You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Education’ category.
Bill 44 reminds me of why I love living in Alberta darn so much. Bill 44 is about parental choice:
Alberta’s controversial legislation that gives parents the option of pulling their children out of sexual education or religion classes they deem inappropriate or offensive will not affect how Catholic schools are run, board officials say.
Oh hey, fantastic. Having the option to be excluded from religious nuttery 101 is a good thing. The problem is that somehow in the topsy-turvey world of educational policy Science Education has been given the same status as Religious Studies. Parents who do not ‘believe’ in Evolution can have their children withdrawn from class using this same polished gem of legislation.
Set ignorance to 11!
Just to state the obvious Science and Religion are most certainly not the same thing. The critical thinking and skepticism that can be learned in science class are vital in shaping the minds of today’s youth. We do not need less critical thinking in the curriculum, but heaps more.
The short sighted nature of educational policy in Alberta aggravates me. This legislation is giving the delusional a means to further inoculate their children against Science and the rest of the modern world.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
Enjoy!
[3] The “assumptions” canard (with “interpretation” side salad).
This is a frequent favourite with creationists, and usually erected for the purpose of attempting to hand-wave away valid science when it happens not to genuflect before their ideological presuppositions. As I have stated in [2] above, science is in the business of testing assumptions and presuppositions to destruction. As an example of destroying creationist apologetics with respect to this canard, I point interested readers to this post, where I destroyed the lies of the laughably named “Answers in Genesis” with respect to their assertion that 14C dating was based upon “assumptions”. I’ve also trashed this canard in detail with respect to radionuclide dating as a whole, so don’t even try to go down that road. Likewise, if you try to erect this canard with respect to other valid scientific theories, you will be regarded as dishonest.
Another favourite piece of creationist mendacity is the “interpretation” assertion, which creationist erect for the purpose of suggesting that scientists force-fit data to presuppositions. Apart from the fact that this is manifestly false, it is also defamatory, and a direct slur on the integrity of thousands of honest, hard working scientists, who strive conscientiously and assiduously to ensure that conclusions drawn from real world observational data are robust conclusions to draw. This slur, of course, is yet another example of blatant projection on the part of creationists, who manifestly operate on the basis of presupposition themselves, and appear to be incapable of imagining the very existence of a means of determining substantive knowledge about the world that does not rely upon presupposition. Well, I have news for you. Science does NOT rely upon “presupposition”. Indeed, scientists have expended considerable intellectual effort in the direction of ensuring that the conclusions they arrive at are rigorously supported by the data that they present in their published papers. There exists much discourse in the scientific literature on the subject of avoiding fallacious or weak arguments, including much sterling work by people such as Ronald Fisher, who sought during their careers to bring rigour to the use of statistical inference in the physical and life sciences. Indeed, Fisher was responsible for inventing the technique of analysis of variance, which is one of the prime tools used in empirical science with respect to experimental data, and Fisher expended much effort ensuring that inferences drawn using that technique were proper inferences to draw.
Basically, there is only one “interpretation” of the data that matters to scientists, and that is whatever interpretation is supported by reality. Learn this lesson quickly, unless you wish to be regarded as discoursively dishonest on a grand scale.
Once again, the CBC to the rescue.
Can you feel the cultural acceptance?
Usually I start with the text and add the pictures later. Not today, the image via Sociological Images, pretty much tells the entire tale by itself, but I will add my two cents anyways.
Short version: Life is not worth living unless you are skinny.
Everyone wave now, let us bid good bye as the culturally accepted norms of fashion and beauty leave the real world and enter into the magically untouchable Platonic ideal. The story, philosophically speaking, would end here because Platonic forms are just that; a interesting story and a fascinating thought experiment. Unfortunately for us the dictates of fashion and beauty transcend the theoretical with grievous consequences for the typical imperfect-Platonic being.
The culture meme that thin=sexy, healthy, desirable etc. and fat = ugly, gross, repugnant is perpetuated daily by the fashion and beauty industries (and of course the weight loss industry). These spheres of intent are completely invested in the theme of “your body is grossly imperfect, but if you buy or do “X” from us we can fix it”. Let us examine some of the more hurtful motifs that arise from these industries:
People who do not fit the cultural norms of beauty hear this ALL the time.
