I kid you not. Republicans want to ban critical thinking so that children will not question the beliefs imposed by their parents.
Read it here...
http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/ne … -thinking/
In addition, they have suggested the following for party policy...
– Abstinence-only sex ed (yeah, because that's worked so well so far.)
– Trying juveniles as adults
– Faith-based drug rehab should be emphasized (Scientology front operation NarcAnon should be rubbing its hands at that one)
– Oppose the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Yeah! Who's the UN to tell us we should ban child slavery?)
– Flat rate income tax (go Team 1%!)
– Repealing the minimum wage (suck it, wage slaves!)
– Opposing homosexuality in the military (don't ask, don't tell, and don't do that!)
– Opposition to red light cameras (because if you run a red, kill someone, and there's no witnesses, was the light ever really red?)
– Oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because firms should be able to fire people for what they consider "sinful and sexually immoral behavior." Like, say, growing a beard?
– Continued opposition to ACORN (even though it has not existed since 2010)
– Opposing statehood or even Congressional voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia (who writes this crap, Rand Paul?)
– And no-questions-asked support for Israel because, and this is another direct quote, "Our policy is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise."
This stuff is beyond belief.
Does nobody have a comment that the official opposition in the most powerful country in the world wants to base its government on superstition and keep its people ignorant?
I find that horrific beyond belief.
It wasn't like this in the beginning. Over the last couple of hundred years, primarily in the last half we have allowed thieves into the congress, who have been chipping away at the very foundation of America, a foundation that left the power in the people’s hands. Although we all have different views, I hope that most of us can agree that there is bad business going on in the local and federal government. Elect new people. 20, 30, 40 plus years is too long, and too much has gone on under their watch. Start voting, and take the power back from the thieves that would tell you that you need them. Vote for Real hope and change from the ground up, that means at home in your town. Know who you vote for though facts instead of promises. There have been too many promises broken for far too long. If you are caught up in Obamania, or you are wary of Romney, just remember that you have to start in your hometown. Here’s to rockin’ the vote! De Oppresso libre
I read the Texas Republican Platform for 2012. It did not surprise me that they opposed higher-order thinking. This is why Republicans have voted against student loans for middle-class kids.
You mean they opposed keeping the interest rate at a level that was too low to support the program, right? They didn't oppose the program as a whole...although there is some merit to that notion, as it it a federal program that would be better served on a state, local or private level.
This just in from The FARHD (The Fanatically Arcane Red Herring Department)!
Welcome new user. As you have found out rather quickly, some folks around here can be a bit snarky. Heck, I guess I am guilty of that at times as well. It can be extra pronounced when you jump into a thread that is already underway, since by that time things are already being thrown around the room. It is best in such a situation to be prepared to duck.
I think I would agree that your example wasn't really a red herring. However, I'm not sure I would agree it is an example of the lack of critical thinking. The mere existence of a counter-argument doesn't by itself show a lack of critical thinking by the other side. Perhaps the other side has fully and completely addressed and considered the points raised by Freedom Light Bulb guy. If they have than they did critically think, they just came to a different conclusion. I don't know either way. I have not been terribly interested in the light bulb issue. I certainly don't think that a lack of critical thinking is an exclusive trait of conservatives. There seems to be a fair bit of it all over the place.
What red herring ?
1 a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.
2 something, esp. a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting : the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings. [ORIGIN: so named from the practice of using the scent of red herring in training hounds.]
I meant it in jest and thought it to be a distraction or misdirection away from the main issue.
. . . the post is "The GOP wants to ban critical thinking."
And proof was shown that it was an accurate claim.
An example of the opposite was given, in polite language, and referenced.
A poor and irrelevant example about lightbulbs and coal was given and had nothing to do with teaching critical thinking in schools—but thank you for your politeness, it is much appreciated!
As a new user here, what is the point of this if no criticism is allowed
A new user of ninety minutes that may be a phony pseudonym of Hubber who just wants to disrupt the debate. Nevertheless, pertinent, constructive and informed criticism is always welcomed—by me at least! And for what it's worth, I wasn't criticizing you with malice, but with a gentle humor poke.
Are you so sensitive that debate on a public forum upsets you with a bit of sarcasm?
Thank you. You're welcome.
This does not surprise me one bit. The whole reson we have the Dept. of Education is to indoctrinate our children into believing that the government is always right, and never wrong. We do not question authority, and that is that.
The old, "do as I say, not as I do" act.
I read through most of their platform, and it's borderline psychotic. The opposition to Juvenile Daytime Curfews is a weird one. They say they oppose any "official entity" from detaining a juvenile with parental consent. This would include arresting a juvenile who is committing a crime.
They also want all sides of a scientific argument to be taught in classrooms. They're referring to evolution, of course, but that would also include, say, teaching Scientology's view of human origins.
But best of all, they support the repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To me, that says all you need to know.
What would be wrong with that, just possibly the students man be able to form their own opinions. It should not be taught as fact, but it could make for a good classroom experience to actually have the students discuss these issues. Just maybe some students may be open to original thought instead of being indoctrinate in to whatever the school curriculum states they should learn.
Not to turn this into a discussion of evolution, but should they also teach "alternatives" to the germ theory of disease? Which creation myths should they teach? The Hindu version predates Christianity's by at least 2000 years. Religion has no place in the science curriculum.
It should be placed under the same curriculum that the Roman and Greek mythologies are taught. a study of what others believe may open up the student to different cultures instead of keeping them ignorant of the beliefs of the world. Offer them knowledge and allow them to make their own conclusions.
I enjoy the Bhagavad Gita!
Comparative religion is great. More schools should teach that, then maybe we'd have less religious bigotry and hatred. But theology has no place in public schools, and religion is not science.
For only those who choose to delude themselves.
Oh sure it is Cags....sure it is.
Maybe not you but for some it replaces it in their lives.
Yes, that's because science is simply reality.
Religion is centered on worship....
I have yet to see anyone worshiping science.
Science is simply a pursuit, it is a mind-state that values critical thinking and research.
There is no "faith" (especially in the way the word is used in "religion") to go by......
Totally agree with this premise. Religion really does not have any place in public schools at all, schools should teach and implement practical skills that will later enhance chances of a student's future success such as mathematics, advanced computer science, and other scientific subjects. We need MORE SCIENTIFIC subjects in our schools. Teach our children evolutioni and other advanced sciences. It is totally appalling how the other nations, particularly China, Korea, India, and other developed countries are outpacing us in that area. We need 21st century, not 19th century education and that is mostly what our children are receiving! .
I'm not advocating the teaching of the Bible (in this discussion), but rather the science that backs up a diffent MODEL than any of the MANY evolutionary models...there is good science that needs to be discussed. Evolution is far from a proven fact, especially Macro-evolution.
Nice to see you, Mitch.
I thought I would toss in this tidbit. Renowned paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey said he expects scientific discoveries over the next 15 to 30 years will advance the theory of evolution to the point, “even the skeptics can accept it.” (1)
"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey said recently, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."
I think, Mitch, the world may be moving closer to believing all people are fundamentally the same, we just think differently.
Thanks for adding to the discussion.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/2 … 48766.html
Quill, I agree we are all related and that skin color is superficial... we are all one race.... human...but, not because of evolution.
How about adaptation and natural selection?
When there is already the variation within the kind, such as the peppered moth...both the lighter and darker colors existed and one was better suited to the environmental change...that is natural selection within a kind and not evolution from species to species...
