Thread: Might as well start teaching kids about the Stork theory...

Read Parminides, what happens to logic when you have the same name for different parts of speech. Is logic even possible. There are only three primitive categories of names, Names for things, and the names of a things two elements, or possible abstractions, form and material difference. Give any two, or all three the same name, and you are often speaking gibberish without knowing it.

That piece was meant to get the reader to start thinking about the principles of predication. A lift is not lift.

It's hilarious how you've gone back and edited that in after I pointed out your original 5 word "lift is not a noun" post was wrong.

In the meantime, the rest of the world will continue to define words based on their usage.


I should borrow your tactic actually. DV: In future any 'mistake' I make is actually an attempt to get you to start thinking about very deep concepts.

The orginal still stands though, A lift is not lift--and the original error pointed out by Xaq is correct. If you object to my sharing why Xaq was right, who cares?

I do a lot of editing, I am in a very busy working environment, and my machine comes first.

/facepalm

Lift (force) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we're going on about language here, you do not say "a lift" any more than you say "a gravity".

Are you now claiming to have a good understanding of physics now? Xaq is incorrect and planes DO fly because of lift (and other forces). Please educate yourself.

Your usage involves more than one ellipsis.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't see how this bill counts as "cheating". It doesn't require teachers to do anything different; only protects them from reprisal for teaching alternatives to the currently accepted theories. Basically it leaves things up to the competence of the treacher, and no matter how much I personally disagree with that practice since I've had more than my fair share of incompetent teachers in the past, it brings science class up to par with every other department. You won't see any teacher being fired for teaching their own personal interpretation of "the Giver" or teaching children that some people know the civil war as "the war of northern aggression", after all.

Why the hell should science be on the same par as every other subject?
It is way "above" all the other subjects, because there are right and wrong answers.
It is not even mildly similar to English or Art or whatever else, where everyone has their own ideas and none can be correct or incorrect.
Science is based on a solid method which allows people to prove or disprove things which are brought in to question.

I think you try to have a differing opinion too often. A different perspective is useful only when it makes sense.

If anyone still has their sanity this will be overturned shortly.

Seriously, you cannot sanely suggest that those teachings will not promote any religious doctrine. This law is blatantly unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't see how this bill counts as "cheating". It doesn't require teachers to do anything different; only protects them from reprisal for teaching alternatives to the currently accepted theories. Basically it leaves things up to the competence of the treacher, and no matter how much I personally disagree with that practice since I've had more than my fair share of incompetent teachers in the past, it brings science class up to par with every other department. You won't see any teacher being fired for teaching their own personal interpretation of "the Giver" or teaching children that some people know the civil war as "the war of northern aggression", after all.

Science is not open to interpretation the way that literature or history is.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Science is not open to interpretation the way that literature or history is.

Really? You must not do much examination of what has taken place in science. What do you think Einstein and his likes did when they violated the very first principles of language to effect their so called wisdom?

Changes aren't interpretation. It's a re-evaluation of the evidence combined with current knowledge using strict methods. Of course even some of the best scientists misinterpret their findings, but that is why things are peer-reviewed.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

/facepalm

Lift (force) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we're going on about language here, you do not say "a lift" any more than you say "a gravity".

Are you now claiming to have a good understanding of physics now? Xaq is incorrect and planes DO fly because of lift (and other forces). Please educate yourself.

Without wanting to turn this into an off topic debate about airplanes, The bernoulli effect, which is what most people mean by lift, has very little to do with how a plane flies. Why can planes fly upside down? The major factor in a plane's flight is its ability to push downwards on the surrounding air with it's thrust and the downward angle of the wings. This is what I mean about non-scientific stuff in text books. The whole "lift" answer is such a major over simplification that it might as well not be true, but it is still taught as if it is. It is also not one of those things that scientists believed and then later found to be untrue. If you've ever seen the Wright brother's plane, you'll know that it did not have curved wings and yet could still fly. Obviously people who understand aerodynamics have known since the first plane flew that lift was not a major factor.

p.s. if you want to read about it from a different source than me, Here you go. Or, just google airplane lift myth.

