|
|
On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. 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.
Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.
Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!
|
Err, are we getting outraged by something that probably isn't even real? Can we even verify that pic to a real school or something?
|
On November 20 2012 08:52 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 20 2012 08:31 Souma wrote:Coincidentally, my friend posted this oh-so-relevant picture on his Facebook today: ![[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). ... The fact... That this is allowed... "shutters" absolutely disgusting. Why wouldn't it be allowed? You suggest we ban ideas and thoughts? That's a school test.
At a church school.
|
Well if it is allowed to hand out diplomas, a church school or not wouldn't matter. it would pretty embarrassing if it is an accredited school imo.
|
|
|
On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. 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. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!
That still doesn't give me enough to arrive at a settled interpretation of what you mean by 'wrong'. It sounds like you're going for the ethical use, but you earlier said that the teacher can't say that "believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well". But surely on the ethical interpretation of 'wrong', it's not okay to say their beliefs are wrong inside the classroom either. I don't see how there is any single use of 'wrong' on which what is wrong to believe inside the classroom differs from what is wrong to believe outside the classroom.
|
On November 20 2012 09:02 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:44 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 20 2012 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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. 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. 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. holy crap, please tell me you're joking. you don't see a problem with a school/parents making the children mindless zombies who believe in arbitrary fary tales?
I dunno man, I'd like to believe in Santa Claus my whole life 
|
How the hell do you equate with mandating an educational standard with banning private thoughts and beliefs. The educational integrity of the institute need to be upheld if the degree is worth anything.
|
On November 20 2012 09:05 AUGcodon wrote:
How the hell do you equate with mandating an educational standard with banning private thoughts and beliefs. The educational integrity of the institute need to be upheld if the degree is worth anything.
You've seen 3 questions on one test. You are not an expert on their curriculum.
|
United States42912 Posts
On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. 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. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!
She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".
|
On November 20 2012 09:05 AUGcodon wrote:
How the hell do you equate with mandating an educational standard with banning private thoughts and beliefs. The educational integrity of the institute need to be upheld if the degree is worth anything.
This is about the length of my position. School is "school" and church is "church". One is factually based and the other is fictionallyfaith based. They shouldn't sit aside eachother where we blindly forgo all science for belief.
On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. 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. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".
Also this.
|
On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. 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. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".
KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.
|
United States42912 Posts
On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. 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. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says". KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.
I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.
|
Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
Edit: i'll just google the bible part
|
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote:
Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
Many denominations are cool with a big bang type of scenario that was created by God. Catholicism, for instance, has been quite explicit about the consistency of these positions.
|
On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote:
Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"?
If I recall it was never specified but a scholar went back through the text to approximate.
Also the 4.6 billion days is now being placed into the "7 day creation cycle" because god never made the sun until somewhat past the 2nd or 3rd day so since light dictates length of day it could have been infinite.
Anywho, that's my take on it I could be completely wrong
|
On November 20 2012 08:44 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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. 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.
Teachers do stuff like that and the trick is to just go with it. Back when I was in high school our teacher gave out a lecture in which he declared Shakespeare to be greatest author of all time. He then had a question on a test be "who is the greatest author of all time"
Since it was the last question on the test I spent the final 10 minutes of the period reminding the teacher that the question he asked was an opinion and anything I put in would be apporpriate. Let me just reiterate that, I spent the final 10 minutes of a english test explaining to an english teacher how the english language worked but in the end I answered what I knew he wanted because I wanted the points. Incidentally he asked the same question on the final but changed wording to "according to the lecture..." so argueing the question is fine but what that guy did was intentionally shoot himself in foot by answering what he knew teacher didnt want.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
even though the content of ideas/belief systems/dreams etc can be independently represented from the vehicle, they do share the same world, so to speak. saying "the earth is 6000 years old" is false also is to say "the belief that 'the earth is 6000 years old' is false."
it would take severe dissonance (or a mighty philosopher) to engage in doublethink about science and its content, while still involving scientfic knowledge in one's thinking in good faith.
if you want to undermine science in education, treating science as a 'theory' is a sure fire way of doing it.
|
On November 20 2012 09:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote:
Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"? If I recall it was never specified but a scholar went back through the text to approximate. Also the 4.6 billion days is now being placed into the "7 day creation cycle" because god never made the sun until somewhat past the 2nd or 3rd day so since light dictates length of day it could have been infinite. Anywho, that's my take on it I could be completely wrong
Theres a growing religious theory thats name I cant remember right now that accepts everything that science teaches but says God has his hand in each part of it. Basically they dont take the Bible literally but they still believe the overall message of it.
|
On November 20 2012 09:18 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 09:16 WirelessWaffle wrote:
Wait wait wait...
In that picture where it says god is the correct answer for the second question doesn't that mean that the first answer would not be 4.6billion and that the 3rd question shouldn't exist?
If someone could enlighten me to what the bible says (i'm not religious) on the matter of the earths maximum age it would be appreciated. Or is the test a hybrid of "current science states this" and "god made everything including current science"? Many denominations are cool with a big bang type of scenario that was created by God. Catholicism, for instance, has been quite explicit about the consistency of these positions.
So many people forget that Georges Lemaitre, the originator of the Big Bang theory, was a priest, astronomer, and physicist. And oh yeah, the father of genetics, Gregor Mandel, was a hardcore Augustinian. Even when it comes to evolution, the Catholic Church has seen no conflict between science and the Catholic faith for many years, and the major Protestant denominations (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian) follow a similar suit.
Edit: 30,000th post in the thread :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