Can you cite the source that shows that they support a repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Give the actual part of the official State platform.
It's incredible. Idiocy wrapped in vacuous rhetoric is all the GOP has to sell now. Their previous moderate ideas, like cap and trade and the individual mandate, are suddenly decried as socialism when the opposing party agrees that they are good ideas!
I did underestimate the GOP's bombastic execution of logic within the party. I always assumed it was implicit, but never to be talked of so openly. Now, the anti-logic party is reveling in their bigoted drivel.
So is the fact that people actually believe what you just reported.
Excuse me. I copied and pasted what was in the major newspaper from the Austin chronicle. So you are suggesting that the main newspaper from Austin was lying? Forgive me, let me change what I wrote.
"A major newspaper in one of the leading cities in Texas is lying to the people of Texas by the news it is writing."
Sorry about that.
It's Austin...where all the hippies and liberals in Texas go
Maybe this is better:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/as … _Final.pdf
From Page 12
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based
Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging
the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"
This was actually linked in the article too...
This goes with being against colleges and auniversities. Because education enlightens people.
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave....
While this is the Texas GOP doing this, the GOP apple doesn't fall far from the tree.... Louisiana recently got rid of public education all together.... Not much critical thinking will be taught in their religious educational environment...
Critical Thinking would allow leftists such as yourself to understand basic economics.
The social conservatives may be outrageous on many topics, but none of them directly effect me in anyway as much as the insanity of liberals being in charge of the nations finances.
Obama is making George W. Bush look good. That is an incredibly difficult task.
I'm not surprised, the whole attack on "liberal" education has been leading up to stuff like this.
You would get more replies if you put this in the political forum.
To be fair, it is the Texas GOP, not the national. Not that I like everything the national GOP does, just want to be clear.
It wouldn't be a problem at all if schooling was not enforced. Those in favour of lefty schooling can participate in it and those in favour of parental authority do not have to.
Man, 90% of all debates would be solved if we just said: "Let's trust in freedom"
It wouldn't be a problem if schooling weren't enforced. That's absolutely true. There might be other problems as a result of kids being moronic through them not being schooled, but who cares. Anyone can handle a gun and start a world war. No education required.
God Bless You - if you beleve that sort of clap trap. When did we remove freedom from America? Compulsory education - hell - compulsory everything - is at the heart of so much. If we just elevated the individual, in whom all authority is invested, as the paramount agent in government how much trouble could be avoided. Collectivist schooling is the big problem here.
So you're saying that parents who believe the earth is flat and God is a eight-legged octopus should be allowed to send their kids to a school which doesn't discuss or even mention that other theories exist?
The whole point of education is not to indoctrinate children, but to enable them to think critically about the world. Just because a teacher explains the theories behind (say) climate change, Islam, sexuality etc, doesn't mean he/she is recommending or endorsing them.
Why are some people so terrified of allowing their children to learn about other views of the world? Are they so insecure about their own beliefs, that they don't think they'll stand up to scrutiny?
Of course politicians want to ban critical thinking in schools.
I have yet to find any on either side who wants true growth in America, so it would make sense to continue the onslaught of the public education system.
It's the final phase before true tyranny takes control of everything in a person's life. The process began about 20+ years ago and it should be rounding down pretty soon.
So, no I'm not surprised or shocked.
Utter idiocy at its best! Such atavistic "thinking". What else will those Republinazis "conceive" of next!
I don't know maybe a health care law that will be a tax...wait that just happened. Didn't Obama say that it wouldn't be a tax...ever? Don't worry your friends at the IRS will let you know all the details, that is unless you only file taxes to get other peoples hard earned money, then you can get even more money from those big rich meanies who actually pay taxes. Sweet! More division!
you're right but just as we liberals and leftist must compromise in order not to alienate the majority of the country which is center right they can go extreme and run into the same problem because the majority is center right not extreme right, the extreme right is limited to the 20 or so million who listen to the right wing nut talking heads.
I don’t know where to start. You’re taking very broad strokes with your brush. The Tea Party exists because people are tired of a tyrannical government that is over stepping its constitutional boundaries, just like the original tea partiers and the King of England. People like you have no problem shredding the very fabric of what made America the beacon of hope in the world. Drones! Are you suggesting that people who normally vote republican are drones? When we are all in a state of equal suffering, and all need uncle sam to give us what we need to survive…will you be happy then? The people in Texas vote, and pass what they see fit. If they don’t agree with the laws that are passed, they can elect other representatives. I’m guessing from your clearly biased point of view that you don’t live in the school district that you have chosen to pick apart. Instead of going through each of the falsities you choose to hold as truth, I would just like to tell you that not all of us are the same. I admit that I sometimes place all democrats in the same box, but then I hear or see what one says, and realize how indoctrinated they are on a stack of lies. I’d love to have a real conversation about our fundamental differences, and apologize for coming off a bit rash. I guess the likening of me to someone who would agree to hold a young mind back from its potential upset me. The Tea Party is tired of a corrupt, fat, overbearing two party system of government, and that is why they are picking up steam…their goal is not to oppress little kids. Nice try though. Blind ignorant people are not held to one demographic, they are prevalent in almost all demographics.
phion, I don't know who you're talking to, and what you're saying will only make sense if you indicate who you're responding to.
Various topics have been raised so I'd like to know which one you're responding to.
I'm sorry you have such a bad opinion of liberals.
I just wish he'd break his text into paragraphs to make it easier to read - or perhaps I don't
Noted. Thank you english teachers. I forget that I'm not having an in-person conversation sometimes, and need to break things up for easy consumption. The emoticons are cute Mr. Holden.
Ms. Angelique, thank you for the pointers. I’ve just started to notice that comments don’t always go where you think they will. You really lit a firecracker with this one, and it has been interesting.
I was a registered independent, but had to register as a republican in order to vote for some local elections this year. I am a libertarian, who just started getting involved. I wish that every liberal that I knew didn’t leave me feeling the way I do, but I haven’t been blessed with such luck. I hoped for a different result here. The only interesting conversations on Hub pages to me are the ones that are polarized, like this one. I can’t stand either party 75% of the time, so I’m sorry that it seems I focus only on the Democrats.
I’ve got beef with almost every aspect of government. It seems like a bunch of kids in middle school could run things more effectively. There is reason to be angry at the current government, and to blame all of you out there who have been voting for the last 20+ years. Almost every program that your elected officials have put in place has turned out to be an utter failure. I don’t want to hear about the local, here and there programs that have actually helped. Medicaid, Medicare, soon enough Obamacare, war on drugs, war on terror, food stamps, United States Postal Service, Social Security, War on poverty, Department of energy, a dozen other wasted “Departments of”, and the list goes on. The government is not the answer, and they will not create effective ways of fighting our problems. In the military we laugh at the term Military Intelligence as an oxymoron. Efficient Government in this country has become an oxymoron.
It’s time for those of us who are passionate about these issues, and care about the legacy that we leave to stand up. Maybe this is your time to get involved in local government, or more.
Critics hit me!
Why is the Tea Party not protesting the police state? Or the endless wars? Or the marriage of corporate and political interests that results in events like the BP oil spill?
The Tea Party wants theocracy, mixed with imperialism, with a touch of screw the poor on the side.
If they were true libertarians, they wouldn't be able to merge so smoothly with the current GOP.
