Originally posted by Robtard
A science-er like you should be able to understand what a 'commonplace assertion' is,
Originally posted by Astner
So according to you something can be wrong and still be fact. Right.
You are conflating the classification of a statement with the qualification of a statement.
No one is asking the students to qualify the statements on the worksheet; that is, to evaluate their truth or falsehood.
They are being asked to classify the statements on the worksheet; that is, to organize them into categories based on what is being asserted.
"Michael Jordan has a career average of 30.4 points per game" contains information that can be confirmed or disconfirmed.
That makes it a statement of facts (category), regardless of whether or not the information is factual (qualification).
Maybe you need to take this class.
Originally posted by Astner
Didn't you listen to the verbal account of the child? There was clearly a confrontation between multiple students and the teacher where the teacher threatened to fail them.As I explained, the point of the exercise was to provoke the students. Hopefully the teacher was fired and blacklisted from any educational environment, because people like that should not be allowed to teach.
If a student refuses to complete an assignment, then she fails the assignment. That is pretty straightforward.
Education should challenge students how to think, not mollify their beliefs.
Originally posted by AstnerThen what are you getting at if you apparently have no problem accepting the statement "God Is Real" to be a CPA?
I understand it, and I also understand that it's not offensive to label expression "God exists," as a commonplace assertion; because it makes no implications of its truth value. But that's not what I'm getting at.
Originally posted by Bentley
There is a stretch between calling something a myth and noting is not factual truth (as in based in facts, proof). Schools are supposed to teach what constitutes conventional proof. Intellectual honesty is not assuming an argument is bias because it adresses points in which sensibilities might differ.
Oh, you mean kinda like how schools teach evolution is a "fact" when all it really is is a theory, correct? A theory that has no actual facts to back it up. Like that, right? Evolution is not based in fact regardless of what any atheist says. Atheists use it because the alternative (the truth about creation) scares the Hell out of them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
While I appreciate you summarising the issue again, we are not in disagreement regarding that. My claim is that the spin that the 7th graders were forced to say that God is not real, is incorrect.Obviously you agree with my assertion, you just wish there to be disagreement that doesn't exist. The teacher made a mistake, the teacher showed disregard for deeply held beliefs, the teacher did NOT force children to say God is not real.
Again, no it isn't.
Originally posted by Astner
So according to you something can be wrong and still be fact. Right.Didn't you listen to the verbal account of the child? There was clearly a confrontation between multiple students and the teacher where the teacher threatened to fail them.
As I explained, the point of the exercise was to provoke the students. Hopefully the teacher was fired and blacklisted from any educational environment, because people like that should not be allowed to teach.
👆
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are conflating the classification of a statement with the qualification of a statement.No one is asking the students to qualify the statements on the worksheet; that is, to evaluate their truth or falsehood.
They are being asked to classify the statements on the worksheet; that is, to organize them into categories based on what is being asserted.
"Michael Jordan has a career average of 30.4 points per game" contains information that can be confirmed or disconfirmed.
That makes it a statement of facts (category), regardless of whether or not the information is factual (qualification).
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a student refuses to complete an assignment, then she fails the assignment. That is pretty straightforward.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Education should challenge students how to think, not mollify their beliefs.
Originally posted by Bardock42
While I appreciate you summarising the issue again, we are not in disagreement regarding that. My claim is that the spin that the 7th graders were forced to say that God is not real, is incorrect.Obviously you agree with my assertion, you just wish there to be disagreement that doesn't exist. The teacher made a mistake, the teacher showed disregard for deeply held beliefs, the teacher did NOT force children to say God is not real.
Yes, she most certainly DID. You can deny it till Hell freezes over if ya like.
Originally posted by Star428
Oh, you mean kinda like how schools teach evolution is a "fact" when all it really is is a theory, correct? A theory that has no actual facts to back it up. Like that, right? Evolution is not based in fact regardless of what any atheist says. Atheists use it because the alternative (the truth about creation) scares the Hell out of them.
Theory doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means, in regards to science.
Read this, it might help you understand how a "theory" relates: http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law
I choose gravity, since I figured it's something you accept to exist.
Why even include God in a "critical thinking" assignment in the first place?
Reeks of an agenda and I am inclined to believe that the teacher did intend to shove hers down impressionable children's minds.
Teaching is a position of trust over their very children given to teachers by parents. And the teacher violated that trust IMO.
As a parent myself, I would certainly want that teacher fired.
What exactly was the agenda, to teach that the statement "God is real" is a commonplace assertion and not a fact?
