To break out of the Elections Predictions thread ...
Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Why should our federal tax dollars go toward school vouchers if that means teaching Creationism or ID as "science"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Printable View
To break out of the Elections Predictions thread ...
Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTWhy should our federal tax dollars go toward school vouchers if that means teaching Creationism or ID as "science"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Because its not science. Therefore it's false to teach it as science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It can be taught as religion, so long as you permit the study of religion.
When I went to school I was taught about religion in RE class, science in science class, maths in maths etc - ID is proven to be false as a science so teach it where it belongs - the chapel or the study of religious beliefs.
You can "teach" ID in a few sentences to the intro to coursework on evolution with the reminder that evolution isn't meant to conflict with religious believes. It doesn't require a whole freaking course, unless you're trying to teach people to be anti-evolution argument warriors.
That said, like Lewk I mostly prefer local governments continue to set educational agendas as they see fit.
I don't know why libertarian leaning types are so keen on having local government doing stuff, given that it generally tends to be the largest reservoir of petty tyrants, corruption, incompetants and general big-fish-in-small pond types anywhere in government.
I think the worst a goverment can do is leave education to the local level. One's chances after education are best served by a diploma that is recognized in an area as big as possible.
I also think that Steely is right that the kind of people who wind up in local government very often are the ones who are most likely to be petty tyrants.
What they're really keen on is leaving it all up to the parents and the "teachers" and screw the kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I agree local politicians can suck. Then again, they also cover a smaller base of people and can be more responsive to new ideas. My point breaks down into two areas-
1) I think education is the kind of thing were some experimentation and variety is good. From the perspective of organization and innovation, I think top-down guidance should be minimal.
2) I'm wary of a supposedly-impartial permanent bureaucracy setting national standards for these kinds of things. It's easy for us to look at anti-evolution wingnuts and say, "We need national standards to shut those people down."
But that's only because we happen to agree with the national standards. Should the political consensus shift, the dictates-from-up-high would also change education in sweeping ways. Even the best/most boring bureaucracies can become politicized in ways that can be very damaging. I would hate for a future political leader to have a national mandate to teach Intelligent Design in every school in the nation and then make every kid chafe under that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No, you don't "experiment" with the learning process of students. Cause when your experiments fail, you've gone and fucked up other people's lives. Not to mention the horrible effects a constant shift in style has on students as they try to find some form of pattern or predictability in 13+ years of education. Education requires a lot central knowledge and information sharing, something that comes easier with a larger base. Its much easier to see the benefits of a new approach if its broken into tiny bits and spread and integrated across a large sample, instead of throwing the entire approach on a small sample.
Variety is good, if done right. Boredom is something all teachers have to combat.
So we can have a bad top down decision screw a while nation of kids?
At which level do you think more thought and expertise will go into the decision?
No child left behind?
Compared to the complete nutjobs in numerous school boards?
Do you argue just to argue?
Are all localities nutjobs?
How about State level then?
I thought the standards there are set by the states rather than by the federal govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Who's more likely to be a nutjob, the head of a federal commission on education standards or the head of a school board? Should students in areas with psycho school board members be screwed out of an education just because of your concern for local autonomy?
Moreover, at what level is a single nutjob more likely to have greater relative power?
I'm not actually against standards, however you know that is not were it stops. Breaucrats can't help themselves, and they can be just as nutty.
No, they really can't be. Bureaucrats can be incompetent, but there's no chance of a psycho would rise to the top of a bureaucracy.
What's wrong with having uniform minimum standards? If schools in a state or city want to teach extra information (as long as it meets an acceptable standard in whichever field it's taught in), they should go ahead. But to say that every city and state should be free to teach how ever they want is a recipe for disaster.
No chance?
Okay
That might be the worst idea you have ever voiced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It's sort of the point of a bureacracy.