I think they can find lots of people who are unable to think critically already...
So...do you guys assume that all GOP voters are incabable of or eschew critical thinking skills? Gee, maybe I'm really dumb and don't know it. I always thought I was pretty smart, and as a teacher, I always stressed critical thinking and other cognitive skills that were the highest levels of Bloom's taxonomy.
I certainly don't believe that about all Republicans...just the ones that voted for this platform.
And Habee...you are not your average every day Republican...at least you are unlike the ones on here.
Well comic-con had something to say about the topic of critical thinking. It was more to do with wishful thinking.
For a few of the points...
1.– Abstinence-only sex ed (yeah, because that's worked so well so far.) Where has this been tried?
2.– Trying juveniles as adults - A 16 year old who commits murder shouldn't be tried as an adult?
3.– Faith-based drug rehab should be emphasized (Scientology front operation NarcAnon should be rubbing its hands at that one) - Faith-based programs, on the whole, have a higher success rate.
4.– Oppose the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Yeah! Who's the UN to tell us we should ban child slavery?) - Read more about this, it is not a good thing and you have over simplified it.
5.– Flat rate income tax (go Team 1%!) - What would be wrong with fair even taxation that doesn't penalize succes? Be specific...
6.– Repealing the minimum wage (suck it, wage slaves!) - I've studied this and written a hub on it...most people don't understand the arguement from an economic stand point and only look at it through an emotional prism.
As for abstinence only education-
You can't tell teenagers NOT to do something. That just makes them want to do it more. You have to teach them about condoms and ways to prevent pregnancy and STD's.
I'd hate to think that employers think that they are being charitable paying minimum wage.
Juveniles Being Charged As Adults-
If it's cold-blood murder, then sure, try them as adults. However, what if the kid was being bullied? What if the kid had to kill his parent to end years of physical abuse? Maybe a scared kid brought a gun to a fight to scare off someone who was threatening him and it accidentally went off.
So, don't teach them about why they shouldn't drink and drive? Why they shouldn't beat up other students or teachers? Why they shouldn't do drugs? Really?
The minimum wage increases the prices of goods and services, thereby eliminating any benefit from an artificially increased wage...read my hub on it...
All of your scenerios do not nullify the fact that the actions are illegal and therefore should be tried in a court of law...
"The minimum wage increases the prices of goods and services, thereby eliminating any benefit from an artificially increased wage...read my hub on it..."
You're absolutely right.
Paying a wage to someone does increase the cost of goods.
Much better not to pay at all. That's why slavery was such a good thing.
http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … -pays.html
There's the other alternative, though.
We pay CEOs and their shareholders much, much less, as they are the one's living in multi-million dollar mansions. This is a good thing to consider. In every other country in the world, the ratio between the CEO and the lowest paying wage earner is 40 times. It used to be that in the USA in the 40s through 60s as well. Currently, in the USA, the CEO earns 827 times what the guy at the bottom earns. One doesn't have to cut the minimum wage. In fact, one can double it, and give the CEO 10% of what he used to earn.
Any thought that the CEO is 'doing something that 10% of the population can't do" is propaganda so that they can get away with wage slavery.
Why do liberals go to the "you want dirty air" arguments? No, slavery is not better, nor did I say that...when you artificial raise any costs, including pay, you raise the cost of the goods snd services produced...small to medium business make up the lion share of employers in this country and those are hit hardest and then either need to hire less, reduce staff or close...what legitimate economic arguments can be made against my premise as laid out in my hub?.
I read the article referred to. The Republican Party of Texas opposes a program called HOTS because it is, they say, a re-packaging of an educational philosophy called "Outcome Based Education."
I've taught high school where the books were OBE. I'm not saying it's all bad, but for my student, it was terrible. I ended up creating all my own materials. My math students, on average, increased their math grade levels 4 years in the one year they were with me. I would say reasonable minds can differ on the value of OBE vs. traditional methods.
The author of the Chronicle's article conflates HOTS with critical thinking. He also confuses whichever particular Republicans created the RPT2010 platform with "the Republicans," which would mean all Republicans.
So we go from "certain Republicans oppose Outcome Based Education" to "all Republicans oppose critical thinking."
There is some irony here.
I've avoided getting in on this discussion because I'm not as interested in geographically limited subjects, but now that you've come along I think I'll have to give it a look.
I don't like to get into the education system as much, ironically, because I feel it let me down severely. I had no options for learning growing up, and spent years in school bored.
I respect you tailoring your teaching methods to your students. That's highly commendable. However, the platform itself specifically says that critical thinking should be discouraged.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen … er_order/. Click the link and it will bring up the entire pdf file, with the platform on it.
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
You see where you and the platform disagree. You claimed it wasn't helpful to your students, so you modified, which IS critical thinking. But the GOP in Texas has the rationale that "parental authority" and "fixed beliefs" should not be challenged. That is the scary, and depressing aspect of the platform, and why some (like me and others) are calling this out as vacuous piffle.
Do you believe that a national department should decide what values should be taught to a child or do believe in choice...a parents choice to decide what their child will be taught?
Parent's don't have some kind of omnipotent authority that should never be challenged. I don't think the current organization of the educational system is doing it's job; however, it doesn't follow from this that parents should be able to do what they wish.
Raising a child into a future member of the human race is a bigger deal than most people realize. Just because you can reproduce doesn't mean you SHOULD reproduce.
If a parent is teaching a child to be racist, sexist, or homophobic, they should lose their child. A NAZI does not have the right to indoctrinate their children and be free from consequences.
While I find racism to be personally repugnant, you are wrong that a parent can not teach their child to be racist...It is not beliefs that we have laws against, but actions...you can dislike anyone for any reason (or no reason at all) and you are protected under the Constitution. It is if you actively hurt someone through violence that a crime has been commited.
And, yes it is the right of the parent and not the Federal government to decide what the child is taught when it comes to morals, faith etc...this is why choice is important in the educational offerings available to parent, so that they can choose the right school.
You're begging the question. You have offered no defense of your point of view. You just stated it. Status-quo bias.
Your point of view is the new one to the American Experiment...mine is Constitutionally based, while yours is not, unless you can show me where in the Constitution you find the enumerated power that allows tge federal government to DPLorainna this?
Show me where in the Constitution you have an inalienable right to raise a child in ANY way you wish.
Show me where in the Constitution it says a child can be taken away because you don't agree with them and their ideology?
Howdy Sooner. Nice to chat with you.
Here ya go, Sooner. The Constitution clearly states all power not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states and the people. The burden is on the government to show its constitutional authority for exercising power over the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (1)
It makes good reading, huh?
He claimed it was a Constitutional right.
It's not there, and you pointed out the 10th amendment. All 50 states have passed laws declaring that parents do not have SUPREME authority when it comes to raising children. You can even be jailed if your kids do not attend a public school, private school, or show adequate proof that the child is being educated at home.
Please explain how this is detrimental to my argument at all. It bolsters my point. Thanks for the add on!
Again, are you arguing that thoughts and beliefs can be legislated against, or only actions?
Sooner, I said show me where the FEDERAL government has enumerated powers on the subject...
Isn't it easier to educate the parents a little better?
I mean couldn't there be some classes where you could get them together and get them to understand these things? So we don't have issues that make you want to separate children from their parents?
Now maybe you could even make it like a vacation? Say out in the woods somewhere away from distractions? You could even make it like a camp. That would be great wouldn't it?
