Originally posted by truejedi
funny to call a position retarded to the point he won't argue it, and then on the other hand claim that everything is relative.
And is this the same person as the one calling a position retarded?
And do you have any idea what is going on at all? Because, judging from just that post, you haven't been following very much.
you must think of the purpose of school. What is it? The purpose of school. Is it to make kids knowledgeable on irrelevant information? or is it to teach children viable knowledge that will help them acquire monetary value and survive in the world? Being the kind of kid who always asked "why am I being taught this?" I found answers as I passed through life. Math could be very useful, so could psychology, music, english, and history. There is no reason for a child to learn evolution. Kudos if you can give me one.
and it obviously causes way more shit than is necessary. How does knowing a guesstimate of how the universe began impact your life? It doesn't. All it does is paint a target on schools for the creationists to launch attacks on and make movies, t-shirts, and bumper stickers against. It's what is known as unnecessary conflict, that is, fighting over an arbitrary point that really doesn't help or harm.
I'm a big fan of leaving the unknown open. If you leave how the universe began out of it, you could open up teachers to teach relevant material and the unknown point could be filled in by parents, not institutions, leaving the institutions out of the cross-hairs.
from my rough draft of my paper on why neither should be taught: evolution section.
OFM, the specific vocabulary you use is inordinately slanted. I'd be careful about using the word "guesstimate" in any sort of formal paper.
Originally posted by One Free Man
you must think of the purpose of school. What is it? The purpose of school. Is it to make kids knowledgeable on irrelevant information? or is it to teach children viable knowledge that will help them acquire monetary value and survive in the world? Being the kind of kid who always asked "why am I being taught this?" I found answers as I passed through life. Math could be very useful, so could psychology, music, english, and history. There is no reason for a child to learn evolution. Kudos if you can give me one.
If the only thing you get out of schooling (or feel that you can get our of schooling) is the ability to work a register for Burger King then you are far less human than I gave you credit for.
and it obviously causes way more shit than is necessary. How does knowing a guesstimate of how the universe began impact your life? It doesn't. All it does is paint a target on schools for the creationists to launch attacks on and make movies, t-shirts, and bumper stickers against. It's what is known as unnecessary conflict, that is, fighting over an arbitrary point that really doesn't help or harm.
I'm a big fan of leaving the unknown open. If you leave how the universe began out of it, you could open up teachers to teach relevant material and the unknown point could be filled in by parents, not institutions, leaving the institutions out of the cross-hairs.from my rough draft of my paper on why neither should be taught: evolution section.
Originally posted by One Free Man
also, i'm obviously talking about evolution as it impacts the origin of humans/modern organisms, not the constant evolution of species. I don't think anyone with any working knowledge of biology would disagree that organisms have the potential of changing for the better between generations.
Define "for the better."
Edit: and "modern organisms"
Originally posted by Red NemesisThis paragraph disgusts me. Schools are implemented to give far more than just marketable skills. That is why four years of English is required in nearly every single college's admission guidelines. That is why schools have drama departments, music departments, art departments. That is why we are taught history as a graduation requirement.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes and no. What I mean is, I considered undergrad rather useless. I could have taken a book and learned all of that stuff a lot better on my own, than have someone spoonfeed it to me in the way they felt was the right way. Again, I'm ONLY referring to undergrad. Now grad schools are a different story.
Seriously though, I am talking about the lowest common denominator in this paragraph. There are people that simply will not consider the sort of intellectual topics that an English class tackles (like how to evaluate a source, which is particularly important in the age of MSNBC and FOX). For them, schools provide an invaluable "widening of the horizons," even if it has to be crammed down their throats.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Are you OFM? That would explain so much!Seriously though, I am talking about the lowest common denominator in this paragraph. There are people that simply will not consider the sort of intellectual topics that an English class tackles (like how to evaluate a source, which is particularly important in the age of MSNBC and FOX). For them, schools provide an invaluable "widening of the horizons," even if it has to be crammed down their throats.
