiki would be kind of weird. I could see that with other denominations but the Church is a very hierarchical institution.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 24, 2012, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2012, 11:37:42 AM
Are any of them wikis?
A Catholic wiki would be kind of weird. I could see that with other denominations but the Church is a very hierarchical institution.
Here it is..
The English Language Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM)
only, like Conservapedia, it has only one user, ModSuperuser: Ratzinger1927
I don't understand. Don't they know that with science you are allowed to view theories with skepticism and critical thinking is encouraged?
Quote from: Viking on March 24, 2012, 10:53:59 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_B-LiOWHSedc%2FTLw3ZrI3qmI%2FAAAAAAAABiI%2FnZos7GusHaI%2Fs1600%2Fastronomy%2Band%2Bastrology.jpg&hash=44b7accc9cc5330d5d9f45a0871366866aa6be54)
Meh the difference here is there is lots of popular support for the creationism thing and we have popularly elected school boards. We have to let the people have their way to some extent. I think it can be managed in a reasonable and educational way, as it was at least when I was in school. Obviously I would never vote for anybody who advocated teaching creationism in schools but it is hardly some sort of disaster.
Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology. It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's. It lasted longer in the fringe world. It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out. Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry. It did pave the way for modern Chemistry. So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense. I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics. At least not in the West for several centuries.
Quote from: Viking on March 24, 2012, 10:53:59 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_B-LiOWHSedc%2FTLw3ZrI3qmI%2FAAAAAAAABiI%2FnZos7GusHaI%2Fs1600%2Fastronomy%2Band%2Bastrology.jpg&hash=44b7accc9cc5330d5d9f45a0871366866aa6be54)
I would love to learn alchemy and magic in school.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 11:51:47 PM
Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology. It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's. It lasted longer in the fringe world. It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out. Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry. It did pave the way for modern Chemistry. So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense. I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics. At least not in the West for several centuries.
Phrenology is pseudoscience, and was pseudoscience at the time. Like creationism it did science backwards by identifying features they falsely thought were associated with certain races and ethnicities and declaring that these features were associated with desireable mental traits and skills.
Regardless, when an idea is debunked is irrelevant. There are still phrenologists out there and they are just as ridiculous as astrologers.
People don't think that astrology, magic and phrenology are decent comparisons for creationism is because they erroniouslly think that creationism has any scientific backing. There is no case for any of these pseudosciences, only creationism has religious dogma backing it and consequently hasn't died.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
I don't understand. Don't they know that with science you are allowed to view theories with skepticism and critical thinking is encouraged?
They think that science is just another dogma like religion. They don't understand that science is a process not an assertion of fact without evidence like religion is.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 10:41:38 PM
Meh the difference here is there is lots of popular support for the creationism thing and we have popularly elected school boards. We have to let the people have their way to some extent. I think it can be managed in a reasonable and educational way, as it was at least when I was in school. Obviously I would never vote for anybody who advocated teaching creationism in schools but it is hardly some sort of disaster.
The problem here is that there are people who time to time manage to get creationist majorities elected to these school boards and state curriculum boards (Dover, Pa, Kansas and Texas most recently). These people do this and try to fuck with the biology textbooks. The National Center for Science Education (http://ncse.com/) does monitor and combat this. It's still happening and in the last week Tennessee has passed another so called academic freedom bill (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HB0368&ga=107) singling out evolution and global warming with "strengths and weaknesses" language.
The church is evil and there is evil afoot. :mad:
http://www.care2.com/causes/texas-pastor-kills-neighbors-cat.html
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 02:16:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 11:51:47 PM
Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology. It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's. It lasted longer in the fringe world. It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out. Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry. It did pave the way for modern Chemistry. So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense. I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics. At least not in the West for several centuries.
Phrenology is pseudoscience, and was pseudoscience at the time. Like creationism it did science backwards by identifying features they falsely thought were associated with certain races and ethnicities and declaring that these features were associated with desireable mental traits and skills.
Regardless, when an idea is debunked is irrelevant. There are still phrenologists out there and they are just as ridiculous as astrologers.
People don't think that astrology, magic and phrenology are decent comparisons for creationism is because they erroniouslly think that creationism has any scientific backing. There is no case for any of these pseudosciences, only creationism has religious dogma backing it and consequently hasn't died.