Sadly, I was going to preface one of my paragraphs with that little nugget of wisdom in the lower right hand corner(*). Why is that on the fat hating bingo card? Why are any of the responses there? They are there because they are used to shame and discriminate against the outliers of cultural normalcy. These phrases are crucial to the “othering” process and establishing the in-group/out-group distinction that is so profitable for the fat-shaming industries.
Observing fat-shaming in action one can see how artificial and contrived the entire process is. The consequences though are far from artificial as peoples’ lives are destroyed as they desperately try to conform to some manufactured cultural ideal that they will almost never achieve.
* sometimes I forget that people are not me and my experiences. The bottom right corner square is generally true for me: When I increase my activity level, I tend to lose weight. However, this is not necessarily the case for everyone as everyone brings a distinctly different package of genetics and environment to the able.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
I get this one, or variations on it on many discussion threads. The confounding of religion and science is all to common as methods used to criticize one are not necessarily suitable for critiquing the other.
Enjoy!
[2] Science is NOT a branch of apologetics.
Science is as far removed from apologetics as it is possible to be. Science exists to subject erected postulates to empirical test with respect to whether or not those postulates are in accord with observational reality. As a consequence, science is in the business of testing assertions and presuppositions to destruction, Those that fail the requisite tests are discarded. Science modifies its theories to fit reality. Apologetics, on the other hand, consists of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications for the purpose of trying to prop up presuppositions and blind assertions, involves NO empirical testing, and seeks to force-fit reality to the aforementioned presuppositions and blind assertions. Therefore, treating science as if it constitutes a branch of apologetics is dishonest, and those who engage in this pursuit will be regarded with due scorn and derision.
Among the more duplicitous examples of such dishonesty, all too frequently seen here in the past, is quote mining of scientific papers or scientific publications. There are entire websites devoted to the exposure of this particular brand of dishonesty, and anyone making the mistake of erecting quote mines here will have their buttocks handed to them in a sling.
How do we frame arguments? What context do we use to determine what is a bad argument versus what is a good argument. The Liberal Viewer uses an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali to put forth the argument that once religious thought touches the public policy sphere, it must be evaluated on rational grounds.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
[1] Parroting blind assertions does not constitute “evidence”.
Let’s make this explicit, just so that even the most casual of observers of this thread cannot avoid having noticed it.
Mythology (and I don’t care how precious you consider your “holy books” to be, that is what they contain – mythology) merely erects unsupported blind assertions about the world, and presents those blind assertions as if they constituted “axioms” about the world, to be regarded uncritically as eternally true, and never to be questioned. Well, those who wish to adopt this view will find that they are given short shrift here. Because one of the fundamental rules of proper discourse is that whenever an assertion is erected, no one is obliged to regard it as valid unless proper, critically robust supporting evidence is provided for that assertion. Which means independent corroboration from an outside source, or a direct, methodologically rigorous, repeatable empirical demonstration of the validity of that assertion. Without this, any blind assertions, particularly those erected from mythology or mythology-based doctrines, can be dismissed in the same casual manner in which they are tossed into the thread. Failure to provide proper evidential support for blind assertions will result in a poster being regarded as an inconsequential lightweight. Just because you think that mythological blind assertions constitute “axioms” about the world doesn’t mean that everyone else does, and you’ll soon discover the hard way how much firepower is directed toward those who come here expecting the rest of the forum to genuflect before said blind assertions uncritically. Plus, in the case of supernaturalist blind assertions, parroting these and expecting everyone else to accept them uncritically as established fact in the same way that you did, constitutes preaching, and is a violation of forum rules. Learn quickly to qualify assertions properly when erecting them, unless you wish to be regarded as tediously sanctimonious, boring, and boorishly ill-educated into the bargain.
Oh, and while we’re at it, don’t bother trying to assert that your favourite invisible magic man is “necessary” for the biosphere or some other observed entity, until you can provide proper, critically robust evidential support for the postulate that your magic man actually exists. Given that 300 years of continuous scientific endeavour has established that the universe is not only comprehensible without needing magic, but is thus comprehensible in precise quantitative terms, you will be well advised to devote some serious time to providing methodologically rigorous support for all assertions concerning magic supernatural entities, because without it, you’re fucked from the start.
A fantastic start. Just the basics for any rational discussion, you need to back up your assumptions and arguments with verifiable fact. If not, you may as well be asserting that Unicorns and Dragons really DO exist just because you say so.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…