Yes, I realize, I was just giving you my point of view. For instance, I learned more reading economics books, game theory, paretto superior, crap like that, than I did in 30 hours of economics. For me, and I would assume for most people, college was not about education. College was a social experience. That's not to say that I didn't learn things in classes because I did have many interesting classes, but I did not go to college to primarily get an education, which I could have gotten by reading books at home. I used it as a social experience that helped me grow in every aspect of my personality, and then a means to an end(grad school). But I understand what you're saying.
That's really interesting. I was talking about highschool, but I can definitely see how undergrad might be the same thing. Funny, I was looking at college as the place to learn what you need for your job, but I see that undergrad is the same thing as 9-12.
Static thinking. This is why we talk about stuff. (sorry if this is as incoherent as I think it is.)
Edit: and I wholeheartedly agree.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That's really interesting. I was talking about highschool, but I can definitely see how undergrad might be the same thing. Funny, I was looking at college as the place to learn what you need for your job, but I see that undergrad is the same thing as 9-12.Static thinking. This is why we talk about stuff. (sorry if this is as incoherent as I think it is.)
Edit: and I wholeheartedly agree.
I don't know if it was incoherent but I definitely didn't understand it.. IN either case, we don't really have an argument against each other here.
This paragraph disgusts me. Schools are implemented to give far more than just marketable skills. That is why four years of English is required in nearly every single college's admission guidelines. That is why schools have drama departments, music departments, art departments. That is why we are taught history as a graduation requirement.
Btw, I was responding to that. You mentioned college admission guidelines so that's what I thought you were talking about.
Yeah that was a rubbish post. I had to poop. We're good now.
Basically, I had been looking at it from the perspective of a high schooler, where the learning is being mandated. College, as a voluntary option, is the place to learn specifics for jobs. But, on further reflection, the undergraduate phase fulfills the same purpose as high school. Colleges also drag students kicking and screaming into the enlightenment.
And yes I was talking about college admissions. I was just surprised to think about it from a different perspective--that colleges and high schools do the same thing, at least at first.
(You have to remember, I haven't been to college. I have the high-achiever's view of college as a Mecca for both bewbz and smart people.)
depends on the profession, if undergrad helps you get a job or not. In the science fields, and if I do say, the arts, undergrad does a great job preparing you.
In the social sciences, its all one big happy"What do you think about this topic" getting to know each other time.
I've been an undergrad a LOOOOONNNNGG time. I should write a book honestly, its about the only thing, other than a solitary BA that i'm going to get out of it.
I really hate being at a hotel with no wi-fi aside from the guest computer in the lobby with limited internet access. Its like withdrawl...
That being said, I shall clarify:
I belive things by default are relative unless one applies an interpertive framework to them. I use human wellbeing as my framework, allowing me to make objective claims. When I was younger and stupider them I am now, I tossed the everthing is relative line because I was a moron. That was over a year ago. People change their minds.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Yeah that was a rubbish post. I had to poop. We're good now.Basically, I had been looking at it from the perspective of a high schooler, where the learning is being mandated. College, as a voluntary option, is the place to learn specifics for jobs. But, on further reflection, the undergraduate phase fulfills the same purpose as high school. Colleges also drag students kicking and screaming into the enlightenment.
And yes I was talking about college admissions. I was just surprised to think about it from a different perspective--that colleges and high schools do the same thing, at least at first.
(You have to remember, I haven't been to college. I have the high-achiever's view of college as a Mecca for both bewbz and smart people.)
Fair enough. The huge difference that I would like to point out is, in high school, you parents make you go to school, while in college, you have the option of attending class. It's both the greatest freedom and the biggest downfall of college students.
Originally posted by Autokrat
I really hate being at a hotel with no wi-fi aside from the guest computer in the lobby with limited internet access. Its like withdrawl...That being said, I shall clarify:
I belive things by default are relative unless one applies an interpertive framework to them. I use human wellbeing as my framework, allowing me to make objective claims. When I was younger and stupider them I am now, I tossed the everthing is relative line because I was a moron. That was over a year ago. People change their minds.
Welcome back to the light side. Anytime I hear "everything is relative!", I die a little inside, praying we were back in the 50s.