So lets get this straight here; you will argue in favor of things that are basically untrue because you were taught them in school while arguing that only accepted scientific theories should be taught in public science class. Contradiction? To me, the major contradiction here is that the bill in question allows for multiple perspectives to be taught, whereas you are currently arguing for the single perspective that you were taught that happens to be the wrong one. If your teachers had been more willing (and able) to teach you multiple perspectives, then you would be more likely to have come out with the right answers.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Without wanting to turn this into an off topic debate about airplanes, The bernoulli effect, which is what most people mean by lift, has very little to do with how a plane flies. Why can planes fly upside down? The major factor in a plane's flight is its ability to push downwards on the surrounding air with it's thrust and the downward angle of the wings. This is what I mean about non-scientific stuff in text books. The whole "lift" answer is such a major over simplification that it might as well not be true, but it is still taught as if it is. It is also not one of those things that scientists believed and then later found to be untrue. If you've ever seen the Wright brother's plane, you'll know that it did not have curved wings and yet could still fly. Obviously people who understand aerodynamics have known since the first plane flew that lift was not a major factor.

p.s. if you want to read about it from a different source than me, Here you go. Or, just google airplane lift myth.

You're redefining words here. I'm using the definition of lift as the force being perpendicular to oncoming flow (as is given in the Wikipedia article), and it's entirely correct to say that planes fly because of it (it's one of the components that acts against gravity, along with the vertical component of thrust). The fact that there are many misconceptions on how this lift is generated is irrelevant.

And of course it's a major simplification. Aerodynamics is an extremely complicated subject, and in a variety of contexts you don't need to use more accurate models, especially when you're starting to learn about science. How about a Chemistry example, as that's my field of expertise? What new students are taught about the structure of atoms - specifically electron orbitals - is complete and utter nonsense. So why teach something obviously wrong? Because it's a gross simplification which can be grasped more readily. More accurate and complex models can be introduced later with a greater understanding of the subject.

I don't see really why we're arguing over this. As I said, I fully support removing blatantly untrue facts like the areas of the tongue and I fully support not telling needless false and oversimplified models when there is no advantage to doing so.

If you want to offer alternatives then why limit yourself to Christian creationism, why not present every creation myth.

Because the point is not to offer alternatives, it's to push Christian fundamentalist doctrine.

I definitely think it is important to teach children various perspectives on any subject but like spariate said why not teach all creation myths?

They do teach a lot of creation myths, you just need to take literature classes, and not science ones.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If you want to offer alternatives then why limit yourself to Christian creationism, why not present every creation myth.

Because the point is not to offer alternatives, it's to push Christian fundamentalist doctrine.

The bill doesn't say anything about teaching creationism at all. It says that it will allow teachers to present the strengths and weaknesses of current theories.

Photolysis, I wasn't trying to redefine lift. I guess I'm just as guilty of over-simplifying (although I'm not being paid to educate anyone ). What I should have said in my example is teaching the bernoulli effect being equal to lift. The wikipedia article makes it clear that the word lift encompasses the whole range of forces that would "lift" an object in a fluid environment.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The bill doesn't say anything about teaching creationism at all. It says that it will allow teachers to present the strengths and weaknesses of current theories.

Then what is all the controversy about this bill? Teachers should be expressing the strengths and weaknesses of theories anyway, its their job. I assumed that they would be presenting creationism as a viable alternative considering the bill affects Tennessee. I shouldn't stereotype lol.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Then what is all the controversy about this bill? Teachers should be expressing the strengths and weaknesses of theories anyway, its their job. I assumed that they would be presenting creationism as a viable alternative considering the bill affects Tennessee. I shouldn't stereotype lol.

The reason for the controversy is because in all likelyhood, this bill was created in order to enable christian teachers to push intelligent design, as in the past several teachers have been let go for doing so. The actual wording of the bill, however, is very careful to avoid the creationism debate and could be used to create a more open classroom experience that would offer alternatives on many different issues. It really comes down to what agendas specific teachers want to push. As far as I am concerned, a biology teacher who is a creationist teaching evolution because they have to is not really that much better than a creationist biology teacher teaching the supposed strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Ignorant teachers are going to be ignorant and sneak their own agenda in one way or another.

