Re-writing History

[Guest TrueMetis]

This is a relevant video.

Edited March 21, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Pliny]

Yah right there is a whole lot wrong with that statement.

What? Politicians make legislation. Corporations might lobby for it, which anyone can do, but ultimately politicians make the law. I don't know what other point you are trying to make here.

[Pliny]

This is a relevant video.

This is the reason that education should remain private. Politicians will revise history whatever way they like - and I am not being partisan here, left and right are both guilty.

[Guest TrueMetis]

This is the reason that education should remain private. Politicians will revise history whatever way they like - and I am not being partisan here, left and right are both guilty.

Hell no. The absolute last thing any country needs is private only education. If all education went private only the rich could get a proper education, everyone else would be forced to go to religous schools for their "education," there would be people home schooling and the kids wouldn't get anywere close to the needed education or some kids wouldn't get an educationat all. That would send us back to the dark ages.

You want a solution all schoolboard member must have some sort of degree, history, physics, chemistry, english, etc. No freaking dentists or anyone who advocates teaching anything other than facts. And especially no idiots who claim they have to challenge the experts.

Edited March 22, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Bonam]

You want a solution all schoolboard member must have some sort of degree, history, physics, chemistry, english, etc. No freaking dentists or anyone who advocates teaching anything other than facts.

Yeah cause obviously anyone with a degree is absolutely unbiased and can be trusted to always respect the facts...

[Pliny]

Hell no. The absolute last thing any country needs is private only education.

If all education went private only the rich could get a proper education, everyone else would be forced to go to religous schools for their "education," there would be people home schooling and the kids wouldn't get anywere close to the needed education or some kids wouldn't get an educationat all. That would send us back to the dark ages.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all had degrees? What a wonderful world we could live in!I don't think so. We need diversification not automaton mills.

I don't know what you mean by a proper education but sitting in school for 5 hours a day is no guarantee of a proper education.

One of the great problems in society today is that too many people have degrees and no one wants to do the heavy lifting.

How would we get sent back to the dark ages? I mean, I understand your fear of not getting any education. We like to understand and know about things around us.

An elementary education that covers the basics of learning is all that should ever be considered to be delivered publicly. Education today kills the initiative to learn in too many people and rejects improvement in favour of the established structure.

You want a solution all schoolboard member must have some sort of degree, history, physics, chemistry, english, etc. No freaking dentists or anyone who advocates teaching anything other than facts. And especially no idiots who claim they have to challenge the experts.

We can't challenge the experts? How Orwellian. Where would we be if we didn't challenge the experts? Sitting around campfires and gazing at chicken gizzards - yeah, the dark ages.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all had degrees? What a wonderful world we could live in!I don't think so. We need diversification not automaton mills.

You do know there is more than one type of degree?

I don't know what you mean by a proper education but sitting in school for 5 hours a day is no guarantee of a proper education.

No you've got to have people who want to teach as well. Texas seems to lack that.

One of the great problems in society today is that too many people have degrees and no one wants to do the heavy lifting.

There are plenty of people without degrees that won't do it either. The ones with degrees have an excuse, they've worked hard to get their degree.

How would we get sent back to the dark ages? I mean, I understand your fear of not getting any education. We like to understand and know about things around us.

In order to keep up a first world nation that nation needs a well educated population without that any society will collapse.

An elementary education that covers the basics of learning is all that should ever be considered to be delivered publicly. Education today kills the initiative to learn in too many people and rejects improvement in favour of the established structure.

Elementry school and high school is what I was talking about. The Basics of learning is not at all what kids will be getting if these idiots are allowed to continue. The other half of your statement is crap. Nothing made me want to learn more than what I had learned in elementry and high school.

We can't challenge the experts? How Orwellian. Where would we be if we didn't challenge the experts? Sitting around campfires and gazing at chicken gizzards - yeah, the dark ages.

When you a dentist, yes. If you have a degree in the field you are challenging than go for it.

Yeah cause obviously anyone with a degree is absolutely unbiased and can be trusted to always respect the facts...

You just get a much higher instance of people knowing basic facts when they've got at least a basic degree. I'm not looking for unbaised I'm looking for people who understand basic facts and are willing to admit they're wrong and fix mistakes. Your much more likely to get the from people who have completed a higher form of education than from a self-proclaimed fundie dentist.

[Pliny]

The other half of your statement is crap. Nothing made me want to learn more than what I had learned in elementry and high school.

The greatest thing an education could impart to an individual is the desire to continue learning, that doesn't mean continue schooling.

You just get a much higher instance of people knowing basic facts when they've got at least a basic degree. I'm not looking for unbaised I'm looking for people who understand basic facts and are willing to admit they're wrong and fix mistakes. Your much more likely to get the from people who have completed a higher form of education than from a self-proclaimed fundie dentist.

