Conservative Kansas Group Claims Teaching Science is Unconstitutional

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If weve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Were no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. Its simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that weve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

wis3boi

You saying Santa doesn't really exist?!?!:x

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If weve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Were no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. Its simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that weve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

Jolt_counter119

You saying Santa doesn't really exist?!?!:x

I dunno, maybe that reindeer poop in your stocking was a sign, though

How is teaching Evolution promoting Atheism?. These guys are probably the same ones that make a big deal about Creationism not being taught in schools

Wolf-Man2006

obviously only atheists would believe crap like evolution.  We didn't come from no monkeys

[QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]

How is teaching Evolution promoting Atheism?. These guys are probably the same ones that make a big deal about Creationism not being taught in schools

lostrib

obviously only atheists would believe crap like evolution.  We didn't come from no monkeys

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]

How is teaching Evolution promoting Atheism?. These guys are probably the same ones that make a big deal about Creationism not being taught in schools

Fightingfan

obviously only atheists would believe crap like evolution.  We didn't come from no monkeys

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

obviously only atheists would believe crap like evolution.  We didn't come from no monkeys

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

'An' is only used infront of words with vowels, as you may (or may not) know 's' and 'h' are 'not vowels'.

jun_aka_pekto

The English language is full of exceptions. A word with a silent h such as in honest is one such exception.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  Well global warming shouldnt be taught as fact when there is plenty of arguements against it.  Same as Evolution, it really is not an science, it is more of an hypothesis.  

mahlasor

  We already got a bible that you can read on your own, we got the internet, public schools are pointless.  

edit: so what I am sayying is...  Do we really need public schools teaching stuff that we can learn on our own?

Yet these people benefit from science every day such as medicine, electricity, the cars they use and more .

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  Well global warming shouldnt be taught as fact when there is plenty of arguements against it.  Same as Evolution, it really is not an science, it is more of an hypothesis.  

mahlasor

'An' is only used infront of words with vowels, as you may (or may not) know 's' and 'h' are 'not vowels'.

  What makes Global Warming true?  Ice cap melting, well they also grow, its called fluctuating, so I just uttered a refutation, but you probably already knew that.  What you got is confimation bias.  I had this conversation that five cups of coffee cant be healthy every day, but my mom refuses to believe that.  I could show her an article that states it, but she refuses to listen because she has been so used to her thinking.  She doesnt want to change her mind, because she has to admit she has been wrong for a long time.

That's a link to nasa. The most highly respected scientific organization period.

Yet you'll dismiss it as liberal nonsence.

You're just like your stupid mother.

Christianity lolGazaAli

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] No valid arguments against the theory of evolution have ever been uttered, it's pretty much the most well substantiated field of all of science. A scientific theory is a well substantiated description for an empirically observed fact (a law). It is not a simple idea. And pretty much the same goes for climate change, it's just no where near as well understood.

'An' is only used infront of words with vowels, as you may (or may not) know 's' and 'h' are 'not vowels'.

MakeMeaSammitch

  What makes Global Warming true?  Ice cap melting, well they also grow, its called fluctuating, so I just uttered a refutation, but you probably already knew that.  What you got is confimation bias.  I had this conversation that five cups of coffee cant be healthy every day, but my mom refuses to believe that.  I could show her an article that states it, but she refuses to listen because she has been so used to her thinking.  She doesnt want to change her mind, because she has to admit she has been wrong for a long time.

That's a link to nasa. The most highly respected scientific organization period.

Yet you'll dismiss it as liberal nonsence.

You're just like your stupid mother.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Christianity lolHoolaHoopMan

I wish for a conservative party that isn't filled with idiots. 

I wish for a conservative party that isn't filled with idiots. 

nomsayin

[QUOTE="nomsayin"]

I wish for a conservative party that isn't filled with idiots. 