Everybody go read Stephen Jay Gould's (may he rest in peace) The Mismeasure of Man (http://books.google.com/books/about/The_mismeasure_of_man.html?id=WTtTiG4eda0C).
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 02:23:55 AM
The problem here is that there are people who time to time manage to get creationist majorities elected to these school boards and state curriculum boards (Dover, Pa, Kansas and Texas most recently).
And we will roll them back when they get booted out. Unless we are going to re-write the Constitutions of those states or something. I just think they can be appeased without them doing too much damage to science curriculum (and to be perfectly honest unless there is a standardized test involved it is not going to be a super big part except for kids who specifically want to study science).
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 02:16:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 11:51:47 PM
Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology. It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's. It lasted longer in the fringe world. It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out. Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry. It did pave the way for modern Chemistry. So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense. I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics. At least not in the West for several centuries.
Phrenology is pseudoscience, and was pseudoscience at the time. Like creationism it did science backwards by identifying features they falsely thought were associated with certain races and ethnicities and declaring that these features were associated with desireable mental traits and skills.
Regardless, when an idea is debunked is irrelevant. There are still phrenologists out there and they are just as ridiculous as astrologers.
People don't think that astrology, magic and phrenology are decent comparisons for creationism is because they erroniouslly think that creationism has any scientific backing. There is no case for any of these pseudosciences, only creationism has religious dogma backing it and consequently hasn't died.
When an idea is debunked is not irrelevant. :huh: We don't consider the steady state model of the universe Pseudoscience because it is now debunked. It was a the mainstream model for a long period of time. It's simply wrong. I believe phrenology was the first system of trying to tie parts of the brain to different aspects of personality. We do recognize that certain parts of the brain do affect different parts personality (amongst other things). Though I can understand why you might be uncomfortable with it. It is often associated with scientific racism.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2012, 08:12:03 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 02:23:55 AM
The problem here is that there are people who time to time manage to get creationist majorities elected to these school boards and state curriculum boards (Dover, Pa, Kansas and Texas most recently).
And we will roll them back when they get booted out. Unless we are going to re-write the Constitutions of those states or something.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.delawareliberal.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2FSantorum.png&hash=71e9ab216913e250a947ddc6997479ebaa962f27)
Challenge Accepted
If he pulls it off I'll blame you.
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:26:49 AM
If he pulls it off I'll blame you.
Why am I dictator of America or something? What I think makes no difference.
What point are you trying to make here Valmy?
That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?
That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.
Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2012, 08:33:58 AM
What point are you trying to make here Valmy?
That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?
That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.
Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.
My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 08:15:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 02:16:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 11:51:47 PM
Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology. It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's. It lasted longer in the fringe world. It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out. Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry. It did pave the way for modern Chemistry. So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense. I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics. At least not in the West for several centuries.
Phrenology is pseudoscience, and was pseudoscience at the time. Like creationism it did science backwards by identifying features they falsely thought were associated with certain races and ethnicities and declaring that these features were associated with desireable mental traits and skills.
Regardless, when an idea is debunked is irrelevant. There are still phrenologists out there and they are just as ridiculous as astrologers.
People don't think that astrology, magic and phrenology are decent comparisons for creationism is because they erroniouslly think that creationism has any scientific backing. There is no case for any of these pseudosciences, only creationism has religious dogma backing it and consequently hasn't died.
When an idea is debunked is not irrelevant. :huh: We don't consider the steady state model of the universe Pseudoscience because it is now debunked. It was a the mainstream model for a long period of time. It's simply wrong. I believe phrenology was the first system of trying to tie parts of the brain to different aspects of personality. We do recognize that certain parts of the brain do affect different parts personality (amongst other things). Though I can understand why you might be uncomfortable with it. It is often associated with scientific racism.
I realize that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. At what point do I claim that debunking makes something a pseudoscience? Phrenology was non-science trying to look like science; that is why it was pseudoscience. It was always non-science trying to look like science.
