ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:18 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Truth or Lies: Which should be taught in our school?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:19 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Currently, the stated policy in US public schools is to teach students the truth. However, the truth is a hotly contested theory in many circles. Now, I'm not proposing that we just teach lies, but at the very least we should teach the controversy. If we have teachers give equal time to teaching truth and teaching lies, the students will finally be in an informed position to choose which to believe on their own, rather than being indoctrinated with only things that are true.

Thoughts?

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:24 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:57 am
Posts: 729
Location: everywhere and nowhere
Evolution needs to be taught in schools because it is the best theory we have right now. If or when a better more solid theory comes about then that will no doubt replace the older defunct theory.

EDIT-FU: I'm retarted

_________________
“Justice is a cruel cruel truckload of pointy crapâ€


Last edited by Destroyer_of_ants on Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:38 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Schools need to teach scientific fact, mathmatical fact, etc.

Let philosophy classes be for the discerning to truth and non-truth.


Schools are supposed to share knowledge. Truth or non truth is inconsequential.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
krylex wrote:
Schools need to teach scientific fact, mathmatical fact, etc.

Let philosophy classes be for the discerning to truth and non-truth.


Schools are supposed to share knowledge. Truth or non truth is inconsequential.


QFT

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:10 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 368
Location: Washington
Well first of all, neither academia nor outside institutions such as church should encompass the grand fabric of ones personal knowlege(1). What people need, on an individual level, is proper focus and an objective viewpoint against voracious amoeba-like memes until a thorough understanding of atleast the critical, elementary principles is reached(2). Science and religion do in fact have one thing in common; members of both lines of thought hold very deep skepticism of one another, with exceptions as I expect someone to chime in with.

(1)By this remark I mean the individual being encouraged to indulge in a personal persuit of knowlege (a child would probably feel very empowered by assimilating knowlege on their own.) Do you remember when you were first taught to read? I was provided the material appropriate for learning and basic understanding, but it was my own work, and thereby a personal understanding on top of enthusiasm that made sure I didn't turn out sounding like most of the living dunce caps you've all had experiences with on teh internets.

(2)To make point one a bit more concrete, you have to understand that teachers are people, and have biased viewpoints. They are vouging for the meme(s) they most believe, which is heavily more apparent in post-highschool educational institutions, but in 'fuzzy learning' highschool courses as well(science is not regarded as 'fuzzy learning' anymore than math is, atleast where I was taught.) When I say "voracious amoeba like memes" I don't mean science and religion are big scary meanies so come visit my cults website, I mean that regardless of how true either ring to someone, they are both enforced, fanatically.

Were I born in a more isolated, theism-inclined location in, say, Kansas, I don't believe I'd be here typing these things on this forum today simply because my objective standpoint would be snuffed out due to determent of seeking knowledge outside of the faith, which is typical of conservative states. I was not. I was born in an ethnically and culturally diverse environment. While my personal life as a child was geared towards the teachings of christ which was encouraged by my family, my school life was not. Reading, math, computers and art was what was taught. Though unintended I'm sure, I was given a choice very early on in my developement.

I chose science. Reasoning, a tried and true method of discovery, and a stronghold for the sanctity of knowledge. I looked at religion from my new perch of changing viewpoints, and could not balance out a "healthy" interest in both simultaneously.

In retrospect, I suppose unproven scientific theory should be reserved for individual research and study early on (higher education means exposing students to theory), while scientific fact should be strongly enforced. Religious history needs to be understood, but the teachings of christ should be kept in Sunday School.

To sum it up: objective reasoning should be applied to decisions concerning filtering the curriculum. It should also be kept in mind that independant discovery further cements a belief of YOUR OWN choosing.

[edit:Radio pointed out a snafu on my part, I learn from this sort of thing so please tear it apart for me.]

_________________
----
dA


Last edited by Nicrat on Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:18 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
Nicrat wrote:
unproven scientific theory

Again, this needs pointing out. These words will never form a coherent phrase. Scientific theories are by definition proven. An unproven observation is called a hypothesis, not a theory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Destroyer_of_ants wrote:
Well, abortion is a hotly discussed topic but does that stop it from being a good idea for some people and a bad idea for other people?

Evolution needs to be taught in schools because it is the best theory we have right now. If or when a better more solid theory comes about then that will no doubt replace the older defunct theory.

P.S. i believe this discussion is going on in http://forums.kyhm.com/viewtopic.php?t=8900&start=40


You are incredibly close to earning an NFL sticker, DOA.

Unrelated is not for debate; this forum is. Hence - this topic, this forum, that topic, that forum.

You want to bring it in, quote it like a man.

That said, to get this post OT a bit: Truth and science are not the same thing. Science is that which can be bolstered and confirmed through scientific analysis and experimentation. In the framework of science, discussion of the existence or nonexistence of God is not, should not, and cannot be discussed. There is no context for it.

Philosophy is that which determines the truth, essence, existence, and falsehood of things. Science is not.

As Kry says, "Schools are for the sharing of knowledge - truth or nontruth is inconsequential."

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:39 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Radio wrote:
Nicrat wrote:
unproven scientific theory

Again, this needs pointing out. These words will never form a coherent phrase. Scientific theories are by definition proven. An unproven observation is called a hypothesis, not a theory.



Maybe that's the truth, however it is a lie that a scientific theory is a bunch of unproven nonsense written by communists, and I believe this view should also be taught.

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
RMG wrote:
Radio wrote:
Nicrat wrote:
unproven scientific theory

Again, this needs pointing out. These words will never form a coherent phrase. Scientific theories are by definition proven. An unproven observation is called a hypothesis, not a theory.