And conservatives like you would call it indoctrination camps :p.
Not if it was voluntary and based in the free market...I encourage you to open such a camp and have a go at it...
But, if it were government mandated, what would you call it?
I didn't say that. You assume it. Why is that?
Is that what you want? Whether you would call it that or not is that what you think should happen?
I think it would be great to force racists, homophobes, and sexists to attend classes on toleration. But I see that as a situation that is extremely susceptible to abuses of power, and a government that could punish people for not buying into the orthodox belief.
Classes also would not really do much to change people who are so disgusting on the inside anyway. Most of the time, those people are beyond hope.
Would that include Black on White racist? Black on Latino? Anti-Christian bigotry?
I keep seeing the words homophobic et al...who is afraid of people who are homosexual?
Cody you need to switch from Kool Aid to something more adult.
And who in this federal behemoth would dictate which beliefs and thoughts were deemed fit and which were "illega"? What if someone rose to power who decided all religion was subversive to the power of the state? Or that those in opposition to a particular party's platform were teaching their children "illegal" ideas?
This is one reason we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights...to protect We the People from government and the potential abuse it can cause.
And who in this federal behemoth would dictate which beliefs and thoughts were deemed fit and which were "illega"? What if someone rose to power who decided all religion was subversive to the power of the state? Or that those in opposition to a particular party's platform were teaching their children "illegal" ideas?
Someone did—America's founding fathers!
What if someone rose to power and decided all liberals were evil, anti-American and subversive to the power of Corporations?
Someone did—People like the Koch Brothers and The Corporation="The People"
Article VI does not address this issues I asked about...why not address those before moving on to the next topic?
Article VI does indeed address your point and the example you gave about the subversion of religion—did you read it? Article VI wouldn't allow it in our democracy.
I then went on to sight a quote by a highly thought of conservative, Ronald Reagan, who would be thought of as a left-winger by today's Conservative standards.
And then finally, with a poster about how corporations have bought out our democracy—it illustrates how corporations are the real power behind the candidates today.
What I see in this has nothing to do with math. It appears to mostly have to do with social issues.
I think a lot of it has to do with what is considered "critical thinking" by the left.
In the opening here I see that it has to do with questioning the values your parents impose. I am a Conservative and I assure you my teens question me all the time. That's good.
However a lot of what I see listed has to do with opposing progressive public and social policy. I can only assume that policy is what is considered by them as critical thinking.
That leads us down the path to we all think the same way.
I don't think that's where we want to be.
Yet another reason to decentralize education out of the federal domain, where it was never meant to be and to allow more choice for parents about who educates their children. Allowing local and State governments to oversee, but not run, a free market competition filled education system. Thank you for posting this information that supports the need to move education out of Washington D.C and back to the communities and States where the parents and children reside.
Ban critical thinking? S'okay...they don't use it much anyways.
I agree with you about returning education to community. The charter school is an attempt to do this. I believe educating our children belongs in the hands of parents and community, not in the hands of government. What a mess we're in.
Which would allow tax dollars to fund the teaching of religion... which is a clear violation of separation of church and state.
However if churches want to form schools and pay for them completely out of their own pockets with no state or federal funding whatsoever I am all for that. I believe that it should be perfectly legal and satisfy all requirements for minimum education...
Oh wait... those schools ARE perfectly legal. Home-school is also perfectly legal and you can teach your kid whatever you like.
If you want government funding to raise your kid however then that whole separation of church and state still comes into effect. Sucks eh?
Re Chris Hedges Quote
I was brought up that schooling had nothing to do with education. Education was what one acquired as a result of personal reading, examined life experience, and travel. One went to school in order to a) gain the tools to educate oneself, i.e. reading, writing, etc. b) learn a skill in order to earn a living.
I have to say...that sounds very dreary. I've always seen education as much more than purely vocational and have been sorry to see the degradation of humanities subjects, which I like to think of as the *soul* of education. Of course I realise developing practical work training is important but for me, education is also about coming into contact with many different ideas, past and present, scratching the surface of societies and learning critical and analytical skills. These are skills for life, not just employment. Too much emphasis on the narrowly vocational and not enough on general education makes for a duller populace.
Indeed and I highly recommend this read: "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle" by Chris Hedges
"If you are young, and not liberal, then you don't have a heart. If you are old, and not conservative, then you don't have a brain."
He wasn't the brightest light bulb either. And, yes I know his background.
And if you're a Neo-Conservative, you have dementia!
What, by your OWN definition is a Conservative vs a Neo-Con?
A conservative is a general label for someone who wants to preserve traditional values, mistrusts change and wants to preserve the status quo. Sadly, real conservatives (even hardliners like Goldwater or Reagan) are rare political creatures in today's GOP.
A Neo-Con (short for New-Conservative) is a right-wing reactionary, filled with fear, self-righteous anger, hates Liberals and scapegoats poor people. They are the new Republican Party—but they still call themselves "Conservatives." They are usually, religious, anti-intellectual and often macho.
Here is a typical example of one . . . http://youtu.be/9PFd_-4F2vY
Loving this discussion and this post. Right on Wizard! Your sypnosis of the neo-Conservative is spot on! I LOVE IT!
Right....so the GOP representative saying that being gay was wrong is a stereotype?
http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/2012- … docID=3201
That's from Texas
Then we have the Larry Craig scandal in Idaho. Those tolerant members of the GOP tried to get him to resign because he was gay.
That's not even the topic Cody.
You are aware of that right?
The question was who is scared of homosexuals...
My answer was GOP member in Congress.
You said I was acting like a child.
I refuted your point rather easily.
The forum is about critical thinking.
You can read right?
I keep forgetting, there can be no deviation in your forum threads. I apologize. I'm sorry I keep bringing up points you can't refute.
No.no this happens all the time. I always get told I am off topic if I don't follow the thread or the hub.
Is it different for you?
I don't think I've ever ripped into someone for being off-topic. In my experience, threads tend to wander
I promise that is one thing I won't ever gripe about. .
Not to mention the Texas governor who showed us so eloquently during the primary how intelligent, open minded and accepting our conservatives are.
God forbid our best sons who have a different sexual preference should be ALLOWED to serve us and risk their lives for us.
All the GOP candidates were spineless when that gay soldier was booed. If they love war so much, and think it's such an amazing sacrifice, why would they not commend the soldier? They aren't principled pacifists by any stretch. The audience was allowed to show their bigotry.
You do realize this is a load of BS, right?
Citizens are taxed anyways and forced to take taxation from the very companies that keep America running.
Your statement shows a lack of understanding in how things work in America, like the Economy for one.
Citizens are already paying for the uninsured and when they use the health care services available, it's built into the price. And, you want to pay MORE now?
Health Care and eliminating the Health Care Industry is completely ridiculous right now in America. Why? Because a lack of doing what's right with the Educational System in this Country. It churns out students who are looking for a job. That's not helpful to the Economy by any stretch of the imagination. Adding a surplus of employees for places that are not hiring or don't need employees, is retarded.
The price of Health Care has risen because of many people lack of self control. Some of it is because of extreme old age or diseases which are expensive to treat. However, if you had a better educated society, then even those things would be addressed, because people would be doing things to help them, such as private practice or own a business that does research(honestly does the work) and provides a service to those people.
The fact that Students graduate, go on to college and then leave college, and realize that they don't have a job. As for job placement via College, it's hit or miss. Just as bad as temp agencies are at getting people work.