GazaAli

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="nomsayin"]

I wish for a conservative party that isn't filled with idiots. 

foxhound_fox

edit: I want to emphasize on the relative part. The term "conservative" varies to a great extent based on geopolitical and cultural conditions. Excluding the right wing extremests who exist pretty much everywhere, I'd assume that the mainstream conservatives, say in Europe, are much more mild and lenient than their American counterparts. The disparity would be much greater when compared to their Middle Eastern counterparts and so on and so forth.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]The only issue for debate I can see is if the school tries to pass a theory as a fact, for example gravity.chessmaster1989

I was gonna make a joke about giant magnets underground, until I remembered that one is actually true. Nevermind.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Are you really saying schools shouldn't teach about gravity as fact? :lol:

WiiCubeM1

I was gonna make a joke about giant magnets underground, until I remembered that one is actually true. Nevermind.

I don't think they should be teaching global warming as that is such a currently debated issue. Plus, why does that even need to be taught at all? That is a very specific segment of science that there really isn't even any reason to cover from k-12. 

They should be covering the basics of how our climate works. Not passing off as fact a very specific segment of scientific study.

Evolution on the other hand, is a whole different story. It is a large part of any biology class, and is a scientific theory. It SHOULD be taught. There is no reason for it not to be.

I don't think they should be teaching global warming as that is such a currently debated issue.

BMD004

I'll never understand crazy people... They're just too confusing. WickedChainy

I don't think they should be teaching global warming as that is such a currently debated issue. 

BMD004

Your statement is pretty tantamount to the misinformation the deniers have been able to instill with in the non-scientific community.  

THERE IS NO DEBATE WITH IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  Quit perpetuating this lie. 

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

I don't think they should be teaching global warming as that is such a currently debated issue.

MakeMeaSammitch

Teaching that the climate has been warming over time could be taught, because that is data. That is fact. But to teach that the reason for this is because of humans is premature. 

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

I don't think they should be teaching global warming as that is such a currently debated issue.

BMD004

Teaching that the climate has been warming over time could be taught, because that is data. That is fact. But to teach that the reason for this is because of humans is premature. 

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

I don't think they should be teaching global warming as that is such a currently debated issue.

BMD004

Teaching that the climate has been warming over time could be taught, because that is data. That is fact. But to teach that the reason for this is because of humans is premature. 

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

I don't think they should be teaching global warming as that is such a currently debated issue.

BMD004

Teaching that the climate has been warming over time could be taught, because that is data. That is fact. But to teach that the reason for this is because of humans is premature. 

Like I said, all the scientific literature supports it.

The problem is brainwashed conservatives.

Homework is unconstitutional.

  Well global warming shouldnt be taught as fact when there is plenty of arguements against it.  Same as Evolution, it really is not an science, it is more of an hypothesis.  

mahlasor

So are black holes.  Hypothesis. 

But Hypothesis are a part of science, so I think the word you were looking for is 'fact'.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]It's not really debated outside of right wing politics. It's well accepted within scientific circles, it's just conservatives being brainwashed.

HoolaHoopMan

Teaching that the climate has been warming over time could be taught, because that is data. That is fact. But to teach that the reason for this is because of humans is premature. 

" To provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects."

So their mission is to show climate change is caused by human activity. They collect scientific literature that they like and then publish their "assessments" that, not surprisingly, support their mission statement of showing that climate change is caused by human activity.

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying that I don't believe they are the authority on "climate change".

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying that I don't believe they are the authority on "climate change".

BMD004

An international collaboration of renowned climate scientists isn't considered an 'authority' on climate change?  WHAT?

They collect scientific literature that they like and then publish their "assessments" that, not surprisingly, support their mission statement of showing that climate change is caused by human activity.

BMD004

Again, you don't seem to know anything concerning the scientific community regarding this.  Their report is a summary of all the literature.  There is no debate, the science speaks clearly to one side here.  If we had actual scientific papers doubting climate change and mans role we'd see it in their findings.

Learn 2 science better.  

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] No valid arguments against the theory of evolution have ever been uttered, it's pretty much the most well substantiated field of all of science. A scientific theory is a well substantiated description for an empirically observed fact (a law). It is not a simple idea. And pretty much the same goes for climate change, it's just no where near as well understood.

