EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1499
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote: when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it. otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. To be fair, teachers are not always correct 100% of the time, and like any profession there are bad apples here and there. I learned as early as 3rd grade that teachers could be idiots, when she told the class there were five oceans in the world, and when I asked her to name the fifth she couldn't and told me to be quiet, or when she tried to flunk me because I did a science report on a dinosaur she never heard of, so I brought in the full 10-page printed out copy of the encyclopedia entry for the Quetzalcoatlus. Kids should be taught from a young age that everyone, including adults and people that are professed experts in their field, make mistakes or can be mistaken. But that judgment should be made from a factual standpoint, not a religious one. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:17 Emzeeshady wrote: it seems like there isn't much of a difference sometimes tbh Then don't become a teacher. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:17 Emzeeshady wrote: it seems like there isn't much of a difference sometimes tbh On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote: when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it. otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. You're both arguing that there is no difference between believing and understanding. You are both wrong. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:19 ZasZ. wrote: To be fair, teachers are not always correct 100% of the time, and like any profession there are bad apples here and there. I learned as early as 3rd grade that teachers could be idiots, when she told the class there were five oceans in the world, and when I asked her to name the fifth she couldn't and told me to be quiet, or when she tried to flunk me because I did a science report on a dinosaur she never heard of, so I brought in the full 10-page printed out copy of the encyclopedia entry for the Quetzalcoatlus. Kids should be taught from a young age that everyone, including adults and people that are professed experts in their field, make mistakes or can be mistaken. But that judgment should be made from a factual standpoint, not a religious one. yea, but 'religious theory' v 'scientific theory' is not a valid distinction in a class about science. scientific disputes advance and are resolved by engaging in the factual claims within these theories themselves. you don't categorically rule out religious theory (or immunize them from examination on their contents) because of the religious sticker. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:21 Dapper_Cad wrote: You're both arguing that there is no difference between believing and understanding. You are both wrong. not rly. note the '' around believe. i was talking about a kid who uses religious belief as an excuse to not learn about the material, dispute the facts. in any case, there is necessarily dissonance involved when you understand a particular theory, yet believe a religious story over it. engaging in systems of belief level talk is not really science at all. let's say there is an exam question like: "The earth is _____ old" A. 6000 years B. 3 million years C. 4.5 billion years D. all of the above the religion answer, science answer etc talk is pretty irrelevant, is it not. | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote: but would it be a problem for the teacher to explain to them the scientific facts and theories, in full, and take as disinterested a tone as possible as to whether she/he personally believes it or not? and why should the kid have to be bullied into believing it, as long as he/she is well-versed in the facts and theories and findings of the scientific arena. in my opinion the teacher should respond to the statement: "but my mommy believes the Earth is only 10,000 years old" is to say: "Well, there are a lot of theories about the origins of the earth and life, but you're talking about a religious theory, and we're talking about scientific theories. When discussing scientific theories, we have to look at the evidence objectively and then make our determination based solely on the evidence. You and I can believe whatever we want, religiously, personally, spiritually; but even if we disagree with the scientific theory, or feel that it is incomplete, we should still examine the evidence and know the processes by which the theory was created. And if you still feel that it is incorrect, or incomplete, than the burden is on you to find the scientific evidence for your position. Basically, believe whatever you want, but understand that I'm grading you on your knowledge of this subject, and also understand that no one will take your position seriously in the scientific arena unless you have the evidence to back it up, so start studying." I don't know, I just always preferred a dispassionate fact-machine over a deeply interested partisan (so to speak) as a teacher. maybe other people feel different. speaking as a teacher who teaches history (a rather delicate topic in regards to many religious areas) I can tell you a couple of things flat out: 1) No matter how wrong a parents opinion is the words "she is retarded" will not be expressed, not even paraphrased into a more polite saying. Simply put, as long as children are at an age where they parrot what their parents have said (below 12 usually, sometimes up to 14-16) a simple contradiction won't be enough. I'll have to either back my statement up with the book or use a longer explanation to explain why she might be mistaken (never something like wrong, just mistaken or missinformed). 