Texas to stop teaching "higher order thinking skills".

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] whoa whoa whoa, I'm gonna need to see a link from a legitimate source showing statistics saying that the country is split down the middle on creationism vs evolution before I believe that.Jazz_Fan

46% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

That is a 2% rise from the 1980s.

You know whats more stupid? This whole "us vs them" horsesh*t mentality going on in this thread.alexside1

There are people who are right and there are people who are wrong.

[QUOTE="Jazz_Fan"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] whoa whoa whoa, I'm gonna need to see a link from a legitimate source showing statistics saying that the country is split down the middle on creationism vs evolution before I believe that.Serraph105

46% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

That is a 2% rise from the 1980s.

Most folks who "believe" in evolution can't really explain its mechanisms, anyways.They just go along with it because "science says so".kraychik

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Jazz_Fan"]

46% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

That is a 2% rise from the 1980s.

kraychik

Half of america being this stupid is very concerning indeed.

Taxes won't be the last state to do this. More's the pity. While I can see that trusting parents to teach their children to a certain age is a worthy idea, many parents aren't engaged in their children's education and demand that schools teach everything.

And without higher order thinking skills, we'll slip further down that list of highly educated countries.

There's a reason why "higher order thinking skills" was put in quotes, which has flown over the heads of the leftists in here. This is code language used for leftist indoctrination. Conservatives want more control over the content of their children's education being placed back in their hands. Leftists, of course, want the opposite - they want to transfer more and more authority to the state, In other words, conservatives want more decentralization of education, which if course is an essential component of breaking the ongoing degradation of public education we're seeing as a consequence of leftist policies.

kraychik

Science in itself is illogical. Just saying...kingkong0124

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"] In all honesty, science really is a big appeal to authority. Science in itself is illogical. Just saying...kingkong0124

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"] In all honesty, science really is a big appeal to authority. Science in itself is illogical. Just saying...kingkong0124

Scientists trust experimentation and observation. Do you not trust experimentation and observation?

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] No its not, which makes you a fvcking moron. Do me a favor and throw your computer in the garbage. Its the product of science which would make it 'illogical'. Don't be a fvcking hypocrite. jimkabrhel

Scientists trust experimentation and observation. Do you not trust experimentation and observation?

why am I supposed to believe scientists in lab coats who live 1000 miles away? because they're scientists.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] I know, that's why I just pointed it out. Doesn't mean I don't believe in it. The fact is, the majority of people believe these scientific theories only because scientists say that it's best conclusion we can make. That is the definition of an appeal to authority. kingkong0124

Scientists trust experimentation and observation. Do you not trust experimentation and observation?

why am I supposed to believe scientists in lab coats who live 1000 miles away? because they're scientists.

Care to give an example of that?toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Care to give an example of that?kingkong0124

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Care to give an example of that?HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Except that's not what you said. 'Science in itself is illogical. Just saying...'. Science is established through peer review not authority. kingkong0124

Scientists trained to be experts in their field, with their results constantly reviewed by other experts in their field. If you can't trust that, you shouldn't eat food, take any medication, listen to the weather forceast, buy mass produced clothes, or live in a home built with modern materials.

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Except that's not what you said. 'Science in itself is illogical. Just saying...'. Science is established through peer review not authority. jimkabrhel

Scientists trained to be experts in their field, with their results constantly reviewed by other experts in their field. If you can't trust that, you should eat food, take any medication, listen to the weather forceast, buy mass produced clothes, or live in a home built with modern materials.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"] In all honesty, science really is a big appeal to authority. Science in itself is illogical. Just saying...kingkong0124

A quick search on wikipedia shows you that an appeal to authority is not fallacious if...

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

Wikipedia

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Care to give an example of that?kingkong0124

There are hundreds of books on evolution which explain the process they went through to find their results. people don't trust it because it's written in a book, they trust it because their is evidence provided to them so they can see it for themselves. You attended school didn't you?

Am a the only person to hate the word scientist? It means very little.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] Peer review by other scientists. Most of what we know is because scientists said it's correct. kingkong0124

Scientists trained to be experts in their field, with their results constantly reviewed by other experts in their field. If you can't trust that, you should eat food, take any medication, listen to the weather forceast, buy mass produced clothes, or live in a home built with modern materials.

Pardon my typo, I meant "shouldn't eat" etc.

And I still don't see how trusting science is illogical.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"] Peer review by other scientists. Most of what we know is because scientists said it's correct. kingkong0124

Scientists trained to be experts in their field, with their results constantly reviewed by other experts in their field. If you can't trust that, you should eat food, take any medication, listen to the weather forceast, buy mass produced clothes, or live in a home built with modern materials.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] Peer review by other scientists. Most of what we know is because scientists said it's correct. kingkong0124

Scientists trained to be experts in their field, with their results constantly reviewed by other experts in their field. If you can't trust that, you should eat food, take any medication, listen to the weather forceast, buy mass produced clothes, or live in a home built with modern materials.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] Peer review by other scientists. Most of what we know is because scientists said it's correct. kingkong0124

Scientists trained to be experts in their field, with their results constantly reviewed by other experts in their field. If you can't trust that, you should eat food, take any medication, listen to the weather forceast, buy mass produced clothes, or live in a home built with modern materials.

I'm amazed everyone overlooked this little gem "We urge the Voter [sic] Rights act of 1965 codified and upadted 1973 to be repealed and not reauthorized."