'An' is only used infront of words with vowels, as you may (or may not) know 's' and 'h' are 'not vowels'.

MakeMeaSammitch

  What makes Global Warming true?  Ice cap melting, well they also grow, its called fluctuating, so I just uttered a refutation, but you probably already knew that.  What you got is confimation bias.  I had this conversation that five cups of coffee cant be healthy every day, but my mom refuses to believe that.  I could show her an article that states it, but she refuses to listen because she has been so used to her thinking.  She doesnt want to change her mind, because she has to admit she has been wrong for a long time.

That's a link to nasa. The most highly respected scientific organization period.

Yet you'll dismiss it as liberal nonsence.

You're just like your stupid mother.

  So what you got a an appeal to authority fallacy, for one I already know global warming is a political thing.  So it is no surprise Nasa would be in on that.  And now we have the ad hominem.  I have noticed that by making a small statement I get irrational people like you jumping to conclusions, and being insulting to say the least.  All based on very little knowledge, someone need to go back to school to learn some lessons, in manners.

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

You're kind of dumb, you know that?

worlock77

  No I do not, how so?  Because I said something you did not like?  You know what fallacy that is?

No, because you make shit tons of flat out dumb posts. Your posts in this thread are simply a case-in-point. You're trying to speak about science while demonstrating that you don't really have any understand of basic concepts like the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

  I do not even have two thousand posts to make shit "tons" of flat out dumb posts, what are these post that you think are dumb.  So I guess if I make post that you do not like, therefore they are dumb?  Sounds like a bigot to me.  I know what an hypothesis is and a theory, that is why I used to word.  Hypothesis is a prediction, but you have not yet tested it.  This was a dumb post from you, and I just want to let you know I dont like you Mr. 22k poster.  Why so serious?

Homework is unconstitutional.

GOGOGOGURT

If my memory serves right, I think some scandinavian countries said that

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  What makes Global Warming true?  Ice cap melting, well they also grow, its called fluctuating, so I just uttered a refutation, but you probably already knew that.  What you got is confimation bias.  I had this conversation that five cups of coffee cant be healthy every day, but my mom refuses to believe that.  I could show her an article that states it, but she refuses to listen because she has been so used to her thinking.  She doesnt want to change her mind, because she has to admit she has been wrong for a long time.

mahlasor

That's a link to nasa. The most highly respected scientific organization period.

Yet you'll dismiss it as liberal nonsence.

You're just like your stupid mother.

  So what you got a an appeal to authority fallacy, for one I already know global warming is a political thing.  So it is no surprise Nasa would be in on that.  And now we have the ad hominem.  I have noticed that by making a small statement I get irrational people like you jumping to conclusions, and being insulting to say the least.  All based on very little knowledge, someone need to go back to school to learn some lessons, in manners.

There's no "very little knowledge" These subjects have been researched to death and there are mountains upon mountains of data to support both things, stupid people just take that data and ignore it, opting instead to become mouth pieces for corperations. 

There's tons of data out there. Somebody linked 200 different scientific organizations that support these findings in this thread, and my analogy was correct, you, like your mother are presented with data but choose to ignore, likewise, you're both illogical and stupid.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  No I do not, how so?  Because I said something you did not like?  You know what fallacy that is?

mahlasor

No, because you make shit tons of flat out dumb posts. Your posts in this thread are simply a case-in-point. You're trying to speak about science while demonstrating that you don't really have any understand of basic concepts like the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

  I do not even have two thousand posts to make shit "tons" of flat out dumb posts, what are these post that you think are dumb.  So I guess if I make post that you do not like, therefore they are dumb?  Sounds like a bigot to me.  I know what an hypothesis is and a theory, that is why I used to word.  Hypothesis is a prediction, but you have not yet tested it.  This was a dumb post from you, and I just want to let you know I dont like you Mr. 22k poster.  Why so serious?

Why do you think you have any credibility if you don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Like I said, you're stupid.