2) A complicated answer like your phrasing might work for high school, in any level below that no sorry. The best I can (and do) offer to "preserve" the parents image, is some qualifier like "some religions claim" before stating the scientific fact. I can hardly teach about the stone age and pre celtic civilizations if I say the earth was created 2000 years later. Never mind mesopotamic developments (Jericho as the oldest human settlement was walled in around 6k bc, there are numerous digs which are up to 3000 years older of burial sites e.g.). Yes that might infringe on her personal beliefs, but I am not responsible for those. I am paid to educate the children in my classroom, so I am responsible to make sure they learn as much as possible. If the only thing they learn in my classroom is the skill to differentiate between fact and theory that is at least a decent start  (though the bar is usually set just a tad higher to pass my classes).3) Frankly from my experience dispassionate facts are the fastest way to loose your classes attention. If your in college you might be able to work like that, but definitly not when teaching kids (the way "my mommy said" was phrased implies 13 year old at the very highest). But I agree to a certain extent that I need to keep my personal biases out of the classroom as well, or at the very least make it very clear what my bias is, so that the older students can judge the information I give appropriatly. The hardcore Christians are only slightly less problematic from a teachers perspective than hardcore muslims, in both cases there is only one good option available to the teacher and that is establish a VERY clear line where scientific fact must begin, instead of religious beliefs. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iiFbv.jpg) I'm not sure if it was his test or something he just found off the internet haha (he goes to a Christian university, although most students aren't Christian). | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote: when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it. otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. the kid can believe in whatever. the teacher is not there to say, you should believe that [earth is not 6000 years old.] he can just say the earth is not 6000 years old (or the positive version), a factual assertion without reference to belief. if the kid thinks once he steps out of the classroom the age of the earth changes, wonderful. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:31 Souma wrote: Coincidentally, my friend posted this oh-so-relevant picture on his Facebook today: I'm not sure if it was his test or something he just found off the internet haha (he goes to a Christian university, although most students aren't Christian). ... The fact... That this is allowed... "shutters" absolutely disgusting. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote: ... The fact... That this is allowed... "shutters" absolutely disgusting. Why wouldn't it be allowed? You suggest we ban ideas and thoughts? | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:21 Dapper_Cad wrote: You're both arguing that there is no difference between believing and understanding. You are both wrong. But at a young age, the difference between the two is very blurry. The concept of proof is more of a trust-issue than actual scientific discourse. If your mother says something and your teacher says something it is all about who you trust the most on the subject if you are about 10 years old. Moreover textbook science has to be agreed upon by about 95% of the scientific community in a certain field. I'll give you that lower level textbooks are probably very close to 100%, but the point is that certainty is not a given in science and how your teacher deals with that disagreement is how well you understand a subject. At primary school you are not equipped to handle this dissonance and the teacher does best by keeping it out of the classroom if possible. Even at high school it is more of a distraction from the real science than anything useful since you lack the basics to really be able to push the boundaries. Only at college or higher education the disagreement can become a real issue if you are pushing on the boundaries of the scientific knowledge in a field. The distinction is logical and reasonable but for the kids sake, it is not something they are equipped to handle and any dissonance of the sort of religion vs. science is dealt with based on trust at that age. Understanding needs a base and if religion is made that base at a young age you are really damaging the potential for academic development for the kid. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Why wouldn't it be allowed? You suggest we ban ideas and thoughts? Because presumably it's a factual test from a school? God isn't factual. | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
I wouldn't presume on it's veracity. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim. So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:44 HellRoxYa wrote: Because presumably it's a factual test from a school? God isn't factual. The context was that its presumably from a Christian University. I see no reason for the government to ban private thoughts and beliefs even if they are factually incorrect. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Why wouldn't it be allowed? You suggest we ban ideas and thoughts? That's a school test. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
It's ok, the idea of teaching our children to be imbeciles is apparently aligned with keeping "ideas and thoughts". If someone wants to read a book written by a cult that's fine, no one is barging into the Church telling them to teach science but the idea we allow idiotic things such as "god" without proof or merit is embarrassing in the classroom. User was banned for this post. | ||
| ||