Hoyles SS Universe was (and in one sensse still is) science. Hubble's Red-Shift conclusively falsified Hoyles SS hypothesis. Ultimately Hoyles SS Universe Hypothesis did provide substantial parts of what is now known as The Big Bang Hypothesis. The most important contribution Hoyle made was the Solar Reactors. The initial Big Bang Hypothesis did not explain the prevalence of elements heavier than Helium in the ammounts they were found. The only place where we know these heavier elements could have been formed was in the cores of stars and the SS Universe lives on in the Big Bang Hypothesis with the first round of collapsed and exploding stars. We are on the second iteration of stars in this universe, that is why Iron exists at all and why Carl Sagan said that we were all star dust.
Phrenology on the other hand has no contribution to modern neurology or even modern anatomy.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2012, 08:29:06 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:26:49 AM
If he pulls it off I'll blame you.
Why am I dictator of America or something? What I think makes no difference.
You are a convenient target. As an American and a Texan you have had ample opportunities to vote out idiots like Bush and Perry. It's much easier to blame you than to actually address and solve the true causes of the problem.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2012, 08:35:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2012, 08:33:58 AM
What point are you trying to make here Valmy?
That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?
That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.
Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.
My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.
But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2012, 08:35:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2012, 08:33:58 AM
What point are you trying to make here Valmy?
That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?
That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.
Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.
My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.
Great, it's good to know that it doesn't impact science teaching "much" in your anecdotal experience.
I would rather it not impact science teaching at all, myself.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2012, 08:42:23 AMGreat, it's good to know that it doesn't impact science teaching "much" in your anecdotal experience.
I would rather it not impact science teaching at all, myself.
Unfortunately we live in the real world with real political considerations.
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.
Well the Republicans have discovered this as a wedge issue so it is more visible BUT one of the constants of school boards is that it has always attracted religious wackos (also leftwing wackos. Normal people do not care about schools it seems).
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.
Actually, it was the 80s and 90s the religious nutbags started targeting local school board elections as the place to start. And they've been rolling ever since.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2012, 08:29:06 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:26:49 AM
If he pulls it off I'll blame you.
Why am I dictator of America or something? What I think makes no difference.
This is on your head, Valmy.
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 08:15:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 02:16:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 11:51:47 PM
Seems a bit unfair to compare modern neurology with phrenology. It was considered fairly scientific back in 1820's. It lasted longer in the fringe world. It could be seen as a "proto-science" that didn't pan out. Alchemy is an interesting example as it sort of a pre-scientific method of chemistry. It did pave the way for modern Chemistry. So did Astrology for a more limited sense, though in a more limited sense. I don't think anyone every considered "magic" as a replacement for physics. At least not in the West for several centuries.
Phrenology is pseudoscience, and was pseudoscience at the time. Like creationism it did science backwards by identifying features they falsely thought were associated with certain races and ethnicities and declaring that these features were associated with desireable mental traits and skills.
Regardless, when an idea is debunked is irrelevant. There are still phrenologists out there and they are just as ridiculous as astrologers.
People don't think that astrology, magic and phrenology are decent comparisons for creationism is because they erroniouslly think that creationism has any scientific backing. There is no case for any of these pseudosciences, only creationism has religious dogma backing it and consequently hasn't died.
When an idea is debunked is not irrelevant. :huh: We don't consider the steady state model of the universe Pseudoscience because it is now debunked. It was a the mainstream model for a long period of time. It's simply wrong. I believe phrenology was the first system of trying to tie parts of the brain to different aspects of personality. We do recognize that certain parts of the brain do affect different parts personality (amongst other things). Though I can understand why you might be uncomfortable with it. It is often associated with scientific racism.
I realize that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. At what point do I claim that debunking makes something a pseudoscience? Phrenology was non-science trying to look like science; that is why it was pseudoscience. It was always non-science trying to look like science.
Hoyles SS Universe was (and in one sensse still is) science. Hubble's Red-Shift conclusively falsified Hoyles SS hypothesis. Ultimately Hoyles SS Universe Hypothesis did provide substantial parts of what is now known as The Big Bang Hypothesis. The most important contribution Hoyle made was the Solar Reactors. The initial Big Bang Hypothesis did not explain the prevalence of elements heavier than Helium in the ammounts they were found. The only place where we know these heavier elements could have been formed was in the cores of stars and the SS Universe lives on in the Big Bang Hypothesis with the first round of collapsed and exploding stars. We are on the second iteration of stars in this universe, that is why Iron exists at all and why Carl Sagan said that we were all star dust.
