Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Negative Impacts on Society
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 151 of 222 (101370)
04-20-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by redwolf
04-20-2004 3:43 PM


redwolf,
I have responded & opened a new topic here.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-21-2004]

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by redwolf, posted 04-20-2004 3:43 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 152 of 222 (101513)
04-21-2004 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Syamsu
04-20-2004 4:21 AM


Re: Once again...
You realise of course Syamsu that simply because you observe unpleasantness, perversions and temptations in relation to this idea has no bearing at all on its validity.
It is perfectly possible for something with unpleasant consequences to be true. Similarly even if all of the evils you attribute to Darwinism could be laid 100% to blame on modern evolutionary theory it would not neccesarily mean that it was untrue.
I would not agree that the nervous system is highly unstable. There may be a fairly large level of plasticity in many areas of neural development but there are also many clearly specified regions and repeated structures in human brains.
I don't see anything suggesting that noting 'unpredictibility' is not scientific, they suggest that symmetry is normally seen as pleasing and asymmetry as less so. Indeed if we accept the assertion that the human brain is fundamentally a pattern recognition engine then you would expect that objects not fitting a pattern would be highlighted in the brain, although whether the response to them would be -ve or +ve is another question. This may not neccessarily be the case of course as we must all be well aware that the mind is often all too ready to shoehorn outlying factors into a pattern.
By the by, I can't find any references to John Cleese's scientific qualifications, I thought he trained as a lawyer, can you provide some guidance to a reference?
cheers,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Syamsu, posted 04-20-2004 4:21 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Syamsu, posted 04-21-2004 8:25 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 153 of 222 (101517)
04-21-2004 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Wounded King
04-21-2004 6:34 AM


Re: Once again...
Validity, or scientific validity, is not the end all on which basis beliefs get accepted or not, of course, it's a personal responsibility.
Again Reese and Cleese on the one hand also observe the unpredictability of fashion and whatnot, but on the other hand do not recognize this unpredictability as being part of beauty, not part of the universal scientific rules for beauty. They put the science rules of beauty apart from that unpredictability.
Really perfect symetry is much lifeless IMO, I don't like it....
I don't think the structure is much the point of the brain, it is the behaviour of tiny particles, and as speculated some quantummechanical effects in the brain, that that have large influence on the functioning of the brain, what's more, has large influence over the entire organism. In any case the functioning of a brain is not like a rock falling to earth, there is much unpredictability there, as everyone knows. There is no point in trying to ignore the unpredictability, it is unscientific.
I guess the lawdegree from Cambridge university is what's referred to as him being trained as a scientist....
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Wounded King, posted 04-21-2004 6:34 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by nator, posted 04-22-2004 1:15 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 155 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2004 6:01 PM Syamsu has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 154 of 222 (101853)
04-22-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Syamsu
04-21-2004 8:25 AM


Re: Once again...
quote:
I don't think the structure is much the point of the brain, it is the behaviour of tiny particles, and as speculated some quantummechanical effects in the brain, that that have large influence on the functioning of the brain,
Well, that's the difference between what is shown to be true about the brain, and what is speculated about the brain.
What a physicist thinks goes on inside microtubules in the brain is nice, but it also ignores most of what Neuroscientists and Cognitive Psychologists have been doing for the last several decades.
A pysicist, in other words, doesn't have the background or expertise to be making claims about brain function.
quote:
what's more, has large influence over the entire organism. In any case the functioning of a brain is not like a rock falling to earth, there is much unpredictability there, as everyone knows.
In an avalanche, it's impossible to predict where any individual rock will fall.
It is possible very accurately predict what will happen when a single neuron in a brain is stimulated.
You are not making a valid comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Syamsu, posted 04-21-2004 8:25 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 222 (101921)
04-22-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Syamsu
04-21-2004 8:25 AM


Re: Once again...
quote:
Validity, or scientific validity, is not the end all on which basis beliefs get accepted or not, of course, it's a personal responsibility.
Ehhh, wrong answer. For scientific theories, the social impact is ignored in favor of the evidence. It is what we call unbiased. It is not a personal choice, but a choice forced upon us by the evidence. Of course we can personally choose that a scientific theory is wrong, but then only on personal biases and emotions, not on an evidenciary basis. You might as well tell us we should believe in a flat earth because of the negative impacts a round earth would have on society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Syamsu, posted 04-21-2004 8:25 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 160 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 156 of 222 (101931)
04-22-2004 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tamara
02-27-2004 5:15 PM