What happened to experts shouldn't be questioned?

[Guest TrueMetis]

The greatest thing an education could impart to an individual is the desire to continue learning, that doesn't mean continue schooling.

And who exactly are you supposed to learn from if not those who have spent years obtaining knowledge and now teach it in universities? Nature? The homeless guy down the block? Who?

What happened to experts shouldn't be questioned?

My point was if your a dentist you don't have a right to question the experts, except in the field of dentistry. The experts question each other all the time. Your average person doesn't have the understanding needed to question the vast majority of experts.

[Bonam]

Elementry school and high school is what I was talking about. The Basics of learning is not at all what kids will be getting if these idiots are allowed to continue. The other half of your statement is crap. Nothing made me want to learn more than what I had learned in elementry and high school.

Seriously? I've learned more in an afternoon of reading wikipedia than I learned in all the years of elementary and high school. Real education begins in university/college; elementary and high school is little more than glorified daycare.

When you a dentist, yes. If you have a degree in the field you are challenging than go for it.

Actually, for a motivated and intelligent individual, it only takes a few days or weeks of independent reading and learning to acquire the knowledge necessary to understand and converse with experts in all but the most esoteric fields. I've encountered the scenario for example, when after reading online about a certain medical condition and then going into an appointment with a doctor, I find myself knowing more than the doctor on the topic, often ending up reminding the doctor of things they had forgotten or in fact informing them of something they had not known.

Regardless, anyone has the right to question or challenge anyone else, regardless of qualifications, it's this little thing called "free speech".

You just get a much higher instance of people knowing basic facts when they've got at least a basic degree. I'm not looking for unbaised I'm looking for people who understand basic facts and are willing to admit they're wrong and fix mistakes. Your much more likely to get the from people who have completed a higher form of education than from a self-proclaimed fundie dentist.

I'm not sure why you keep referring to dentists. Dentists do in fact have degrees, quite high ones as it happens, so your statement seems self-contradictory.

Anyway, what do you consider "basic facts" and why do you believe someone with a degree is more likely to know such facts? Many basic facts are known by just about everyone, regardless of whether they have a degree or not. Examples of such "basic facts" include: "2+2=4", "the Earth is round", "a day has 24 hours", etc.

Why do you believe someone with a degree would be more willing to admit they are wrong? If anything, one might assume a higher level of education gives one greater confidence and thus makes one value one's own opinion and conclusions more. A science degree might teach one the scientific method and the value of examining opinions and conclusions logically, but only a minority of degrees are scientific in nature. A liberal arts degree, on the other hand, is likely to give you someone spouting off political rhetoric as if it were fact with no possibility of changing their mind.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

And who exactly are you supposed to learn from if not those who have spent years obtaining knowledge and now teach it in universities? Nature? The homeless guy down the block? Who?

The very thing you ae concerned about here -Books. Libraries, the internet, if you are learning a trade you can apprentice and learn through experience. Professor's in University, at the undergraduate level at least, just go over books on their subjects and see if you have an understanding of them basically. Yo get to do some practical things in labs. It's all written down somewhere.

Learning is the absorption of knowledge and is perhaps demonstrated by the achievement of results in application. Is a teacher necessary? In elementary classes they may keep in discipline among unruly youth but once a student gets the learning bug discipline becomes less of a necessary activity.

My point was if your a dentist you don't have a right to question the experts, except in the field of dentistry. The experts question each other all the time. Your average person doesn't have the understanding needed to question the vast majority of experts.

We would never question a Doctor's diagnosis or prognosis? It would never enter our minds to get a second opinion if we must not question the experts. I don't think you have thought that through. We need to question the experts. They should be asked often to explain themselves and their reasoning in terms a lay person can understand.

[GostHacked]

This is a relevant video.

The dude with the long hair is a very smart guy. I have seen his vids where he rips creationists and does it very well. Poor Texas.

[stevoh]

But when government prevents one from freely practicing his religion by enacting legislation banning him from hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments or whatever it has then made a law regarding an establishment of religion.

If I see someones home with the ten commandments posted on that individuals property, I see it as an individuals expression of belief.

If I see someones office with a copy of the 10 commandments on the wall, I see it as an individuals expression of belief.

If I see the 10 commandments on the front lawn of a court house, I see it as an endorsement of that religion by the govenment. That goes beyond allowing the individual to express their belief system and implies government endorses christianity over all other beliefs.

Publicly owned areas should be religion nuetral, either display nothing, or display religiously meaningful symbols from many different religions to show the government supports freedom of religious choice.

Allowing just one religions symbol to appear on public property is the first step towards governments making laws regarding the establishment of a religion. It implies endorsement over all others.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Seriously? I've learned more in an afternoon of reading wikipedia than I learned in all the years of elementary and high school. Real education begins in university/college; elementary and high school is little more than glorified daycare.