And the GOP wants to do away with Critical Thinking in schools? Absurd.
I'm not keen to support the Republican party, at all - but to make accusations of an interest to ban or the absence of critical thinking, and point to Republicans as the culprits is ludicrous and not at all the result of, well, of critical thinking. The problem is not that evil Republicans are conniving to do away with critical thinking, the problem is that several generations have past since critical thinking has even been recognized as a necessary tool to sound reasoning and useful determinations. Forget Republicans, no one practices critical thinking anymore - but, if we're going to pick one of the major political parties to point to, I (personally) think you need to move to the left to uncover the worst offenders.
Today's political left in this country react to jargon, they don't act on critical thought and sound reasoning - what they champion is what they 'just know' is right and what they feel is the good cause, not what evidence and facts demonstrate. The left is so thoroughly, and vehemently, convinced that conservatives are, not mistaken or wrong, but evil, that they are just as thoroughly convinced that they themselves must be right. The argument from the left has long moved away from facts and figures and what actually will work and solve problems, it has even moved away from political philosophy and fundamental ideas - now the left's argument is all about who is good and who is bad, who is smart and who is stupid . . . the left 'knows' they are good and smart because they are so unfailingly certain that the right is bad and stupid.
The Republicans are far from where they should be, but the Democrats are as far from critical thinking as you can get - facts and evidence are all set aside for an agenda . . . it's all jargon and appearance with them.
People who cling to outdated ideas are the critical thinkers of society?
Let's affirm our mindless allegiance to a "holy book" that teaches a mythology based on the Summerians, regardless of what modern experimental evidence suggests.
Let's allow our environment to be raped, simply because we want to consume more STUFF.
Let's send innocent young men and women into pointless wars because we need more oil to sustain our bloated lifestyles.
Don't forget to demonize gays and minorities, using slurs like "sinful" for behavior that is perfectly natural and healthy, or "illegal" for people who are simply looking for a better life. Demonizing the other is the LAZIEST type of thinking there is.
And, even though Bill Gates is literally GIVING his wealth away, due to the fact that he has so much, let's give him a tax cut to "stimulate job growth."
The GOP (politicians, not all GOP voters are like this) are the quintessential peddlers of piffle.
Sooner28 ~ you seem (to me) to be making some giant assumptions - and that's just about the opposite of critical thinking. People who cling to outdated ideas are not at all practicing any manner of critical thinking - but certainly you're not asserting that conservatives cling any more frequently or firmly to outdated ideas than liberals . . ? Observably mindless allegiance to anything is anti-critical thinking - but not all who count the Bible as a reliable record of revealed truth do so because they practice a mindless allegiance. etc, etc.
This is the kind of good/bad smart/stupid bigotry I was referring to . . . there are, of course, many liberals who cling to outdated liberal ideas with no critical thinking in sight, and many liberals who likewise promote their liberalism with a mindless allegiance. The problem isn't what solutions you genuinely believe might fix particulars troubles (unemployment, racism, the best use of the environment, etc), the problem is things like the lack of critical thinking, clinging to outdated ideas, mindless allegiances, etc.
Casting one side as the good/smart guys and the other side as the bad/stupid guys, rather than dealing with the lack of critical thinking, clinging to outdated ideas, mindless allegiances, etc, might be the greatest example of the lack of critical thinking, clinging to outdated ideas, mindless allegiances, etc, that we have.
Based on my experience as a teacher, I often felt that government regulations were stifling critical thinking. Too many teachers are forced "to teach" those blasted mandated tests. I was lucky - I taught seniors, and by that time, they (the seniors) were pretty much done with those tests. I also had a principal who approved of and encouraged my "outside the box" teaching methods.
I like that you think Democrats don't do any of that. You are how old?
Oh please, yet again...one side pointing out the other side, all the while being ignorant to their own relations to either side.
BOTH are bad- Democrats and Republicans.
BOTH are pathetic.
BOTH are a lousy display of leadership.
BOTH are showing the rest of the world, the people are stupid.
BOTH are continuing the stripping of Citizens Rights- NDAA and Patriot Act are proof.
BOTH are people of no character of any kind because they find it acceptable to manipulate and distort.
So, please quit the BS.
I know that Cags..
But why should I sit around and listen to the one side pull the BS on the other side?????
I completely disagree with the media scenario of the haloed and angle winged Democrats and the murderous viscous Republicans.
Who started that crap?
They BOTH suck. And NO I won't vote for RON PAUL!!
So your solution is don't vote?
I am going to vote fro someone I don't really care that much about mainly to change the change.
Hedges wasn't admonishing only Republicans, JS, but it's telling and sad to see your simplistic logic in action. I'm a grandfather, JS.
This is your real problem . . .
I should be and I have been both sides of the fence and know the lies from both sides of the fence. Understand?
"We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized." From the Texas Republican 2012 Platform
Dr Billy Kidd (and others)
Below is the line about the repeal of the Voter Rights Act of 1965 AND the line before it. The line before it explains that they believe in the right of every non-felon citizen to be able to vote, but to not have a law that allows redistricting according to race etc....
SO WHERE is the PROBLEM? Maybe you should read the ENTIRE platform and take it as a whole.
Voting Rights - We support equal suffrage for all U.S. Citizens of voting age who are not felons. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, or creed and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts. Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.
I really don't know what you're on about—especially because you don't use quotes or any method to distinguish where your words end the the document in question begins.
Nonetheless, this seem like more of the real issue that should be addressed wrt the Texas platform and this hub . . .
" . . . The Republican Party of Texas’ recently adopted 2012 platform contains a plank that opposes the teaching of “critical thinking skills” in schools. The party says it was a mistake, but is now stuck with the plank until the next state convention in 2014.
The plank in question, on “Knowledge-Based Education,” reads as follows:
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Elsewhere in the document, the platform stipulates that “[e]very Republican is responsible for implementing this platform.”
So my question remains: Why are you on about "Voter's Rights?"
RE: Voter's Rights...every legal, non-felon CITIZEN should have equal rights to vote in local, State and Federal elections for the person of their choice...That is all the wording that is needed. The law should not contain "redistricting" language or anything else. Each law should be passed as that LAW, without "add ons for gaining votes" language...
What does that have to do with critical thinking being squelched in the Texas school system?
Define "critical thinking"...the platform equates it with Outcome based education and underminding parental teachings...IF we use that definition, then what is the problem with opposing it? IF that is the meaning attached to the term in THIS context, do you oppose it and why?
Critical Thinking isn't "outcome based education". I'm wondering what idiot ever made that determination.
Critical Thinking last time I checked was about using Logic and Reasoning, so as to reach a solidly based conclusion.
If that undermines parental teachings, then so be it. It should.
You would be lucky if 1 out of 1,000,000 parents hold the ability to maintain Critical Thinking when it comes to dealing with children/kids. The two don't mix, at least not very well.
To eliminate Critical Thinking in education would be completely absurd because then everything they are taught will only be taken in the most basic sense and the children will not look any further for any further answers. They will not want to question what they are taught, and that's just stupidity in motion.
Btw- I dug up a definition for you. And if you oppose Critical Thinking, then apparently YOU choose to not question assumptions made. And, to be honest, that's dishonest.