Maybe that's the truth, however it is a lie that a scientific theory is a bunch of unproven nonsense written by communists, and I believe this view should also be taught.


Then go ahead, teach it.

But not in a science class, since such a topic has no relevance to the teaching of science.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:40 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:57 am
Posts: 729
Location: everywhere and nowhere
Comparitive religion is a subject that is taught in some schools, which you can take if you want a diferent side to the argument

_________________
“Justice is a cruel cruel truckload of pointy crapâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I just love this image.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
I'm trying to understand what's going on in this thread.

I can get the first part - RMG is making fun of dumb people. I can respect that. But I don't get the responses. Are they just playing along? Do they not see the sarcasm? Do they see the sarcasm, but, because this is DC, they're being serious anyway?

<img src="http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7531/soconfused8cn.jpg">

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I just love this image.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:56 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Tossrock wrote:
I'm trying to understand what's going on in this thread.

I can get the first part - RMG is making fun of dumb people. I can respect that. But I don't get the responses. Are they just playing along? Do they not see the sarcasm? Do they see the sarcasm, but, because this is DC, they're being serious anyway?

<img src="http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7531/soconfused8cn.jpg">


I saw the sarcasm. I then was serious, and I think that set off the crowd.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:12 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
I saw the sarcasm.

Then it turned into an actual discussion of the topic that was being lampooned by RMG.

And then I had to shove my nose in there somewhere.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:15 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 368
Location: Washington
The internet is serious business >:O

_________________
----
dA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2754
Location: South of the equator
This topic has become seriously derailed, and I propose we move it to the Unrelated Thread.


/straight face


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:27 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
This is not about truth and lies. Science itself is totally opposed to the kind of thinking that accepts any sort of model as true (vs. reasonable to believe given the information we have at the present moment). The fact is, we believe different things today than we believed 100 years ago, and we will believe different things 100 years in the future. Science is a process of creating models that can most effectively describe observable phenomena, given the information available. A process -- not a fixed set of truths.

That being said, evolutionary theory is a clear product of this process, whereas "Intelligent Design" as a theory clearly has priorities other than strictly explaining observable phenomena. As such, it should not be taught as Science. Science does not equal truth, but neither does ID equal science.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:26 am 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
Radio wrote:
Nicrat wrote:
unproven scientific theory

Again, this needs pointing out. These words will never form a coherent phrase. Scientific theories are by definition proven. An unproven observation is called a hypothesis, not a theory.

On contrare, scientific theories cannot be proven, they can merely be shown to apply for all known data points, obtained by experiments. However, all scientific theories can be disproven, and it is by doing so that we push our understandings of science.

Also, evolution as a theory has its flaws. Both its long-term form and creationism are unfalsafiable barring time machines or millions of years, and therefore neither of them is a true theory. I'm not even sure if they qualify as hypotheses.

In science, there is no real truth or fact or laws, only the currently accepted theories and the data we obtain from experiments.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: See how everything makes sense when you know what the big people are talking about? :D
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:53 am 
Offline
YOU SAID YOU LEFT
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:30 am
Posts: 187
Location: <:(
nick012000 wrote:
On contrare, scientific theories cannot be proven, they can merely be shown to apply for all known data points, obtained by experiments. However, all scientific theories can be disproven, and it is by doing so that we push our understandings of science.

Also, evolution as a theory has its flaws. Both its long-term form and creationism are unfalsafiable barring time machines or millions of years, and therefore neither of them is a true theory. I'm not even sure if they qualify as hypotheses.

In science, there is no real truth or fact or laws, only the currently accepted theories and the data we obtain from experiments.


Au contraire, prove means "show to be valid", not "transform into fact." This is why people who are much less wrongheaded than you use phrases like "proven theory" and "valid hypothesis" with regard to evolution. As for the word theory, in addition to your understanding it also means "a rule that is capable of predicting natural phenomena." Evolutionary theory can basically be used to predict that animals will adapt, on a phenotypical level, to adverse conditions through selective breeding. This has since been observed to be correct. :billnye:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
<s>Karl Popper</s>nick012000 wrote:
On contrare, scientific theories cannot be proven, they can merely be shown to apply for all known data points, obtained by experiments. However, all scientific theories can be disproven, and it is by doing so that we push our understandings of science.


The idea of falsifiability is a popular way of understanding what makes a theory scientific, but it is not without its critics, including the logical positivists. Most actual scientists, to the degree that they subscribe to any philosophy at all, tend towards positivism, which advocates a verifiability model of science.

Quote:
Also, evolution as a theory has its flaws. Both its long-term form and creationism are unfalsafiable barring time machines or millions of years, and therefore neither of them is a true theory. I'm not even sure if they qualify as hypotheses.


That's, um, ridiculous. Even in the Popperian idea of science, it's not so much a question of whether every aspect of a scientific model itself is falsifiable, but whether it allows us to make predictions which are falsifiable. This is clearly the case with evolution, which would, for example, predict the existence of fossils, observable small-scale changes in animals species in the face of environmental change, the existence of vestigial organs, etc.

I think part of the problem some of the people in this debate have is that they are unaware that there is no one accepted theory about how science works. (There are, of course, some general attributes of science that nearly everyone agrees upon, i.e. it tries to explain empirical phenomena in the most efficient way possible. It is upon these general ideas that we can base our arguments over whether evolution or ID are valid as scientific theories. Of course some people would contest even these basic ideas -- but then, what basis do we have left for argument?)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:52 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
The US school system doesn't teach the truth anyway.

example: schools teach that thanksgiving is about pilgims and indians getting along. too bad it's not. it's a holiday that commemorates one of the North's victories over the South during the Civil War.



the truth should be taught. but don't kid yourself by thinking it is.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group