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, because you make shit tons of flat out dumb posts. Your posts in this thread are simply a case-in-point. You're trying to speak about science while demonstrating that you don't really have any understand of basic concepts like the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

MakeMeaSammitch

  I do not even have two thousand posts to make shit "tons" of flat out dumb posts, what are these post that you think are dumb.  So I guess if I make post that you do not like, therefore they are dumb?  Sounds like a bigot to me.  I know what an hypothesis is and a theory, that is why I used to word.  Hypothesis is a prediction, but you have not yet tested it.  This was a dumb post from you, and I just want to let you know I dont like you Mr. 22k poster.  Why so serious?

Why do you think you have any credibility if you don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Like I said, you're stupid.

funny how my carl sagan quote earlier in the thread predicted its outcome

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  I do not even have two thousand posts to make shit "tons" of flat out dumb posts, what are these post that you think are dumb.  So I guess if I make post that you do not like, therefore they are dumb?  Sounds like a bigot to me.  I know what an hypothesis is and a theory, that is why I used to word.  Hypothesis is a prediction, but you have not yet tested it.  This was a dumb post from you, and I just want to let you know I dont like you Mr. 22k poster.  Why so serious?

wis3boi

Why do you think you have any credibility if you don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Like I said, you're stupid.

funny how my carl sagan quote earlier in the thread predicted its outcome

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, because you make shit tons of flat out dumb posts. Your posts in this thread are simply a case-in-point. You're trying to speak about science while demonstrating that you don't really have any understand of basic concepts like the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

MakeMeaSammitch

  I do not even have two thousand posts to make shit "tons" of flat out dumb posts, what are these post that you think are dumb.  So I guess if I make post that you do not like, therefore they are dumb?  Sounds like a bigot to me.  I know what an hypothesis is and a theory, that is why I used to word.  Hypothesis is a prediction, but you have not yet tested it.  This was a dumb post from you, and I just want to let you know I dont like you Mr. 22k poster.  Why so serious?

Why do you think you have any credibility if you don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Like I said, you're stupid.

  No, actually you are a dumbass, you are dumb on purpose.  First of all you do not even know what I do or do not know, the most you should even claim is that I am ignorant.  Not stupid.  I would say you are at the very least, a bigot.

An international collaboration of renowned climate scientists isn't considered an 'authority' on climate change?  WHAT?

HoolaHoopMan

They are still currently studying it, and there are different reports coming out all the time that contradict each other. Even if most of them agree with one study, I don't think they are at the point yet where they should be teaching it in schools as if there isn't debate about the cause.

Teaching that the climate has been warming over time could be taught, because that is data. That is fact. But to teach that the reason for this is because of humans is premature.

BMD004

It's not correct at all to require a field of science to be at Evolution's level of confidence before you begin teaching it, it's much better to teach the students not to hold their beliefs too sternly, and be willing to change them upon the introduction of superior evidence.

So what you got a an appeal to authority fallacy, for one I already know global warming is a political thing. So it is no surprise Nasa would be in on that.  And now we have the ad hominem. I have noticed that by making a small statement I get irrational people like you jumping to conclusions, and being insulting to say the least. All based on very little knowledge, someone need to go back to school to learn some lessons, in manners.

mahlasor

Fallacy fallacy, just because he appealed to authority doesn't make him wrong.

What motivation would scientists have to just lie? Are they so greedy/lazy and afraid to lose their pretty secure jobs, that they would perpetuate a lie?

Is it more likely that 97% of climate scientists are corrupt, and that the majority of the science community is afraid to criticize them, if not callaborating with the "lie"; or that the 3% are wrong?

(green) of course it is, that's what happens when idiot politicians, who have strong feelings about research they haven't read, or can't comprehend, get inbetween scientific debates. However, it doesn't prove that NASA's corrupt, or that the data's invalid. You seem to be heavily implying that you know for certain that it is. If you're making a claim, you're going to need evidence to back it up. 