Science taught?
I presume you mean that we do not teach the application of the Scientific Method as a tool by which to add more understanding about things we study. If I am correct, I applaud you.
What we teach in schools is science history and rational that has emerged (from experiments). We creat Technocrats, engineers if we are locky, and not enough even of them. Real sceince people, who step by step build an Empirical Argument for their particular insight is as rare a snow at the Equator.
However, even with all the prigress we seem to have made by this 21st Century, the biggest impediment in education is that we don not understand oirselves. We do not understand human thinking or human behavior. We are surrounded by so called informed and knowledgeable sources which can program the society collectively to insist that this or the the other thing is right. We have a democratic sophistry of wisdom, "DZon't eat fat!"... no what, make that Carbs.... hey!
I'd hate to count all the thick Prime Steak I avoided. (ain't even available anymo'.)
One big step in the right direction has been Dr Howard Gardner. His "Multiple Intelligences" have reached the ears of the educators. But, they do not know how to apply it,...
they are not sure what it is,...
they can not get it going in the classroom...
they have the keys... seven keys...
they can not or will not enter into the Temple of Real Education, bowever, and their adminstrators and "leaders" in the Ivory Temples of the Teaching Colleges won't let anyone else do that job, because its, embarrassingly, their job... and THEY can't do it.
BUT, PRIESTHOODS... IT'S AN OLD STORY:
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 5:15 PM Tamara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2004 5:38 AM kofh2u has replied
 Message 158 by hitchy, posted 04-23-2004 9:21 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 157 of 222 (102131)
04-23-2004 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by kofh2u
04-22-2004 6:55 PM


Re: Science taught?
How step by step a process would you like? Should every molecular biologist have to go back and do their own X-ray crystallography on DNA just to make sure that it really does have a double helical structure? Should I have to repeat every fundamental developmental biology experiment in several model organisms before I can address the question of neural development in the fly?
The body of scientific knowledge is so broad and so deep that it is impossible for anyone investigating anything to work solely from first principles. The 'priesthood' of science has one big advantage over other historical priesthoods, it actually produces something concrete.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by kofh2u, posted 04-22-2004 6:55 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by kofh2u, posted 04-23-2004 11:33 AM Wounded King has replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 158 of 222 (102148)
04-23-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by kofh2u
04-22-2004 6:55 PM


Re: Science taught?
quote:
I presume you mean that we do not teach the application of the Scientific Method as a tool by which to add more understanding about things we study.
In the Maryland state curriculum which is followed by every school in the state, using the scientific method and applying it to novel situations (novel for the students anyway) is required and the MSDE provides opportunities for science teachers to input new ideas into the system every year. In fact, the essay questions I help develop and test for the state HSA and public release practice HSA every summer have to involve using the scientific method in relation to one of the other indicators of learning (i.e. mitosis, cellular transport, osmosis, molecular genetics, natural selection, etc.).
quote:
One big step in the right direction has been Dr Howard Gardner. His "Multiple Intelligences" have reached the ears of the educators. But, they do not know how to apply it,...
they are not sure what it is,...
they can not get it going in the classroom...
they have the keys... seven keys...
they can not or will not enter into the Temple of Real Education, bowever, and their adminstrators and "leaders" in the Ivory Temples of the Teaching Colleges won't let anyone else do that job, because its, embarrassingly, their job... and THEY can't do it.
I am not an expert on multiple intelligences, but we use various ways to help all of our students. Our county has just implemented small learning communities for incoming 6th and 9th graders. As a teacher for our Ninth Grade Academy, I can tell you that myself and the other 15 teachers in the Academy do everything we can together to help our students be successful. We use the info from Multiple Intelligences and the 5-E model everyday to try and reach our students. Saying that our administrators and college educators don't want to admit that they cannot do their job is crap. I am a product of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. I graduated from IUP with teaching degrees in biology and general science. I can tell you that I was exposed to so much stuff concerning pedagogy that I had to stand back and decide exactly how I wanted to integrate everything I learned into my teaching style.
One question, are you a teacher or a recent high school/college student? I can say that the old mentality of "I don't have to change my teaching style in order to reach my students, they have to change to understand me" is gone. I, personally, change things from day to day and class period to class period based on who I have and what is going on in the community at that time. I find that the teachers I work with here in the biology dept. are constantly adapting their teaching styles on a period to period and day to day basis, also. We have to. Science, especially biology, changes everyday. So do we.
One change that are not going to make, however, is riding down that slippery slope to creationism through intelligent design. I started this thread to try to show how political and religious interference with what is taught in science has negative consequences not only for the scientific community, but the population at large. When state gov't's have to try to pass state laws or interfer with their boards of education in order to get something included or excluded in their state science curriculum, something is wrong. Why have a board of education if you can bully the people who develop the standards?
Just sit back, listen to your lobbyists and do what you have to do to get re-elected. If that means f-ing up science education in order to appease those constituents that are making decisions based on emotion instead of reason, go for it. Just be ready for the mess it creates down the road.
One situation before class starts...
In 1957, the Soviets sent Sputnik into orbit. Everyone in the US panicked and screamed aloud "How could we let this happen? We should have been up their first." How did the Soviets beat us to space? Not b/c they were atheists (most of the population was Russian Orthodox anyway). Not b/c they had a better grasp on science in general than we did (we had states banning the teaching of evolution, however the Soviets weren't using modern genetics and evolution at all). It was b/c we were more concerned with the retaining the "soul" of our christian-based country against the throngs of godless communists than furthering our scientific and technological horizons. Sure we were making advances, but the overall stagnation of science education in public high schools was rediculous. "One nation under God" right?
{following added by edit}
Now some people are trying to get the "under God" addition taken out of the pledge we use in school everyday. So many people are for keeping it in that those who want it out are labeled as nutcases and atheists and uberliberals. The fact of the matter is that those two words violate the first amendment regardless of your religious preference (which, by the way is protected by the first amendment also). Time for class...
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by kofh2u, posted 04-22-2004 6:55 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by kofh2u, posted 04-23-2004 11:10 AM hitchy has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 159 of 222 (102153)
04-23-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Loudmouth
04-22-2004 6:01 PM