How is a nutjob going to make it to the top of a bureaucracy, get nominated by a president, and get the support of their workers? Now think about how easy it is to stack a school board with nutjobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
It's claims are very falsifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The only room ID has to make claims for is the big bang part. But that's not your contention is it? You're arguing about the evolution vs ID so-called controversy. I asked you before Lewk, I'll ask you again. Give us a single piece of positive scientific evidence for ID. Besides, evolution is falsifiable. Why hasn't it been? I'll tell you why. Because you need to pull some claim out of your arse (macro evolution is something completely different to micro evolution so macro evolution hasn't been proven) without knowing what the hell you're talking about. Even a cursory examination of the ToE would make you see the ridiculousness of that claim. But you need that claim, so you refuse to accept it's false, based on ... wait for it .... religious motivations. Not scientific ones. Otherwise you'd have shown the differences in the mechanics. And you can't. You go: monkeys to humans have never been observed. That right there shows a complete and utter lack of understanding.
But that's all beside the point. The point is positive scientific evidence speaking for ID. Go. Convince me.
:haha: Holy crap that's great.
:bulb: You seem unduly confident in bureaucracy. But I don't think state-level standards are unreasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well, in his defence, the banana he's holding was indeed intelligent design.
By the way, notice how the argument for ID in that clip is called: the atheist nightmare. Dun dun dun.
No, I'm not a fan of bureaucrats, and they're frequently lazy and/or incompetent. But crazy bureaucrats at the top? Really? Compared to the nutjobs who dominate numerous school boards?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
2 hours Lewk will never watch. But I think it's interesting :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
I think you have an entirely warped idea about bureaucracy; most of the time what people percieve as crazed bureaucrats cooking up things it's bureaucrats being charged with squaring a circle by their paymasters. And and those paymasters are YOU and the politicians that YOU charge with government. Another thing is that YOU get very angry if you are being told that you can't get what YOU want NOW without paying for it. It's just the same old story that nobody can make gold from crap. Yet types like you love to blame other people for that very basic truth, as if after all it should be possible to turn crap into gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Oh really? The folks at the federal level want to control everyone regardless of differences in regions under the same program. That's far more dictatorial than local control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It's also far less arbitrary
Strawman m'laddy. I wasn't talking about psychopaths, though your idea that bureaucrats can't be crazy still gives them too much credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I was merely speaking about the idea that someone with a specific agenda can lead a national educational bureaucracy, and this agenda can lead to stifling uniformity, partisan bickering or worse.
46% of Americans hold Creationist views. Already the Dept of Education steers away from the controversy as much as possible. It's not unreasonable that someone supporting the teaching of alternatives to evolution could make real political gains in this area. The solution is to decentralize. Let the Texans fight about this in Texas, and keep the fight in Texas instead of nationalizing it.
This seems entirely irrelevant to my criticism. Especially the bold part. :weird:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It also seems inconsistent with my general worldview of trying to expect less from government. Can you clarify what you're talking about?
You mean let's make the South a third world country and then pay the consequences for it?
Because teaching ID automatically turns a state into a third world country? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yeah, because that's where it would stop. History is already being taught by Sean Hannity. How long before biology, chemistry, and physics would stop being taught or include the kind of crap taught by Liberty University? The only thing preventing southern schools from being even crazier is the threat of SATs (another nationally-created standard!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
As long as their ability to influence actual classes is kept in check by bureaucrats, scientists on expert panels, judges, people with more than a highschool education...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
The percentage of people in the USA who accept the idea of evolution declined from 45% in 1985, to 40% in 2005.[95] A Gallup poll reported that percentage of people in the US who believe in a strict interpretation of creationism had fallen to 40% in 2010 after a high of 46% in 2006. The highest the percentage has risen between 1982 and 2010 was 47% in 1994 and 2000 according to the report. The report found that Americans who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view while those with a college education are more likely to hold a view involving evolution. 47% of those with no more than a high school education believe in creationism while 22% of those with a post graduate education hold that view. The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view (22% for those who do not attend church, 60% for those who attend weekly).[96] The higher percentage of Republicans who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics in the United States. Republicans also attend church weekly more than Democratic or independent voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a non-theistic view of evolution than Republican voters.[96]
That is one depressing statistic.
Then you both have short memories. Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
Fucking Americans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ey-creationism
Ronald Numbers commented on that with "Most surprising of all was the discovery that large numbers of high-school biology teachers — from 30% in Illinois and 38% in Ohio to a whopping 69% in Kentucky — supported the teaching of creationism." (wiki page)
For those who think American teachers are doing a good job. :o