|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype  Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right.
Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category.
We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books.
|
Also for most people rational thought doesn't actually carry much weight and instead people believe or act on what they experience, even well educated people. There is overwhelming data and scientific consensus about climate change, but no one cares. When one bad storm hits a big city everyone gets scared and starts believing the scientists for a year or two although that incident may not even be related to climate change.
|
On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books.
Sure. Textbook writers have a hard enough time getting their facts right without interference.
|
|
|
On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. Show nested quote +
Because while the top of the US education is good the middle and bottom of the schools are a lot worse.
That allows the "weirder" idea's to sustain themselves. Esp when combined with the power of lobbies keeping schools from teaching facts like the age of the earth.
I'm not sure this is the reason . After all college graduation rates overall are still way higher in the US than in many other places. I think it has more to do with the "anything goes" mentality that seems to be dominant in the US. Like how 'hate speech' seems to fall under free speech which may give people the impression that saying racist nonsense is actually just another opinion.
Do remember that graduation rates are in no way tied to the level of education that they teach. There is no global standard of what is taught.
A math class that teaches only 1+1=2 can have a 100% graduation rate but it doesnt mean they know anything about math. An extreme example but it gets the point across.
|
The issue, in the end, has everything to do with how the average persons regards expertise as it pertains to issues of public consequence, and the fact of the matter is that there is a well defined sub-population that only gets their information a la carte, meaning that very little is impressed upon them through external, authoritative sources. The variety of media outlets available and the self-directed nature of internet news consumption allows folks to confirm their bias at practically every step of the information gathering process if they so choose, and, seeing as humans are creatures of comfort, it shouldn't be too surprising that many people seek out only that which conforms with what they already know to be true. Among vaccine deniers, everything that the medical establishment produces is already tainted a priori because the likes of Jenny McCarthy tell them so on practically a daily basis.
I think this phenomena can be directly related to the splintered, state-centric nature of K-12 education here in the US; without a standard, national baseline with which an "adequate" education can be compared, cultural communities are given tacit authority to create their own relativized notions as to how one regards information, expertise, and authority. If the state of Tennessee has the legal authority to teach young earth creationism in their public schools, it isn't exactly a far leap to imagine that similar logic is at work in the background of something like vaccine denial; such lenience in the name of state's rights only confirms the notion that practically anything can be politicized, and the erosion of trust in the scientific establishment is at least an indirect result of that.
The US is one of the last countries in the world to rely on such an antiquated, levy based system of K-12 education, a system that simply gives the people too much authority on matters that are best served via a healthy respect for the utility of expertise. Furthermore, we can already see the signs that factionalism is, and perhaps always has and will be, alive and well, due in no small part to the notion that even the idea of knowledge itself can be put to a vote.
|
On May 19 2014 04:48 farvacola wrote:
The issue, in the end, has everything to do with how the average persons regards expertise as it pertains to issues of public consequence, and the fact of the matter is that there is a well defined sub-population that only gets their information a la carte, meaning that very little is impressed upon them through external, authoritative sources. The variety of media outlets available and the self-directed nature of internet news consumption allows folks to confirm their bias at practically every step of the information gathering process if they so choose, and, seeing as humans are creatures of comfort, it shouldn't be too surprising that many people seek out only that which conforms with what they already know to be true. Among vaccine deniers, everything that the medical establishment produces is already tainted a priori because the likes of Jenny McCarthy tell them so on practically a daily basis.
I think this phenomena can be directly related to the splintered, state-centric nature of K-12 education here in the US; without a standard, national baseline with which an "adequate" education can be compared, cultural communities are given tacit authority to create their own relativized notions as to how one regards information, expertise, and authority. If the state of Tennessee has the legal authority to teach young earth creationism in their public schools, it isn't exactly a far leap to imagine that similar logic is at work in the background of something like vaccine denial; such lenience in the name of state's rights only confirms the notion that practically anything can be politicized, and the erosion of trust in the scientific establishment is at least an indirect result of that.
The US is one of the last countries in the world to rely on such an antiquated, levy based system of K-12 education, a system that simply gives the people too much authority on matters that are best served via a healthy respect for the utility of expertise. Furthermore, we can already see the signs that factionalism is, and perhaps always has and will be, alive and well, due in no small part to the notion that even the idea of knowledge itself can be put to a vote.
Common core and standardized testing is supposed to address a lot of that.
|
On May 19 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 04:48 farvacola wrote:
The issue, in the end, has everything to do with how the average persons regards expertise as it pertains to issues of public consequence, and the fact of the matter is that there is a well defined sub-population that only gets their information a la carte, meaning that very little is impressed upon them through external, authoritative sources. The variety of media outlets available and the self-directed nature of internet news consumption allows folks to confirm their bias at practically every step of the information gathering process if they so choose, and, seeing as humans are creatures of comfort, it shouldn't be too surprising that many people seek out only that which conforms with what they already know to be true. Among vaccine deniers, everything that the medical establishment produces is already tainted a priori because the likes of Jenny McCarthy tell them so on practically a daily basis.