Re: Once again...
I think you are just mistaken what your teacher might have told you so you would learn things without much fuss (you are forced to accept this on account of the evidence), with how science actually works.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2004 6:01 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 3:21 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 160 of 222 (102154)
04-23-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Loudmouth
04-22-2004 6:01 PM


Re: Once again...
I think you are just mistaken what your teacher might have told you so you would learn things without much fuss (you are forced to accept this on account of the evidence), with how science actually works.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2004 6:01 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2004 11:09 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 161 of 222 (102164)
04-23-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Syamsu
04-23-2004 10:16 AM


Re: Once again...
So is your contention now that no field of science has an evidentiary basis and they are in fact all merely subjective systems of belief? This seems like rather a stretch even for you Syamsu.
Your point that school teachers often present as well accepted facts things which have often been superceded or in some cases discredited is reasonable, but to a large extent the way science is taught in the school room is severely constrained. It might be better for producing well rounded individuals if science classes focussed on teaching scepticism and an aptitude for rational analysis and scientific methodology. Unfortunately such a scheme could well produce lots of people with a highly desirable, in my opinion, mindset but absoloutely no knowledge of the actual fundamentals of any particular field of scientific research. I feel one major failing in education is the fact that such a mindset is not required generally and indeed some schools, both secular and religious, may even actively discourage enquiring young minds, although this seems to be less common now than it once was when the majority of learning was strictly by rote.
I don't see how what Loudmouth's teacher said to him could have much influence on the idea that the actual mechanisms governing a natural system work irrespective of your beliefs about that system, unless of course you are examining social interaction in humans, and psychical research apparently , in which case your beliefs may well affect it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 11:16 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 162 of 222 (102165)
04-23-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by hitchy
04-23-2004 9:21 AM


