|
I propose a Bill that makes it illegal to fail a student for arguing that the Refrigerator Fairy turns that light on and off.
As long as students are still required to answer correctly on tests, I really don't care what they privately believe. And if a student wants to submit a paper or research project that argues H. sapiens and T. rex cohabited, then awesome--as long as they follow the scientific method (...whereby they will prove themselves wrong).
I can argue all day that 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2, but I still better answer '2' on the test.
WTF now? Neal Stephenson quote, but "Do you worry about a purple nerve gas farting dragon?"
Whoo hooooo!
I can argue all day that 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2, but I still better answer '2' on the test.
You mean 4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can argue all day that 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2, but I still better answer '2' on the test.You mean 4.
Hey! Don't you dare use your subjective math to try to tell him his feelings are wrong!
It would be pretty f$*&ing awesome if they did coexist. I don't think they did. Doesn't make the idea any less awesome. If jesus indeed returns riding a t rex like it was a piebald stallion, I'm gonna cheer.
Actually, looking at the article, I have no problem with this, if it moves forward in an intelligent fashion. There have been a lot of theories that have been laughed out over the years for exceedingly poor reasons - just look at copernicus(or was it galileo? It's 1 in the morning, I can't remember right now). But if someone's just trolling for the luls, then they deserve to fail or at most be told in all seriousness to come back later with more evidence.
|
|
Actually, looking at the article, I have no problem with this, if it moves forward in an intelligent fashion. There have been a lot of theories that have been laughed out over the years for exceedingly poor reasons - just look at copernicus(or was it galileo? It's 1 in the morning, I can't remember right now). But if someone's just trolling for the luls, then they deserve to fail or at most be told in all seriousness to come back later with more evidence.
You should read the Bill; there's a link in the article.
This effort has absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom.
|
I can argue all day that 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2, but I still better answer '2' on the test.You mean 4.How dare you criticize my belief! You are actively undermining my values-based assertion that the answer better be '2'!!!
5/2=2r1
1/2=0r110/2=5r0
so 5/2=2.5
2/5=0r2
20/5=4r0
so 2/5=0.4
s/2=x2r5
s=2x+5
w/5=x5r2
w=5x+2
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say there's already a process in place to ensure a student is free to personally believe contrary to scientific evidence: the Constitution.
Despite language in the Bill, which seems to encourage open debate in the classroom, I think it is patently designed to encourage a disregard for actual science in favor of fantasy.
I'd say there's already a process in place to ensure a student is free to personally believe contrary to scientific evidence: the Constitution.
Despite language in the Bill, which seems to encourage open debate in the classroom, I think it is patently designed to encourage a disregard for actual science in favor of fantasy.
science has undergone a lot of changes over the centuries. We always like to think we know everything and that everything that came before is indisputable. It's just not the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{dons Nomex flack-jacket} Science in the classroom is supposed to be as much about the scientific method as it is about those results: facts and tested/verified theories. Until "intelligent design" can hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, it doesn't belong in a science classroom any more than politics or art (although I could make a better argument for either of them than "intelligent design"). If they want to cover ID in a classroom, they should cover it in theology, along with all the other non-evidential creation origins.
Of course, teaching and developing kids' critical reasoning skills is something many schoolboard officials and politicians are also opposed to.
{dons Nomex flack-jacket} Science in the classroom is supposed to be as much about the scientific method as it is about those results: facts and tested/verified theories. Until "intelligent design" can hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, it doesn't belong in a science classroom any more than politics or art (although I could make a better argument for either of them than "intelligent design"). If they want to cover ID in a classroom, they should cover it in theology, along with all the other non-evidential creation origins.
Of course, teaching and developing kids' critical reasoning skills is something many schoolboard officials and politicians are also opposed to.
No problem with it being in the classroom as an example of something that doesn't stand up to the scientific method as it is currently understood. This was my introduction to intelligent design, actually.
No problem with it being in the classroom as an example of something that doesn't stand up to the scientific method as it is currently understood. This was my introduction to intelligent design, actually.
I think holding it up as an example of ID is not Science" will catch more flack for the science teacher than just omitting it to be taught elsewhere. Allowing ID in the classroom when evidence disproves it opens the door for more non-scientific and non-critical thinking.
Also, I highly recommend this NOVA program, Freehold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WTF
.
This is awesome. America needs an ignorant lower class from which we
can harvest fresh organs to keep the rich people healthy. We'll tell the
parents their children are being sent to a magicalhappy land where all
the children's dreams are coming true. Oh, and there will be coupons.
Laws like this will make it easy on us to filter children into their
respective social class -- kinda like the sorting hat in Harry Potter.
.
And every teacher there starts adding "According to Plodderingham, Dirlspork and Flump..." to every question about the state of things. You may believe the world is 6000 years old, but if you were asked about what Gomberdine thinks the age of the world is, you can't really claim you believe Gomberdine says it's 6000 years old and get an A unless he/she/it has written such. Then again, very little about America surprises me.
Sad, but totally unsurprising. It's no wonder that our country often held in such low regard. Personally, I could live without the "freedom" to be an ignorant jackass. :P