The Elementry and High schools you went to sucked.

Actually, for a motivated and intelligent individual, it only takes a few days or weeks of independent reading and learning to acquire the knowledge necessary to understand and converse with experts in all but the most esoteric fields. I've encountered the scenario for example, when after reading online about a certain medical condition and then going into an appointment with a doctor, I find myself knowing more than the doctor on the topic, often ending up reminding the doctor of things they had forgotten or in fact informing them of something they had not known.

Regardless, anyone has the right to question or challenge anyone else, regardless of qualifications, it's this little thing called "free speech".

Good for you I doubt your the norm. And yes you do have the right to question and challenge but no the right to be heard.

I'm not sure why you keep referring to dentists. Dentists do in fact have degrees, quite high ones as it happens, so your statement seems self-contradictory.

Because that is the proffesion of the idiot on the Texas school board. Though I did not realize dentistry had such high requiements, weird.

Anyway, what do you consider "basic facts" and why do you believe someone with a degree is more likely to know such facts? Many basic facts are known by just about everyone, regardless of whether they have a degree or not. Examples of such "basic facts" include: "2+2=4", "the Earth is round", "a day has 24 hours", etc.

How long it takes for the earth to orbit the sun.

Men and Dinosaurs did not live together.

How much of the earth is covered in water.

http://www.physorg.com/news156076198.html

Why do you believe someone with a degree would be more willing to admit they are wrong? If anything, one might assume a higher level of education gives one greater confidence and thus makes one value one's own opinion and conclusions more. A science degree might teach one the scientific method and the value of examining opinions and conclusions logically, but only a minority of degrees are scientific in nature. A liberal arts degree, on the other hand, is likely to give you someone spouting off political rhetoric as if it were fact with no possibility of changing their mind.

True enough I suppose.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The very thing you ae concerned about here -Books. Libraries, the internet, if you are learning a trade you can apprentice and learn through experience. Professor's in University, at the undergraduate level at least, just go over books on their subjects and see if you have an understanding of them basically. Yo get to do some practical things in labs. It's all written down somewhere.

Learning is the absorption of knowledge and is perhaps demonstrated by the achievement of results in application. Is a teacher necessary? In elementary classes they may keep in discipline among unruly youth but once a student gets the learning bug discipline becomes less of a necessary activity.

Try learning physics or any other university level subject without the help of a teacher. Hell try learning high school math without one.

We would never question a Doctor's diagnosis or prognosis? It would never enter our minds to get a second opinion if we must not question the experts. I don't think you have thought that through. We need to question the experts. They should be asked often to explain themselves and their reasoning in terms a lay person can understand.

If we want a second opinon we go to another doctor we do not try an diagnosis it ourselves or get some one else to.

Doctor tells me I have the flu you tell me I have cancer who should I trust?

The dude with the long hair is a very smart guy. I have seen his vids where he rips creationists and does it very well. Poor Texas.

AronRa is from Texas and he will be doing everything in his power to stop what they are trying to do.

Edited March 23, 2010 by TrueMetis

[bjre]

Not only re-writing, many are just ignored, forgotten.

Like H1N1, when the vaccine sold, the remain vaccine send to Africa, all media silent. like never happened.

Like SARS, when the political agenda completed, it is no longer valuable, it disappeared, unlike any other non-political illness, still have many cases after many years.

[Sir Bandelot]

Not only re-writing, many are just ignored, forgotten.

Like H1N1, when the vaccine sold, the remain vaccine send to Africa, all media silent. like never happened.

Like SARS, when the political agenda completed, it is no longer valuable, it disappeared, unlike any other non-political illness, still have many cases after many years.

Very good.

It works because most people can only pay attention while the TV is on, or until the next hysterical news story comes out about some scary sounding disease or a dead celebrity. Fear keeps people distracted, so they have no memory.

[Bonam]

It works because most people can only pay attention while the TV is on, or until the next hysterical news story comes out about some scary sounding disease or a dead celebrity. Fear keeps people distracted, so they have no memory.

Most people I know realized H1N1 was basically just another flu and nothing to really get that worried over. You gotta be able to filter out the pointless media hysteria.

[Pliny]

If I see someones home with the ten commandments posted on that individuals property, I see it as an individuals expression of belief.

If I see someones office with a copy of the 10 commandments on the wall, I see it as an individuals expression of belief.

If I see the 10 commandments on the front lawn of a court house, I see it as an endorsement of that religion by the govenment. That goes beyond allowing the individual to express their belief system and implies government endorses christianity over all other beliefs.

Publicly owned areas should be religion nuetral, either display nothing, or display religiously meaningful symbols from many different religions to show the government supports freedom of religious choice.

Allowing just one religions symbol to appear on public property is the first step towards governments making laws regarding the establishment of a religion. It implies endorsement over all others.