Teachers are great...
Thank you for the reply.
Yes, teachers are great. I mean that.
Let me exaggerate, for argument sake, since everything I write below is and can be debated, on and on. Of course, that debate makes my point. Education needs major surgery.
Teachers are now the "parenti loci" of the community. And, no one else is, even the parents themselves.
I find that they care about everything, in addition to the kids. They are willing to attend meetings for self-edification and improvement. They are ravinous readers of new ideas. They are experts in child/adolescent behavior. Teachers are often idealistic and moral by comparison.
Teachers, however, are prisoners in small rooms, interacting with small groups in accord with the now out dated system of educational organization. And, to a large degree, they are prisioners of their own psychological pre-sets about how to teach, what a teacher ought be doing. These pre-sets are the result of enculturation in their own edusation, they mimick the pedagogue of hteir own experiences with the "box" they have also been matriculated.
This is to say, that the present 19th Century program, one designed to prepare workers for mass production, is still the superimposition reigning. The breaks between classes, 5 minutes for the rest room, and getting to the next class on time is standard "Assemble Line" norms. The silence, hands folded, boredom, raising the hand for permission, "Ms" authoritarianism, and quiet, time on task environment is gone. Yes, they won't do this any more. Revolted. There has been an unreported student revolt. They can and do change that environment, one way or the other. And, they know that nothing can or will ready happen to the students who commandeer the change in classroom environment.
They will not take it, rightly so, anymore. A full day of opposition to comraderie and social intercourse, in the stifling silence of bye gone days, has been replaced in the classroom. But not in organizational structure of education. Teachers now move on, go as deep as the particular class will allow them. The suspected dumbing down is a ready and expressedly necessity. They must teach to the slowest, either slow by ability or intent. The classroom is led by the teacher, or else the few who have usurped his/her authority, in an anarchy of student freedom. The tenets of the new student perspective is "He can't flunk us all," and "I am not coming to your detention."
Good, bad? We don't know yet, this unconscious and cancerous adaptation has taken place in small steps. Laws, students rights, pre-occupied, two paycheck families, or single mother, undereducated, drug-fearing parents are having their own "educational" problems at home with these same kids.
Changes have been made. Each change has been an alteration within the general system of things. Scotch tape. That it works satisfactorily at some level, particularly with students most ready for Public Education, is not enough. No, because these are too few in number, and are found in the richest and most affluent districts. That is not exactly the idea of Free Public Education. Some districts, and some classes in every district, do as well, regardless of the impediment of the teachers and staff and system. They, their type, always have learned inspite of all.
The problems unaddressed are in that larger and ever growing body of students, the lower class student bodies. The teachers, unassisted, can not avoid their own burn out, nor the demise of a Public Education, and they can not, by themselves, pull the whole nation from the brinkmanship of an uninformed and uneducated populace to come.
I insist. That at the highest levels, they do not know what to do. But, they do anything and everything. Charter schools, vouchers, donning Catholic School uniforms, heavier textbooks, less teacher formality, absent the dress codes, forget homework, test teachers, test students,...
But, the standardized nation wide testing shows only minor improvements for all the fanfare, and a larger body of students remain below competency. My point is made, also, in reflecting the low numbers of students who enter certain fields. I refer to those fields were the REAL jobs are to be found, fields which require a different submission to education. That is, a submission that results in actual learning, in fields like nursing and computer science, as example.
While the outsourcing by American business gathers momentun, the point that too few "educated" people in computer science are available. That is, at the fair world market price.
The previous American monoply, by those successfully educated, say the computer programmers, is meeting its own reality. The high salaries are now going down, salaries that these few people once recieved. This is due to lack of competition, others students avoided the rigors of that field of study. America turns out too few ready and interested in the tasks facing employers. Employers can find Indian students and Asian students outside America, in great numbers and with ready competencies. They have and continue to get educated.
The growing political pressure, to insist that the lack of qualified people in America means that American business ought reward, and bow down to those few, who have submitted to actually learning something, will not be acceptable. We are being invaded (via internet) for jobs we have not been preparing, or not preparing enough of, our own kids to do. Reality is just setting in.
I repeat. We do not know the next move beyond more of the same, and on the students' terms as much as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by hitchy, posted 04-23-2004 9:21 AM hitchy has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 163 of 222 (102167)
04-23-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wounded King
04-23-2004 5:38 AM


No, I don't mean that.
No, I don't mean that.
I mean that science in the High School is more like a poorly taught History of Science.
A well taught History of Science would actually be an improvement.
Science instruction is not intended today to teach students how to use their Logical/Mathematical Intelligence. In fact, it hardly focuses upon that elemental facility of understanding things, even when examining the concepts in the science curriculum that are presented.
Take Avagadro's Number.
Avo deduced the number of molecular particules in one molecular weight of a substance. He actually could prove by his logical reasoning, long before the electron microscope, at the earliest stages of the science, that EXACTLY so many, invisible and super tiny atoms, were present in any pinch of a substance. The logic is like a chess game. Few cared then to follow his reasoning. We would not even know about it today if one student had not really listened, only one person among all his students in his high school classes, and scientists he had tried to tell.
He argued with out experiment or lab, that 6.22 x 10^23 atoms MUST be in one molecular weight of ANY substance. His some what complicated argument was not heard by his own contempories, neither is it expressed for what it is today.
Students learn how to answer questions using this number, but they are not focused of the amazing scientific thinking, Mathematical/Logical Intelligence, that is utilized here. Do we want to give the students a fish of mysterious numbers, or teach them to fish around for more such numbers? Is the goal for learning the art of "fishing," not receiving free fish?
It matters not, because the curriculum leads onward, and teachers must cover much, in great detail, for memory. True?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2004 5:38 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2004 11:58 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 164 of 222 (102171)
04-23-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by kofh2u
04-23-2004 11:33 AM


Re: No, I don't mean that.
That is a quite shocking post given the trend of this conversation. Not only do you misstate Avogadro's number, 6.022 X10^23 rather than 6.22 X10^23, but you say that Avagadro calculated this number when in what he did was hypothesise that there would be the same number of atoms in equal volumes of gases under the same conditions. To actually determine the number required lots and lots of good old experimentation.
Obviously the science history you were taught in school was very poor.
Or if you think I am wrong then give some guidance to sources confirming your version of events. As a starter here is a link to the paper in which his hypothesis is set forth.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by kofh2u, posted 04-23-2004 11:33 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by SRO2, posted 04-23-2004 3:11 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 167 by kofh2u, posted 04-23-2004 3:31 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 169 by kofh2u, posted 04-23-2004 4:07 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 222 (102207)
04-23-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Wounded King
04-23-2004 11:58 AM


Re: No, I don't mean that.
I don't think Kofh actually took science in school. I think he just heard other students with satanic ego's talking about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2004 11:58 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024