The reason why I think this bill is at the least not harmful is because I am sure there are also instances when a teacher wants to teach (or even just talk about) something unrelated to creationism that is still controversial but cannot because it is against the accepted curriculum. The only example that comes readily to mind is unfortunately a fictional one; if you've seen Donny Darko, remember the scene in which he is speaking to his science teacher about time travel and eventually it comes to a point where he says (paraphrased) "I can't talk about this anymore because I could be fired".

I believe while trying to "express" it's weaknesses, they will bring up shit about god. Evolution has no weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

How about a Chemistry example, as that's my field of expertise? What new students are taught about the structure of atoms - specifically electron orbitals - is complete and utter nonsense. So why teach something obviously wrong? Because it's a gross simplification which can be grasped more readily. More accurate and complex models can be introduced later with a greater understanding of the subject.

Actually, orbitals are taught correctly. Orbits are the simplified version taught to high school kids.

Oh come on. I'm sure you can think of plenty of evolution related questions that are not adequately answered by the current framework taught in schools. Natural selection doesn't account for cooperation, the theory makes no guesses as to the origin of life on this planet since it contains no concrete abiogenesis theory... nothing is infallible. Weaknesses don't necessarily have to be points where a theory is outright wrong, they can also be points where the theory just doesn't offer adequate explanation.

Uhhmmmmm what the fuck is wrong with you?
Does evolution even pretend to explain how life arose? No, it doesn't.
That is what abiogenesis or biopoesis is mean. Not the same as evolution.
And there are several explanations already being studied.

As for co-operation, it has clearly been explained numerous times.
Animals co-operate to ensure the survival of their offspring, even if they aren't their own offspring, because they still share some of their DNA.
Like my brother shares some of my DNA. Well, maybe "has some of the same DNA" is more accurate than shares.

why do they need this... if they want the strength and weaknesses, well evolution has a lot of strength, and creationalism has little strength and makes up for it with an abundance of weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Oh come on. I'm sure you can think of plenty of evolution related questions that are not adequately answered by the current framework taught in schools. Natural selection doesn't account for cooperation, the theory makes no guesses as to the origin of life on this planet since it contains no concrete abiogenesis theory... nothing is infallible. Weaknesses don't necessarily have to be points where a theory is outright wrong, they can also be points where the theory just doesn't offer adequate explanation.

1) Co-operation (evolution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) You might as well have said, "The theory of gravity does not attempt to answer how abiogenesis works, therefore it's a weak theory." Evolution is NOT an attempt to explain abiogenesis.

3) Yes, there are many questions surrounding it, and every other facet of science. When you answer a question, you pose 3 new ones. There are plenty of unanswered questions about gravity, including what it is. All evidence points towards the presence of gravitational waves, but we've never directly measured them (though we expect to in the coming years). Evolution is like that too... except we HAVE seen it happen.

The fact is, there simply aren't any competing theories worth considering scientifically, and evidence in favour of evolution is continuing to mount up in droves. It's the standing theory (and by "theory" I mean "model" not "hypothesis" - it is far from being just a hypothesis), and there are no current, plausible alternatives, nor should high school students in science class be taught that there ARE (unless there really are (no)).

I don't think "open questions" and "weaknesses" are the same thing here.

----

As for the bill in question... I haven't read all the details, but remember, when the joke that is "intelligent design" came about, it was a creationist agenda to circumvent the rules and teach creationism. While the wording of this bill may seem pretty tame (after all, the think-tanks have put a lot of effort into it), I really wouldn't put it past the same bunch of idiots to try to use it as a way to subtly reframe "teaching creation."

@Xaqaria-Ya its a fictional example but a good one, I love Donnie Darko. And true, teachers will push their agendas anyway, I just hope they portray evolution and creationism in a fair and balanced way taking into account evidence for example. In my opinion creationism does not have any validity but its important to let the kids decide.

@Tommo- I wouldn't say evolution has absolutely no weaknesses but regarding scientific theories it is pretty solid, with evidence from scientists around the world, from various branches of science to boot. It is definitely the best current model to account for the diversity of life and to my knowledge doesn't account for the origin of life(something it is not trying to explain in the first place). Compared to creationism there is no contest.

Do we "let the kids decide" what the current accepted model of the atom is?