Critical thinking is thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false. Critical thinking can be traced in Western thought to the Socratic method of Ancient Greece and in the East, to the Buddhist kalama sutta and Abhidharma. Critical thinking is an important component of most professions. It is a part of the formal education process and is increasingly significant as students progress through university to graduate education, although there is debate among educators about its precise meaning and scope.
Oh, good...we're on the same page...
Teach both evolution and intelligent design with all the pros and cons and allow the students to decide which model withstands the debate. Or any other theories or models...economics, politics etc.
I agree to your definition of critical thinking. I was just phrasing it according to what I've read here...
Actually, I can see we're not on the same page.
Intelligent Design isn't a science. It's a religious based theory which negates Critical Thinking. Why? Because it's solely based on the assumption a God/Designer/Creator exists. Without any foundation in fact.
Nope. Economics needs to be taught regardless. Teaching politics in a general sense and leave the more advance junk about politics in College where it belongs.
Actually, the teaching of intelligent design, if done properly, focuses in on the science. Talking about spontaneous generation, proper dating systems, irreducible complexity and pulls from all branches of science including biology, astronomy, geology etc...Your misconceptions are common. If the models are laid side by side, using infomation and facts, the evidence is quite interesting.
Yes it does, but itself isn't a science. Why? Because like I said before, which you apparently chose to dismiss- it's purely based on the assumption of a creator/designer/god. You cannot start with an assumption.
Actually, I have no misconceptions about Intelligent Design, but nice try.
If you like assumption based conclusion which are meaningless to facts.
And, yes economics should be taught...teach both main schools of thought, with the pros and cons, and allow critical thinking to determine which is best. Same scenerio as above.
How about the schools teach the kids evolution and the parents teach the kids intelligent design... rather than forcing religion on children? Or conversely teachers can come into the churches each Sunday and teach evolution during Sunday school.
If the second solution sounds ridiculous to you then why does teaching creationism in school sound right?
While we're at it, let's teach them both sides of the germ theory of disease: one side says disease is caused by bacteria and viruses, the other side says it is caused by demons.
and don't forget to add that they could be taught how it is that the world was made 6000 years ago and then how they fill the car with millions of years old fossil fuel on the way home
Because, in that case the theory has been proven...in the evolution/design debate we are not debating theories, but models...A theory can be tested and falsified...neither can be, but the facts can be held up against each model and checked to see which fits...that again, is where many get confused.
If it was proven, it would be called a law, like Boyle's law, or the law of gravity. Oddly, germ theory doesn't work unless evolution is true. Evolution is indeed more than a model, it is a theory. In order to become a theory, it has to be subjected to peer review, and it has, perhaps millions of times in many different disciplines. How many times has ID been subject to peer review and passed? Zero.
Even if evolutionary theory had holes (which it doesn't), simply having holes doesn't mean the opposite (creationism) is true. There's a Latin term for that logical fallacy, but I forget what it is right now.
Perhaps the most interesting page entry in Wikipedia
So interesting that it is worth ignoring nearly everything else just to contemplate
twosheds, Here's some Latin that does fit the bill...ex nilo, nilo...
Critical thinking starts with skepticism, follows through with question asking (a very important tool that many don't know how to use and many others undervalue) and involves research.
I was raised in an extremely conservative and controlling Christian home and church. The world was 7.000 years old, and everyone else was wrong. We had "the only light for this dark planet" and everyone else was a fraud, charlatan, secret agent of Satan. To shape our character against the "Devil-possessed" evolutionists teaching science in school, we were taught to resist and attack our teachers (attack with words). No one was going to budge us from our faith...
What drivel and delusion we were peddled by our own family and church members...
I was lucky that my father was atypical in this environment. When I started talking about evolution with him he resisted, he would argue against me, and he would sometimes get mad, but he would also listen and enable me the space to make my case.
I am fortunate that, unlike Texas, critical thinking was allowed in my home, and over time, we were able to go on our own search for answers.
Evolution is not some idea, it is something that can be seen on a daily basis, beginning with the smallest microorganisms and moving forward. Intelligent design, however, has no proof and no evidence and tries to hold a person back from asking questions and from seeking out knowledge for the self. "Trust and obey".........that is not the kind of mentality that I want to see in Americans....or anyone for that matter.....that is truly dangerous thinking.
I came from an agnostic background that did encourage critical thinking...and when I finally started to compair the evolutionary models and the intelligent design models side by side I was astonished at how much "proof" in the evolutionary models were full of scientific holes...at least enough to know it is incomplete at best and quite inaccurate to the point of imploding agt worst. There are two many non-answers and too many competing, and stronger models, to say that any of the MANY evolutionary models are proven.
Okay, this is too funny. Thank you for the laughs.
Tell that to the actual and real scientific community and you would be laughed out the door.
To Cagsil, thank you. Evolution has been substantiated by the vast majority of scientists. It is an undeniable fact that species have and will continue to evolve in response to their environment. The concept of intelligent design was concocted by religionists to explain their askewed view of the universe.
Why are religionists so afraid of the word evolution? Evolution has been proven ad infinitum. Even the Roman Catholic Church finally accepted evolution as valid. This is the real world and evolution is an integral component of it. Intelligent design is really a byword for evolution. It is a bogus premise for those who refuse to acknowledge the word and premise of evolution. Yes, people say it! Evolution is nature pure and simple. Now, this aptly illustrates the need for analytical thinking, inductive, and deductive logic. People have to learn to think deeply and sometimes outside of the box.
Too many people are just zombies, following the philosophy they were inculcated with as children. Even though school purport to teaching critical thinking skills, in the majority of cases, they emphasize blind conformity for control purposes. Children who are highly questioning and critical thinkers are viewed as somewhat problematic by teachers. The students who are classified as smart by the teachers are those who monotonously memorize and regurgitate facts on rote.
Forget about the home environment, parents, for the most point, want children to be "obedient" and "easy". A child who exhibits more independent nature whether it is in thinking, personality, and/or other related aspects are often deemed to be "defiant" "disobedient" and/or other pejorative names. The majority parents want children who they can manage, not independent, creative, and thinking children. Critical thinking is of paramount importance, especially in this postmodern society. There should be MORE schools teaching this subject as many parents are loathe to do so because of so-called authority issues.
"Too many people are just zombies, following the philosophy they were inculcated with as children. Even though school purport to teaching critical thinking skills, in the majority of cases, they emphasize blind conformity for control purposes. Children who are highly questioning and critical thinkers are viewed as somewhat problematic by teachers. The students who are classified as smart by the teachers are those who monotonously memorize and regurgitate facts on rote."
Funny, I just saw a video by Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about "stupid design." It's only about 5 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p … El9kVl6KPc
He assumes intelligent design from a human viewpoint.
They were getting lots of laughs because basically it was stand up comedy.
I think it is interesting that one school of thought is that things become something else by means of random events is much more acceptable than contemplating a teological course for natural development.
Oh there's a lot that doesn't ever really get touched on.
Like I say.....it is always viewed from how would a human do it and if it was intelligently designed it wasn't by a human. I f you believe the Bible you know it doesn't say he created the universe for us to go walk all over in. So all of that about where and how you would instantly die is superfluous anyway and has nothing to do with creation relating to man.
Obviously natural selection or evolution occurs but I don't believe that is why we are here. If it were there would have been a much easier time finding the so called missing link.