In the US the first amendment states it shall make no laws regarding an establishment of religion or the free practice thereof.

You have the idea that if someone hangs the Ten Commandments in a court of law that it is an "implication" government endorses a religion. "Government"has done no such thing. If government had endorsed a religion there would be a law endorsing it. There can never be an "implication" of what government endorses unless there is a law of endorsement. Obviously, an individual has hung it up there. I suppose someone, if they felt it was offensive, could ask the person who hung it there to take it down. But there is no "law" that it should be there that you can strike down as unconstitutional. At least I don't think there is a law that says the ten commandments must be displayed - now that would be a government endorsement. The implication of an endorsement exists only in the mind of someone who views it that way.

I understand that you think public property belongs to everyone and should be void of all Religious reference. There are churches in Jasper and Banff national parks, should they close those churches down? Obviously, it isn't government that is endorsing these Churches but they are still on public property.

Do you have the idea that a politician in a Turban is endorsing Hinduism and as a politician shouldn't be wearing it? How about if a politician wore a shirt with the ten Commandments printed on it? Both of these instances don't mean government is endorsing any religion, I don't think. It implies the wearer is a member of a particular religion not that the government endorses that religion.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Try learning physics or any other university level subject without the help of a teacher. Hell try learning high school math without one.

It isn't an impossibility.

If we want a second opinon we go to another doctor we do not try an diagnosis it ourselves or get some one else to.

That's if we want a second opinion. The point is we would never consider asking for one if we didn't question the expert.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Guest TrueMetis]

It isn't an impossibility.

No but neither is poping out of exsistance then poping back in.

That's if we want a second opinion. The point is we would never consider asking for one if we didn't question the expert.

Most people ask for a second opinon not because they understand the diagnosis and think the doctor was wrong but becuase they don't like the diagnosis.

[Bonam]

No but neither is poping out of exsistance then poping back in.

Not sure why you are alluding to random principles of quantum mechanics with your comparison, but no, learning a university or high school subject without a teacher is not really a big deal. Open up a textbook, read it, do the problems, easily done...

[Pliny]

Most people ask for a second opinon not because they understand the diagnosis and think the doctor was wrong but becuase they don't like the diagnosis.

You haven't squared the circle here. You on one hand state experts should not be questioned by those lesser than his peers, and then somehow think that an expert should be questioned by those lesser than his peers on his diagnosis. You can't have it both ways.

Experts should always be questioned for understanding. Most people can and will understand if something is explained to them properly.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Not sure why you are alluding to random principles of quantum mechanics with your comparison, but no, learning a university or high school subject without a teacher is not really a big deal. Open up a textbook, read it, do the problems, easily done...

Alright go get a textbook and become an astrophysicist if it so easily done. The fact that you think it is so easily done shows a vast ignorance of what formal education does.

You haven't squared the circle here. You on one hand state experts should not be questioned by those lesser than his peers, and then somehow think that an expert should be questioned by those lesser than his peers on his diagnosis. You can't have it both ways.

Experts should always be questioned for understanding. Most people can and will understand if something is explained to them properly.

Again when most people get a second opinon it is not because they have the ability to question the diagnosis. It is because they don't like the diagnosis. To the few people who aren't doctors that can understand the diagnosis cool but their knowledge is still a fraction of the doctors. Most people don't understand what an actual flu is so forgive me If I don't expect them to be able to diagnosis themselves.

[stevoh]

You have the idea that if someone hangs the Ten Commandments in a court of law that it is an "implication" government endorses a religion. "Government"has done no such thing.

If an individual, without permission, posts a religious artifact or symbol on government property, then of course its not an endorsement by the government.

But if there is a stone tablet with the ten commandments permenantly installed in front of government property, then yes, this is an endorsement of that religion.

The implication of an endorsement exists only in the mind of someone who views it that way.

The implication of an endorsement is due to proximity. The religious item that belongs to only one religion is displayed in front of a non religious building. That implies endorsement.

I understand that you think public property belongs to everyone and should be void of all Religious reference. There are churches in Jasper and Banff national parks, should they close those churches down? Obviously, it isn't government that is endorsing these Churches but they are still on public property.

When I go to a church, even on public property, there is no mixed message. I know what the purpose of the church is. I just don't want the courthouse to also have references to a religion. Because its purpose is not religious.

Do you have the idea that a politician in a Turban is endorsing Hinduism and as a politician shouldn't be wearing it? How about if a politician wore a shirt with the ten Commandments printed on it? Both of these instances don't mean government is endorsing any religion, I don't think. It implies the wearer is a member of a particular religion not that the government endorses that religion.

Individuals can express any belief they wish. A turban or a ten commandments shirt, by proximity, imply that person has a relationship with a specific religion.

Same thing with a public building that has a permenant religious installation. It implies a relationship between the building and the religion.

On a church? Fine. On a courthouse? No.