It was one sentence in a list of sentences, seems like people are really scraping the barrel to make this some sort of attack on religion when nothing really points in that direction. Belief in god is based on faith, not facts. Most any sensible person religious or otherwise will agree.
Originally posted by Robtard
What exactly was the agenda, to teach that the statement "God is real" is a commonplace assertion and not a fact?
How is the agenda not obvious to you?
These are not scholars or adults with mature minds we are talking about but impressionable kids.
I thought religion was taken out of public school (I'm assuming this is a public school) in order to protect "religious freedom" and to allow parents to decide for themselves what to teach their kids in this regard. It's pretty obvious that she meant to bypass this rule via this "assignment".
If parents want to tell their kids Santa is real, then that is their right.
The teacher had no business bringing it into her subject and to undermine whatever the parents have decided to teach their kids. Nor to undermine the trust the kids have towards their parent.
She had no right.
Originally posted by Robtard
It was one sentence in a list of sentences, seems like people are really scraping the barrel to make this some sort of attack on religion when nothing really points in that direction. Belief in god is based on faith, not facts. Most any sensible person religious or otherwise will agree.
Why even include the sentence out of possibly hundreds of other things she could have put in? She knows that this is a sensitive issue. FFS, they took religion out of schools for this very reason.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
How is the agenda not obvious to you?These are not scholars or adults with mature minds we are talking about but impressionable kids.
I thought religion was taken out of public school (I'm assuming this is a public school) in order to protect "religious freedom" and to allow parents to decide for themselves what to teach their kids in this regard. It's pretty obvious that she meant to bypass this rule via this "assignment".
If parents want to tell their kids Santa is real, then that is their right.
The teacher had no business bringing it into her subject and to undermine whatever the parents have decided to teach their kids. Nor to undermine the trust the kids have towards their parent.
She had no right.
Why even include the sentence out of possibly hundreds of other things she could have put in? She knows that this is a sensitive issue. FFS, they took religion out of schools for this very reason.
Probably because there was no "agenda".
They're in 7th grade; not 2nd, they're old enough to know what a Commonplace Assertion is. At least that was the point of the exercise.
This lesson had nothing to do with teaching the tenants of any religion.
Sure, parents are allowed that; doesn't mean that school has to push it when it's widely accepted that Santa (in magical sense) is not real.
This lesson did not "undermine" any religious teachings. The statement "There is a god" being a Commonplace Assertion does not unravel any religious teachings. "a statement that many assume to be true, but cannot be proven"
Probably because it's a very common Commonplace Assertion, arguably the most prolific Commonplace Assertion ever, since billions of people believe it, yet it can't be proven with facts.
Is this what we're really down to, some rage ala "How dare she teach that 'THERE IS A GOD' is a commonplace assertion and not a proven fact!" Seems overly silly to me.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
H
If parents want to tell their kids Santa is real, then that is their right.The teacher had no business bringing it into her subject and to undermine whatever the parents have decided to teach their kids. Nor to undermine the trust the kids have towards their parent.
She had no right
Where does this stop though? If parents want to tell their children than evolution is fake, can the science teacher not undermine it? What if they don't believe in maths? Grammar? The Holocaust?
Originally posted by Star428
LMAO@ comparing very important subjects like math and grammar to the bull**** theory of evolution. Both math and grammar are based on facts. Evolution is not.
You seem to be confused. "Evolution" is not a subject. It's one of many things you will study in a science class.
The inclusion itself of a sensitive yet completely unnecessary topic in the assignment as well as the child's own testimony seem to suggest otherwise.
You were not privy to the actual conversation between teacher/students but from the testimony of the child, it does seem like there's something more to the teacher's explanation outside what is written in the assignment. Said testimonies also seem to point out that the assignment seemed to have a negative impact on the children themselves. What is it about safe spaces and BLM again? At the very least, the teacher should have just been sensitive enough to remove the question from the assignment. That is, unless that was the purpose of the very assignment in the first place.
Yeah, being forcibly/aggressively (as per her testimony) told that your belief system is just unproven assertions sure won't have a negative impact on kids and sure won't undermine the belief systems decided upon by their parents.
Uh huh.
Sure, you and I can discuss these things and we would most probably reach an accord. Factual vs belief systems at our age and maturity is pretty easy to discuss. But again, these are kids, with varying levels of maturity. With parent that teach them religious beliefs inserting varying levels of real world logic within what they teach their kids (w/c is their right).
How can you not see that when a parent teaches their impressionable kids one thing and a person within a position of trust (who has no business doing so) tells them that what you taught them isn't really true and then pushes them (via a graded assignment) to admit that assertion, that the result will be that it undermines what you taught them as well as weaken their trust in you as a parent?