Actually, natural selection is not random. That's a common misconception. Allow me to use the cliche of a million monkeys typing. With random chance, there is no way that one of them would type out A Tale of Two Cities. It just ain't gonna happen. But, if we go letter by letter, keeping each letter that is correct, suddenly the chances plummet to one in 26 for the first letter. A million monkeys - heck a hundred monkeys - would get that many times over the first time they hit the keys. So we have the first letter "I," then the second lett also has a one in 26 chance, so we get the "t" soon after, then the space, etc. Even with just a few monkeys typing randomly, we'd have AToTC in short order.
That's how natural selection works: beneficial changes ar kept, non-beneficial changes are thrown out.
Who else would intelligently design? A hedgehog?
I may be a majority of one, but I think this is an approriate and salient contribution (by Chris Hedges) to this hub. I hope everyone—on both sides of the political aisle—recognize it as such . . . and not to mention just damn good writing!
". . . The inability to think, Arendt wrote, “is not a failing of the many who lack brain power but an ever-present possibility for everybody—scientists, scholars, and other specialists in mental enterprises not excluded.”
How to Think
by Chris Hedges
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/ … M.facebook
How about people stop trying to humour idiots by giving any credence to their manufactured twaddle that only attempts to justify their out of date book and thinking. If people are that dim then just stop teaching them to read and stuff and let them slide peacefully away into their own evolutionary backwater where they might be useful for simple farm labour or building pyramids or something.
– Continued opposition to ACORN (even though it has not existed since 2010)
ACORN International has opened offices in South Korea, Egypt, and Prague, to name a few. So much for your misleading comment. People really should do their homework.
I am addressing the person who posted this forum to begin with. You will note she provided many items with bullets (-) and I chose one.
But I see why you ask now. I don't use the forums much, for good reason. But clearly I should have posted this as a reply to her, correct?
No. Doing as you did was correct. I just wanted to verify with you that you were talking to the OP. That's all.
pcoach. It is very helpful when people actually check the links. The OP (me) quoted the contents from the article, because the article was so over the top. If you had read the article, you would have seen it was a direct quote... By all means, have a go at the Texas GOP who were the authors of that particular content...
Here is something most overlook to begin with, much less worry about the GOP.
We'd have a lot of empty seats if we did that...and I'm all for it!
So am I and I don't give a damn how many seats would be empty. We can replace them and send a message at the same time.
I would like to point out also they are Republican AND Democrat seats. You will get Dems all excited at the thought of mass impeachments of Republicans.
CAGS~ Why don't you do something with your knowledge Mr. OZ! Or is it easier to just pick no side and judge all? Yes, truth/reality has no side, but thats not the issue.
It’s real easy to sit back as though you are sippin 100 year old scotch with god, and throw rocks at measly humans, isn’t it. Why don’t you try and inject some of your smarts into the sorry excuse for government we have going. Reality check…what are you doing about it?
Hey Genius, why don't you take a second and read my profile. And, then tell me yet again to do something with my knowledge.
You picking a side is the problem. And you not judging the politicians for the lack of action of doing what's in the best interest of society.
Actually that's the point.
You're funny! Thank you for the laughs.
To do so, without the support of at least 50 Million plus would be a suicide mission.
Plenty enough at this point. But, have many plans to rip the government to shreds when ready. But, thank you for concern.
And yet, isn't the complaint by some that liberal schooling is teaching "what" not "how?" Are all subjects appropriate for all ages when it comes to "How?" Isn't fact, a "what," an important part of "how?"
Sorry, is that too "critical?" Shouldn't we be elevating complaint over compliant? Survey students who have disagreed with their liberal teachers and see how compliant liberals want their students to be. merely questioning whether homosexuals should be permitted to openly serve in the military gets shouted down by some. Is that "what" or "how"," when one must be made to fit a mold cast by liberals?
The ability to think and queation is exactrly the opposite of a mold.
That most people who can think and question realise that "of course it should be ok for gay people to serve openly in the military" is your problem I suspect
Critical thinking, you should try it
Your tone and your point is based on your preconceptions, namely that teachers are liberal and that they indoctrinte kids into accepting a liberal point of view. Your "critical" assessment is in no way critical because it is overtly biased and false. You can neither prove your preconception to be accurate or that critical thinking is a liberal propaganda machine. Ideology is not a factor.
Personal biases always seep into instruction. Perfect objectivity does not exist. There are ample examples of teachers mocking, criticising and chastizing students who do not agree with the teachers view of many controversial subjects, i.e. global warming. i do not expect teachers to be angels. I have taught teachers, critical thinking courses and instructional methods. If a teacher ties himself tothe factual material and boils as much of himself out of the instruction he can teach critical thinking because discussion is encouraged. However, when text books and other instructional materials are filled with politcally sanctioned materials where is the critical thinking to lead?
And of course ideology is a factor, it is always a factor. It can, however be off set by quality instruction. How much quality instruction is available in schools when a teacher can shout down a student for expressing doubts about Obama's veracity or where the staff openly campaigns for one candidate over another during class time?
you believe that ideology has nothing to do with it but quote Brecht.
If you've taught critical thinking courses then I'm sure you're aware of the logical fallacy of anecdotal evidence you just committed.
Teachers should not mock students, period. Taking global warming as an example, there is scientific consensus that it is caused by human action (whether you accept it or not), so a teacher should teach it in the context of scientific consensus, not as gospel truth. "Facts" are simply pieces of information for which we have sufficient evidence to believe they are true. For example, is it a "fact" that the Holocaust took place? We accept it as fact, because a preponderance of the evidence (eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence, documents, etc.) says that it did. Yet there are some who deny it. Should we teach that some people believe that the Holocaust never happened? At what point do we accept the evidence for something and treat it as fact?
You are talking about the difference between a good teacher/facilitator and a bad teacher/facilitator.
One will have self-awareness, know that they should avoid their own bias and any ideology. The will use a methodology that promotes analysis and understanding of the subject and encourage the student to come to their own conclusions.
The other will have no self-awaerness and try to program the student with propaganda and reward them if they comply.
It's kind of like PBS vs. Fox News.
And speaking of bias and self-awarenes, you still seem out of touch with your own skewed over-generalizations and assumptions.
[FYI: I have to take a friend to an oncologist, so I won't have time to rebut until later.]
"Personal biases always seep into instruction. Perfect objectivity does not exist."
Then, how come during my entire school career, I never once heard a teacher speak about sex, politics, and/or religion. They were completely and utterly forbidden. And, absolutely, yes, we were taught critical thinking in the 3rd or 4th year of schooling,
Nobody ever taught us a biased opinion of anything - not in the first 12 years of schooling anyway.
We focused on math, mastering language (two were mandatory from day one, and by the time one left school, there had to be three), and, quite weirdly, in my day, teachers were not allowed to be married. They had to be single - so that they could spend their time focused on teaching the scholars (not students) in their classes.
I think objectivity is more than possible. One plus one is always two. That's objective. A painter painting a house is always painting a house - s/he is not performing a pirouette in ballet.
Whoever said it was impossible to be objective (and it's just another cliche) just said it to weaken the argument of his opponent.
So where is the opbjectivity in Global Warming, Abstinence, Homosexual Marriage?
Everywhere. Global warming has scientific evidence and support of the scientific community which knows what it is talking about, personally I am still not entirely convinced but leaning towards it being true. Abstinence is not a reasonably expect-able human behavior tens of thousands of years of human history make this clear. Homosexual marriage is the extension of equal rights to all citizens which is one of the most fundamental aspects of state morality.
