EPTSeriously? I don't understand.
South Dakota legislature now requiring that public schools be taught that global warming is due to astrology, and that global warming doesn't exist.
South Dakota Legislature require Astrology educati
| Blogs > LoneWolf.Alpha- |
|
LoneWolf.Alpha-
123 Posts
Seriously? I don't understand. South Dakota legislature now requiring that public schools be taught that global warming is due to astrology, and that global warming doesn't exist. | ||
|
Rabbitmaster
1357 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
Interestingly, in eastern culture, primarily on the sub continent astrology is regarded with legitimacy. In some cases politicians will even consult an astrologer on major political desicions. Though it's often ill-reported and not talked about. [/random cultural fact] More than anything the law in question is attempting to stop school teachers from teaching about global warming as a proven scientic fact rather than a prominent scientific theory (which I support). But like so, so, so many they are making the mistake of attempting to tackle global warming as a political issue rather than a scientific one. | ||
|
mrafaeldie12
Brazil537 Posts
| ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
More than anything the law in question is attempting to stop school teachers from teaching about global warming as a proven scientic fact rather than a prominent scientific theory (which I support). But like so, so, so many they are making the mistake of attempting to tackle global warming as a political issue rather than a scientific one. I get what you're saying, but focusing on specific issues like this will automatically make it political, I think. Instead of saying that evolution/global warming/aliens/whatever is a theory and not a fact, we should inform students about how 1. Scientific facts are not logical tautologies 2. Almost nothing is accepted as literally fact by scientists, but certain theories have enough momentum behind them that it will take a large amount of evidence for alternatives to be taken seriously 3. The amount of evidence you require to accept a theory will depend on the situation. Use your head. A lot of the debate around politically sensitive issue like these could be sidestepped just by educating people on what science is about and why we listen to scientists. | ||
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
| ||
|
Gheed
United States972 Posts
On November 16 2011 07:33 TheToast wrote: More than anything the law in question is attempting to stop school teachers from teaching about global warming as a proven scientic fact rather than a prominent scientific theory (which I support). But like so, so, so many they are making the mistake of attempting to tackle global warming as a political issue rather than a scientific one. It seems you, like many of my fellow Americans, have not been taught the proper scientific definition of the word "theory." To save those educated among us an aneurysm, please replace your everyday use of the word "theory" with "hypothesis" and "theoretical" with "hypothetical." Nine times out of ten, you will be correct with this method. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On November 16 2011 07:33 TheToast wrote: Yeah I think it was a spelling error. That's what the general rumbled on the interwebs seems to be: http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2010/02/south-dakota-legislature-declares-that.html Interestingly, in eastern culture, primarily on the sub continent astrology is regarded with legitimacy. In some cases politicians will even consult an astrologer on major political desicions. Though it's often ill-reported and not talked about. [/random cultural fact] More than anything the law in question is attempting to stop school teachers from teaching about global warming as a proven scientic fact rather than a prominent scientific theory (which I support). But like so, so, so many they are making the mistake of attempting to tackle global warming as a political issue rather than a scientific one. i think ronald reagan consulted an astrologer....*shudders | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On November 16 2011 07:33 TheToast wrote: Yeah I think it was a spelling error. That's what the general rumbled on the interwebs seems to be: http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2010/02/south-dakota-legislature-declares-that.html Interestingly, in eastern culture, primarily on the sub continent astrology is regarded with legitimacy. In some cases politicians will even consult an astrologer on major political desicions. Though it's often ill-reported and not talked about. [/random cultural fact] More than anything the law in question is attempting to stop school teachers from teaching about global warming as a proven scientic fact rather than a prominent scientific theory (which I support). But like so, so, so many they are making the mistake of attempting to tackle global warming as a political issue rather than a scientific one. the climate is changing around us, fact. whether its a short term cycle, long term man made effect, its all irrelevant. why do people need to play the blame game in order to care that 1000's of peoples lives are at risk if we dont do something about it? i know you are trying to come across as a reasonable moderate on the subject but by giving conspiracy theories a fair hearing you give them legitimacy. i have seen no compelling evidence that the climate isnt changing so id be interested where you did see such a thing. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6590 Posts
On November 16 2011 10:13 turdburgler wrote: the climate is changing around us, fact. whether its a short term cycle, long term man made effect, its all irrelevant. why do people need to play the blame game in order to care that 1000's of peoples lives are at risk if we dont do something about it? i know you are trying to come across as a reasonable moderate on the subject but by giving conspiracy theories a fair hearing you give them legitimacy. i have seen no compelling evidence that the climate isnt changing so id be interested where you did see such a thing. I happen to know for a fact that Canada's Prime Minister during WW1 consulted the hands on the clock to make decisions and talked to his dead dog using a medium. However I don't understand your questioning of what he wrote nor my answer to yours. | ||