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] Peer review by other scientists. Most of what we know is because scientists said it's correct. kingkong0124

Scientists trained to be experts in their field, with their results constantly reviewed by other experts in their field. If you can't trust that, you should eat food, take any medication, listen to the weather forceast, buy mass produced clothes, or live in a home built with modern materials.

I'm amazed everyone overlooked this little gem "We urge the Voter [sic] Rights act of 1965 codified and upadted 1973 to be repealed and not reauthorized."

lordreaven

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] whoa whoa whoa, I'm gonna need to see a link from a legitimate source showing statistics saying that the country is split down the middle on creationism vs evolution before I believe that.Jazz_Fan

46% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

That is a 2% rise from the 1980s.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Yes, I guess established science can now be regarded as 'leftish indoctrination'. kingkong0124

You really could benefit from actually paying attention in class.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"] In all honesty, science really is a big appeal to authority. Science in itself is illogical. Just saying...kingkong0124

That is not an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is, "the government says smoking pot is wrong, therefore smoking pot is wrong," or "an archeologist said global warming is false, therefore global warming is false." Trusting the opinions of someone who knows more than you about a certain subject is NOT an appeal to authority.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]You know whats more stupid? This whole "us vs them" horsesh*t mentality going on in this thread.theone86

Yup, anti-intellectual revisionists strike critical thinking from the cirriculum because they feel threatened by children questioning their beliefs and it's the people who are pushing back against it that's disturbing. Awesome use of critical thinking skills, there.

I know, that's why I just pointed it out. Doesn't mean I don't believe in it. The fact is, the majority of people believe these scientific theories only because scientists say that it's best conclusion we can make. That is the definition of an appeal to authority. kingkong0124

No, an appeal to authority would be in the manner of citing an authority who has no credence in a particular subject. Such as the following: "The Preisdent says Evolution false. Therefore, Evolution is false."

If we were to test every single claim (in depth) that has been peer reviewed by scientists-- trusting no souls but ourselves-- would be impractical. Hell, I'd wager impossible.

It's times like this I really can't tell if kingkong is for real or not. Although, calling science illogical despite the fact that it is largely based on induction and also employes deductive reasoning is probably one of the most entertaining things I've read all day.Blood-Scribe

I think induction and deduction should be switched here.

No, an appeal to authority would be in the manner of citing an authority who has no credence in a particular subject. Such as the following: "The Preisdent says Evolution false. Therefore, Evolution is false."

If we were to test every single claim (in depth) that has been peer reviewed by scientists-- trusting no souls but ourselves-- would be impractical. Hell, I'd wager impossible.

Jazz_Fan

Which is exactly what he wants. He wants the criteria for people to accept scientifically valid assertions to be impossible for the average person, hence the term anti-intellectual.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]It's times like this I really can't tell if kingkong is for real or not. Although, calling science illogical despite the fact that it is largely based on induction and also employes deductive reasoning is probably one of the most entertaining things I've read all day.theone86

I think induction and deduction should be switched here.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]It's times like this I really can't tell if kingkong is for real or not. Although, calling science illogical despite the fact that it is largely based on induction and also employes deductive reasoning is probably one of the most entertaining things I've read all day.Blood-Scribe

I think induction and deduction should be switched here.

True enough. My thinking is that the scientific method is basically deductive, aside from the hypothesis stage, and therefore science is based on deducation.

Texas is very big and diverse, this is just a small thing at best and doesn't represent the entire state. Of couse people on here have little real life experience and have probably never even left their state, let alone their house on a regular basis. So I expect lot's of generalisations.

Go to Dallas or Austin, you will see a ton of people from all walks of life including many liberal democrats. Just some of the small towns in Texas are supportive of things like this as they haven't changed much. They are a bit isolated, but to generalise everyone in Texas is naive and ignorant.

Texas is very big and diverse, this is just a small thing at best and doesn't represent the entire state. Of couse people on here have little real life experience and have probably never even left their state, let alone their house on a regular basis. So I expect lot's of generalisations.

Go to Dallas or Austin, you will see a ton of people from all walks of life including many liberal democrats. Just some of the small towns in Texas are supportive of things like this as they haven't changed much. They are a bit isolated, but to generalise everyone in Texas is naive and ignorant.

ShadowMoses900

Fair point. You could describe Wisconsin in that same way.

If we're talking about the manner in which scientists approach the methodology, you could argue that. But if we're talking about the body of knowledge and the manner in which theories are framed, then I would disagree.Blood-Scribe

That's what I assumed you were referring to, myself.

I've recently read hours on induction and the term itself has become extremely muddled. ;[

Texas is very big and diverse, this is just a small thing at best and doesn't represent the entire state. Of couse people on here have little real life experience and have probably never even left their state, let alone their house on a regular basis. So I expect lot's of generalisations.

Go to Dallas or Austin, you will see a ton of people from all walks of life including many liberal democrats. Just some of the small towns in Texas are supportive of things like this as they haven't changed much. They are a bit isolated, but to generalise everyone in Texas is naive and ignorant.

ShadowMoses900

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"] If we're talking about the manner in which scientists approach the methodology, you could argue that. But if we're talking about the body of knowledge and the manner in which theories are framed, then I would disagree.Jazz_Fan

That's what I assumed you were referring to, myself.

I've recently read hours on induction and the term itself has become extremely muddled. ;[

In my experience, the basic understanding is sufficient. Induction generates conclusions about specific facts from general principles, and inductive conclusions can be true or false if the premises are all true.

I've recently read hours on induction and the term itself has become extremely muddled. ;[

Jazz_Fan