Phrenology on the other hand has no contribution to modern neurology or even modern anatomy.
So you would put Phrenology in the same category as memes?
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2012, 08:35:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2012, 08:33:58 AM
What point are you trying to make here Valmy?
That it is no big deal that astoudingly ignorant people get to influence school curriculum's, because at some point we can just fix it?
That may be true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of how astoundingly stupid it is in the first place. It is via discussion and people saying "Hey, look, they did something stupid!" that change actually does happen.
Further, it is a waste of time and energy to have to be rolling back crap like this all the time, and there is damage done to education in the process.
My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.
But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.
You have no fucking clue do you?
What exactly is a "real Republican"?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 09:31:44 AM
What exactly is a "real Republican"?
The Teabaggers will let you know.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 09:31:44 AM
What exactly is a "real Republican"?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent9.flixster.com%2Frtactor%2F42%2F34%2F42347_pro.jpg&hash=baf9f34cd87afb37d3e5ea6bb30eb82a613cdda4)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 09:31:44 AM
What exactly is a "real Republican"?
Abe Lincoln. Though in a pinch I could go for a Taft or a Rockefeller.
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.
Ever hear of the Moral Majority?
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2012, 08:35:38 AM
My point is that in my experience having gone to school in a state where we had this, that it was not a big deal and did not impact science teaching much.
Mind you, you went to school in a period where science education in America fell apart.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 08:58:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.
Actually, it was the 80s and 90s the religious nutbags started targeting local school board elections as the place to start. And they've been rolling ever since.
Indeed. I think it's possible that Viking is confusing the 80s and 90s with the amazingly awesome Nixon years, when a benevolent Richard Nixon ruled over the United States and all was well. And then he was toppled by greedy, opportunistic men and American has been paying penance for the last 40 years.
Well there was that oil embargo.
For all his faults and failures, Nixon will always be remembered for Linebacker II. And that's enough.
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2012, 11:10:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 08:58:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.
Actually, it was the 80s and 90s the religious nutbags started targeting local school board elections as the place to start. And they've been rolling ever since.
Indeed. I think it's possible that Viking is confusing the 80s and 90s with the amazingly awesome Nixon years, when a benevolent Richard Nixon ruled over the United States and all was well. And then he was toppled by greedy, opportunistic men and American has been paying penance for the last 40 years.
'69 - '74 saw oil embargo, US retreat from Vietnam, recognizing the Red Chinese, inflation, wage and price controls, and of course all the dirty, dirty hippies.
Good Times
Just imagine how much worse it would have been if the Republicans had nominated Reagan in '68.
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
I realize that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. At what point do I claim that debunking makes something a pseudoscience?
I realize that English is not your native tongue, but when something is "debunked" it is shown to have been "bunk" to begin with.
So, the "steady state" model of the universe was never debunked, it was merely disproven (as it was set up to be). You are not the only person that doesn't understand what "debunk" means, of course, and it really doesn't change your other points, but it does invalidate this one. Pseudo-sciences are debunked, not disproven, and something that can be debunked is a pseudo-science if a science of any kind.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 09:31:44 AM
What exactly is a "real Republican"?
Somebody Eisenhower could proudly endorse.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2012, 10:05:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
But in the 80s and early 90s the religius nutbags didn't have as much power as they do today and they were unable to deliver such religiously motivated crap. We had real Republican's back then rather than the american christian party of god.
Ever hear of the Moral Majority?
Yes, it was a whacko fringe group when I was a kid growing up in California (my parents has John Glenn bumper stickers), now their successors have extraordinary power in the republican party.
They had extraordinary power in the 1980's.
Quote from: Viking on March 28, 2012, 03:24:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2012, 10:05:35 AM
Ever hear of the Moral Majority?
Yes, it was a whacko fringe group when I was a kid growing up in California (my parents has John Glenn bumper stickers), now their successors have extraordinary power in the republican party.
Valmy's fault.
Btw, how do you allow creationism in schools? Are students allowed to create their own worlds and human beings or what?
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2012, 08:42:35 AM
Btw, how do you allow creationism in schools? Are students allowed to create their own worlds and human beings or what?
If a school system teaches creationism, it has to teach
all creationism (otherwise the state is selecting which religions/beliefs are "right," which is unconstitutional). That would take a long, long time.