|
sheaRZerg
United States613 Posts
Raises an interesting point now...how do you treat a law now that it was passed with a silly error. If some troll teacher decides to teach that astrology effects climate change he is technically protected by the law? I wonder if there are other, perhaps more important example of typos in legislature. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
For instance, if they actually meant it to say astrology, they would propose it in order to force a decision on other bullshiteries like creationism, by the Supreme Court. A few years ago, they did it with an abortion law meant to challenge Roe v. Wade, so the issue would make it to the Court again. | ||
|
Gheed
United States972 Posts
On November 16 2011 10:38 Jibba wrote: I don't know if it's related but in the past, seemingly ridiculous bills have been proposed in the South Dakota State Senate for the purpose of challenging some federal statute or to force a judgment on a certain topic. For instance, if they actually meant it to say astrology, they would propose it in order to force a decision on other bullshiteries like creationism, by the Supreme Court. I think this is just a case of legislators not reading the things they sign or being stupid in general. You are right, though, South Dakota's legislature has been proven to spew bullshit for the sole purpose of instigating judicial review. This case was an example, I believe. People forget the power a state legislature has. If a state decided to, say, pass a bill criminalizing homosexuality, nobody can do anything about it until a lawsuit against the law reaches a court. And to even sue you need a plaintiff, so somebody would, in this example, need to be arrested for being a homosexual. | ||
|
damageinc
United States58 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On November 16 2011 10:13 turdburgler wrote: the climate is changing around us, fact. whether its a short term cycle, long term man made effect, its all irrelevant. why do people need to play the blame game in order to care that 1000's of peoples lives are at risk if we dont do something about it? i know you are trying to come across as a reasonable moderate on the subject but by giving conspiracy theories a fair hearing you give them legitimacy. i have seen no compelling evidence that the climate isnt changing so id be interested where you did see such a thing. I'm not trying to come across as a reasonable moderate. I believe global warming is an unproven theory that has been perpetuated as fact by decades of bad science, scientists with conflicts of interest, bad data, incomplete data, and the media. I think news stories like this one (please ignore the sensationalist headline) show that the science on the subject of global warming is by no means concrete and has a long way to go. And some of the data that current climate models are based on has been grossly mishandled to an extent that I believe calls its validity into question. Records are missing, data has gone missing, critical things were not properly recorded. But sensationalist headlines have a big part to play in the rise of the theory of global warming. For years the media, interest groups, and politicians have been reaping the benefits of hyping global warming. Al Gore has by far the most conflicts of interest. His book has made him millions. He know lives in a gigantic house and flies around the world in a personal jet to go to speaking engagements for which he charges $100,000 per appearance. He also owns one of two of the world's "carbon exchanges" which is like a stock market for carbon credits. Also his movie and book are filled with facts that are so off the chart wrong one can easily classify them as lies. Some are so grievous, that a High Court that if a school wants to show the film they had to point out a number of issues with the film's arguments. I'm not saying that global warming does not exists. My point is that the science is not definitive. Scientific consensus is not definitive proof. For years there was scientific consensus that the theory of eugenics was correct. Science is about the interpretation of the existing evidence to come the closest as possible to the truth. I think before we radically change our economies and curtail industrial production, we had better be pretty damn sure that the current scientific theories are correct. I mean like really sure. The current science does not provide that. However, even if global warming turns out not to be correct, I should stress that does not mean we should stop research into more efficient means of energy production and alternative fuels. Though this is an entirely separate issue with its own set of geopolitical considerations. Anyway I've said my piece, anyone who wants to get into a debate about global warming have fun--I will not be joining you.  | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On November 16 2011 08:18 Redmark wrote: 1. Scientific facts are not logical tautologies 2. Almost nothing is accepted as literally fact by scientists, but certain theories have enough momentum behind them that it will take a large amount of evidence for alternatives to be taken seriously 3. The amount of evidence you require to accept a theory will depend on the situation. Use your head. A lot of the debate around politically sensitive issue like these could be sidestepped just by educating people on what science is about and why we listen to scientists. Thank you! It's so depressing that nobody understands what science is and they think calling something a "theory" is like a diss or something... What do they teach people in school? Read your Popper kids. | ||
|
Ganfei2
473 Posts
And teaching that something is a theory is not crazy; everything in science is supposedly a "theory." Sadly when most people hear the word "theory" they think of 9/11 conspiracies and crap like that. Anyways this kind of thing gets through tons of state legislatures. In Texas, where I live, the state education board voted to eliminate mentions of certain liberal historical figures from the required Texas History courses. A powerful minority can EFFECT change when nobody pays any attention or cares. What is it, like 50% vote in national elections, 20% in Congressional elections, 10% in local elections? | ||
| ||