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  I do not even have two thousand posts to make shit "tons" of flat out dumb posts, what are these post that you think are dumb.  So I guess if I make post that you do not like, therefore they are dumb?  Sounds like a bigot to me.  I know what an hypothesis is and a theory, that is why I used to word.  Hypothesis is a prediction, but you have not yet tested it.  This was a dumb post from you, and I just want to let you know I dont like you Mr. 22k poster.  Why so serious?

mahlasor

Why do you think you have any credibility if you don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Like I said, you're stupid.

  No, actually you are a dumbass, you are dumb on purpose.  First of all you do not even know what I do or do not know, the most you should even claim is that I am ignorant.  Not stupid.  I would say you are at the very least, a bigot.

I suggest finishing middle school before continuing on your embarrassing rant

The only issue for debate I can see is if the school tries to pass a theory as a fact, for example gravity.Fightingfan

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]The only issue for debate I can see is if the school tries to pass a theory as a fact, for example gravity.PernicioEnigma

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]no, global warming and evolution, has been tested extensively, and thus is a theory.

Why do you think you have any credibility if you don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Like I said, you're stupid.

wis3boi

  No, actually you are a dumbass, you are dumb on purpose.  First of all you do not even know what I do or do not know, the most you should even claim is that I am ignorant.  Not stupid.  I would say you are at the very least, a bigot.

I suggest finishing middle school before continuing on your embarrassing rant

  That does not even make sense whatsoever, I am WAYYY past that age, idiot...  What an assumption to make, mr 29k poster.  I bet you made that post just to increase your post count.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  No, actually you are a dumbass, you are dumb on purpose.  First of all you do not even know what I do or do not know, the most you should even claim is that I am ignorant.  Not stupid.  I would say you are at the very least, a bigot.

mahlasor

I suggest finishing middle school before continuing on your embarrassing rant

  That does not even make sense whatsoever, I am WAYYY past that age, idiot...  What an assumption to make, mr 29k poster.  I bet you made that post just to increase your post count.

what is your obession with people's post count

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] No authorities, only experts. All beliefs should be tentative and able to be readily changed upon the introduction of superior evidence. [QUOTE="BMD004"]

They are still currently studying it, and there are different reports coming out all the time that contradict each other. Even if most of them agree with one study, I don't think they are at the point yet where they should be teaching it in schools as if there isn't debate about the cause.

Teaching that the climate has been warming over time could be taught, because that is data. That is fact. But to teach that the reason for this is because of humans is premature.

Inconsistancy

It's not correct at all to require a field of science to be at Evolution's level of confidence before you begin teaching it, it's much better to teach the students not to hold their beliefs too sternly, and be willing to change them upon the introduction of superior evidence.

So what you got a an appeal to authority fallacy, for one I already know global warming is a political thing. So it is no surprise Nasa would be in on that.  And now we have the ad hominem. I have noticed that by making a small statement I get irrational people like you jumping to conclusions, and being insulting to say the least. All based on very little knowledge, someone need to go back to school to learn some lessons, in manners.

mahlasor

Fallacy fallacy, just because he appealed to authority doesn't make him wrong.

What motivation would scientists have to just lie? Are they so greedy/lazy and afraid to lose their pretty secure jobs, that they would perpetuate a lie?

Is it more likely that 97% of climate scientists are corrupt, and that the majority of the science community is afraid to criticize them, if not callaborating with the "lie"; or that the 3% are wrong?

(green) of course it is, that's what happens when idiot politicians, who have strong feelings about research they haven't read, or can't comprehend, get inbetween scientific debates. However, it doesn't prove that NASA's corrupt, or that the data's invalid. You seem to be heavily implying that you know for certain that it is. If you're making a claim, you're going to need evidence to back it up. 

  It does because fallacy = logical error.  Well scientist do have a strong relation with government, like whether they get their budgets or whatever passed.  You just used an either or fallacy in the bolded.  Guess what, there is not a 97 percent consensus.  It is based on a survey, and I do not trust surveys so easily.  Btw, that is not how science is done, it is not by majority vote.  Look in the past, science discoveries have been made by ignoring the majority.  So is it hard to bleieve that maybe all these "scientist" are one day going to be seen as the ones who were wrong and misguided?