I think this phenomena can be directly related to the splintered, state-centric nature of K-12 education here in the US; without a standard, national baseline with which an "adequate" education can be compared, cultural communities are given tacit authority to create their own relativized notions as to how one regards information, expertise, and authority. If the state of Tennessee has the legal authority to teach young earth creationism in their public schools, it isn't exactly a far leap to imagine that similar logic is at work in the background of something like vaccine denial; such lenience in the name of state's rights only confirms the notion that practically anything can be politicized, and the erosion of trust in the scientific establishment is at least an indirect result of that.
The US is one of the last countries in the world to rely on such an antiquated, levy based system of K-12 education, a system that simply gives the people too much authority on matters that are best served via a healthy respect for the utility of expertise. Furthermore, we can already see the signs that factionalism is, and perhaps always has and will be, alive and well, due in no small part to the notion that even the idea of knowledge itself can be put to a vote. Common core and standardized testing is supposed to address a lot of that.
Unfortunately because huge fights erupt over something as simple as the age of the earth, those solutions (Common Core and Testing) never get the attention they need as far as reforming them to actually address the important issues previously outlined.
Instead any necessary corrective or informative legislation is loaded with all sorts of nonsense like was shown in the example of the little girl in the article. It's usually accompanied by similar partisan (usually more reasonable) counter amendments making any effective legislation die on the vine. Although lately in the house it's hard to imagine anything can get passed without Tea Party approval.
|
Let's not forget the fact that people who are educated and well off feel empowered to ask for special treatment. Certainly, they are empowered in many cases, with greater choices for schools, medical treatment, and extracurricular activities for their kids, but somehow this bleeds into other areas.
|
On May 19 2014 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 04:48 farvacola wrote:
The issue, in the end, has everything to do with how the average persons regards expertise as it pertains to issues of public consequence, and the fact of the matter is that there is a well defined sub-population that only gets their information a la carte, meaning that very little is impressed upon them through external, authoritative sources. The variety of media outlets available and the self-directed nature of internet news consumption allows folks to confirm their bias at practically every step of the information gathering process if they so choose, and, seeing as humans are creatures of comfort, it shouldn't be too surprising that many people seek out only that which conforms with what they already know to be true. Among vaccine deniers, everything that the medical establishment produces is already tainted a priori because the likes of Jenny McCarthy tell them so on practically a daily basis.
I think this phenomena can be directly related to the splintered, state-centric nature of K-12 education here in the US; without a standard, national baseline with which an "adequate" education can be compared, cultural communities are given tacit authority to create their own relativized notions as to how one regards information, expertise, and authority. If the state of Tennessee has the legal authority to teach young earth creationism in their public schools, it isn't exactly a far leap to imagine that similar logic is at work in the background of something like vaccine denial; such lenience in the name of state's rights only confirms the notion that practically anything can be politicized, and the erosion of trust in the scientific establishment is at least an indirect result of that.
The US is one of the last countries in the world to rely on such an antiquated, levy based system of K-12 education, a system that simply gives the people too much authority on matters that are best served via a healthy respect for the utility of expertise. Furthermore, we can already see the signs that factionalism is, and perhaps always has and will be, alive and well, due in no small part to the notion that even the idea of knowledge itself can be put to a vote. Common core and standardized testing is supposed to address a lot of that. Unfortunately because huge fights erupt over something as simple as the age of the earth, those solutions (Common Core and Testing) never get the attention they need as far as reforming them to actually address the important issues previously outlined. Instead any necessary corrective or informative legislation is loaded with all sorts of nonsense like was shown in the example of the little girl in the article. It's usually accompanied by similar partisan (usually more reasonable) counter amendments making any effective legislation die on the vine. Although lately in the house it's hard to imagine anything can get passed without Tea Party approval.
Well, I'm not sure how big of a deal it is. Almost all the states have common core and I think they all do some sort of standardized testing. I've heard quite a few complaints from liberals over standardized testing as well.
|
This could probably get it's own thread but I thought I would at least mention it here.
Sources with Variety report that YouTube is nearing a deal to buy Twitch, the popular game streaming startup, for $1 billion. The deal is said to be an all-cash offer, and will close "imminently." The move, if it succeeds, would effectively put one of the web's most highly trafficked sites firmly in Google's hands.
Source
Perhaps there should be a generic 'Mergers and Acquisitions' thread?
EDIT: Guess it's in the Community News... Suppose that makes more sense haha.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is a cottage industry of alternative
'research' and religious apologetics in the u.s. that will take far more than k12 common core to dispel. even vocational college ' core' is not enough.
nature of info in group setting does converge to expert but only when the authority is well recognized. this is not the case in the us for a large swath of population on many issues. i rly doubt some test and curriculum changes will alter this anytime fast. plus, look at the texas board of education
|
On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books.
Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT.
|
On May 19 2014 04:48 farvacola wrote:
The issue, in the end, has everything to do with how the average persons regards expertise as it pertains to issues of public consequence, and the fact of the matter is that there is a well defined sub-population that only gets their information a la carte, meaning that very little is impressed upon them through external, authoritative sources. The variety of media outlets available and the self-directed nature of internet news consumption allows folks to confirm their bias at practically every step of the information gathering process if they so choose, and, seeing as humans are creatures of comfort, it shouldn't be too surprising that many people seek out only that which conforms with what they already know to be true. Among vaccine deniers, everything that the medical establishment produces is already tainted a priori because the likes of Jenny McCarthy tell them so on practically a daily basis.
I think this phenomena can be directly related to the splintered, state-centric nature of K-12 education here in the US; without a standard, national baseline with which an "adequate" education can be compared, cultural communities are given tacit authority to create their own relativized notions as to how one regards information, expertise, and authority. If the state of Tennessee has the legal authority to teach young earth creationism in their public schools, it isn't exactly a far leap to imagine that similar logic is at work in the background of something like vaccine denial; such lenience in the name of state's rights only confirms the notion that practically anything can be politicized, and the erosion of trust in the scientific establishment is at least an indirect result of that.
The US is one of the last countries in the world to rely on such an antiquated, levy based system of K-12 education, a system that simply gives the people too much authority on matters that are best served via a healthy respect for the utility of expertise. Furthermore, we can already see the signs that factionalism is, and perhaps always has and will be, alive and well, due in no small part to the notion that even the idea of knowledge itself can be put to a vote.
What is your solution to a mistake in a one-size all authoritarian system? No Child Left Behind should have been a wild and wonderful success then! Nationalizing education is not a solution, in fact, I wonder how much you will start to moan if and when the 'other' side grabs the power and starts to change the education standards for everyone, never mind the inherent problems associated with technocracy. Localism is far better, even if there will be areas where people disagree with you on things, even basic things. It provides a valve outlet for the expression of ideas, something that is no where present in top-down authoritative systems. (I'd like to see you, use the same reason to defend authoritarianism against democracy...would be interesting)
|
On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT.
Everyone acknowledges that climates change.
No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old?
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Tuesday's high-profile primary elections may extend a streak of sorts for tea party Republicans: losing individual races but winning the larger ideological war by tugging the GOP rightward.
Several tea party-endorsed candidates are struggling in Tuesday's Republican congressional primaries in Georgia, Kentucky and Idaho. In each state, however, the "establishment" Republican candidates have emphasized their conservative credentials, which narrows the party's philosophical differences.
Citing similar dynamics in other states, Democrats say the GOP candidates who are trying to give Republicans control of the Senate will prove too far right for centrist voters in November.
Republicans need to gain six Senate seats to control the chamber. Holding Kentucky and Georgia against well-funded Democrats, both women, is crucial to their hopes.
Six states hold primaries Tuesday. Georgia, Kentucky and Oregon have closely watched Republican contests for Senate. Pennsylvania and Arkansas have feisty gubernatorial primaries.
In Idaho, tea party-backed lawyer Bryan Smith is trying to oust Republican Rep. Mike Simpson, who's seeking a ninth House term.
In Kentucky, tea partyers would love to knock off Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a 30-year senator they see as too accommodating to Democrats. But challenger Matt Bevin has struggled under a barrage of attacks from McConnell and his allies.
McConnell, caught off guard by the tea party movement in 2010, has scrambled to win support from conservatives who dislike compromise. He quickly allied himself with Sen. Rand Paul, who defeated McConnell's hand-picked candidate in the 2010 primary.
And in February, McConnell voted against raising the debt ceiling, a never-pleasant vote that past party leaders often swallowed to avert a government default.
Source
|
On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old?
No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat.
|
On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat.
Science is about skepticism. You're advocating cynicism. The two are not the same.
|
On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat.
Well seasons are not 'Climate'. If you're going to play a semantics game, at least get the words right?
Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years.
http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/
And the people I've been referencing also aren't so keen on things like 'Ice Ages' So comprehending climate on a scale of over ~9,000 years isn't currently an option for a lot of Americans. Which was the problem I was highlighting.
From the biblical creationist perspective, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are remnants of the Ice Age that followed the Genesis Flood. These ice sheets would have been built up through the Ice Age, which ended about 3,500 years ago, and then slowed as the oceans continued to cool.
Source
So sorry if I come off as a 'twat', but you were just flat wrong.
I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT.
That part really sounded like you were trying to rationalize creationist loons as part of some rational debate... I stand corrected there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