Let me guess, you know nothing about climate science or the scientific consensus right?
That guy in the article you posted make it very clear that be believes carbon emissions are leading to global warming but that the estimates have been over gloomy. I agree, in the 24 hours news cycle things tend to get exaggerated and the people who make the biggest claims get attention.
It's a simple mathematical equation, emissions are heat reflective and we create a lot of them so we have to be contributing to some extent to global warming without question. The issue is the extent.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
Lovelock is a legitimate scientist and inventor, but he's not a climatologist. And he changes his mind almost as often as the Mittster.
"So where is the opbjectivity in Global Warming, Abstinence, Homosexual Marriage?"
What makes you think it doesn't exist? Because it doesn't agree with what you think?
That said, an objective answer can be found on global warning, while the second two are ideology and should have absolutely nothing to do with politics (governance). They are personal decisions.
In order to reach a conclusion on global warming, it is suggested you read approximately 100 books on the topic from geologists and scientists - and not listen to politicians who want to win a political seat. .
It was always emphasized in the schooling system that I grew up in that schooling wasn't there to teach you information, but to teach you how to find information.
There is a growing body of scientists who think that human activity has nothing to do with climate change, warming or cooling.
As to the other two, we are in agreement
Climate science has, sadly, been polluted with far too much politics. It is hardly a settled scientifically valid theory. It is however a great scientific debate - if one could strip the politics from it. There are resources and scientists of all kinds lined up on either side of the debate.
All I can say is that there is an over reliance on computer models based on data too much of which has been tainted. I yearn for an honest debate. I wonder if that can even be possible since much of the debate is actually purely political.
There is no growing body of scientists lined up on the other side of the debate. Quit spreading this rubbish. If there is then I challenge you to bring forth a single name. Just one. Name a single scientist who is ACTUALLY a climate scientist, works in the field and publishes peer-reviewed work.
You complain about politics and yet you evidently only listen to political or corporate fueled nonsense about global warming. Strip your own politics from it first and read some actual science.
Undermyhat is obviously on somebody's payroll to distribute rubbish. Perhaps he's a victim of the Tea Party Syndrome??
He is a skeptic. Nothing wrong with skepticism. His scientific work is fine. His political opinions, however, are opinions. He is also well funded by the oil industry.
I knew he would be unacceptable because he could not be acceptable.
Six months ago he would have been hailed.
You have to toe the party line or you are out.....
Who isn't accepting him? If you choose to pay attention to his political statements than be my guest, but understand that they are political statements. Scientists will accept his scientific work as long as it is credible.
Do you accept that the prevailing (not the unanimous) scientific view is that we should be doing something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming? If you don't accept that further discussion is a waste of everyone's time.
Hey Ralph, any continuing discussion on the topic you're talking about shouldn't be held in this thread. It's not what this thread is about.
It's not your thread. And the original thread author has herself taken part in the discussion about Global Warming. And, the GOP position on Global Warming seems like a perfect example of the lack of critical thinking (which is the topic of the thread).
It doesn't have to be my thread.
Maybe you should take a minute to actually READ the forum rules. And I'll gladly provide you the link- http://hubpages.com/help/forum_rules
So what, two wrongs don't make it right.
Actually, it's not just the GOP's position on Global Warming that is being discussed.
Maybe you should READ past the first point. The second point is to be civil. If a significant number of people, including the thread originator, are debating an issue than obviously they all believe it is a valid line of discussion. Don't follow that particular chain if you don't want, OR politely suggest that the discussion has moved off track rather than filling the thread with your never-ending streams of rolleyes and telling people to basically shut-up.
Then maybe you should try it sometime.
Irrelevant when it comes to no connection to the original topic.
I didn't tell anyone to shut up. Get real.
And, on a side note- these are for you-
Now, complain all you want.
Every year experiments are conducted that test Einstein. Einstein is reaffirmed year in and year out. Isn't that a waste of time, money and effort? There are very few things in science that are settled beyond any doubt. There is currently no Law of Anthropogenic Global Warming and so, it is not a waste to question. My real question is what experimental evidence. There is a large body of computer modeled support but those are simulations, aren't there predictable events that would bolster the position? After all Einstein is regularly experimentally tested - this is an integral part of scientific method.
The position should be challenged scientifically by those with the expertise to do so. That is unfortunately not what certain political movements are doing they are simply pointing to people who disagree or attempting to discredit the evidence on non scientific grounds for their own economic aims. Fundamentally the problem with the global warming debate is it's not being handled scientifically, there is too much political pressure from both sides and the debate has become political rather than scientific. Scientifically the data is there and it suggests that global warming is happening and to a certain extent that humanity is contributing to it. No one can agree on how substantial that effect is though.
The IPCC is made up of non-climate scientists and is the big UN agency that started the whole contemporary, big ball rolling. Funding, research grants, political and media attention are all very seductive. Science is not immune to the incursion of out side influences. Everyone, including science hacks like Michael Mann, relishes some kind of attention. Flawed people crave it and authority. Scientists are not angels and science is not holy writ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct … evolutions
Who out of any of the IPCC chairs or co-chairs is NOT a climate scientist?
Science isn't meant to be the activity of angels. It is, however, a process meant to have a very high level of independent external review. Scientists spend a very long time in schools, comparable to doctors and judges, which demand and expect objectivity, many belong to professional organizations which have codes of ethical conduct, and scientific research is open and must pass the independent peer-review process in order to be accepted by the scientific community. Science isn't valid because scientists are in anyway perfect, it is valid because of the process, which is extremely robust. 99.9% of the scientists I have known are neither rich or famous and do not want to be. They ALL however wanted to be good scientists.
This guy -
The head of the IPCC is a railway engineer and economist
How about a list of those who worked on the IPCC and are skeptical of its results, global warming or both.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ntributors
contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.
(Commentary on) :
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor … g2-app.pdf
Science, like everything else, tends to produce the best results when there is a sense of competition.
Well, I didn't even look at the top dog. At his level, it seems his role is much more as an executive than as a scientist, so not being a climate scientist wouldn't seem to have relevance. Is there any evidence that this is a problem? The chairs and co-chairs of the actual working groups who write the reports seem to have very good climate science credentials.
I don't see what the problem is of having skeptics who have worked with IPCC. Isn't that a good thing? I'm also not sure what the problem would be with having contributors from all sorts of fields. Again, that seems like a good thing to me.
So what are you suggesting? That the vast majority of climate scientists who are now in consensus over anthropogenic global warming are fudging results to get funding? They've somehow managed to dupe governments, the UN, the European union - almost everyone, except those super-sharp sceptics? How clever. I guess that means you can't take on board any expert research that comes out the scientific community in any area where funding is involved- cancer research, astronomy etc, since according to you it's likely the majority of scientists in any one field may lie just to get funding and or notoriety. Or is it only climate scientists who are likely to lie?
I wonder why more climate scientists don't switch to a denialist think tank - I've heard the money's much better there.
I am saying that we are not angels and we contaminate data all the time. There is no perfectly objective observer. When everyone one knows is saying one thing, in concert, it is hard to say something else. It is human nature to not rock the boat, even for scientists - especially well funded scientists dependent on a source that has already reached the conclusion for which they are paying.
Humanity is killing Gaia so humanity must be contained, disciplined, herded, controlled. The natural tendency of all government is to seek and increase order and predictability. Liberty, freedom, is very messy and chaotic. Nothing helps guarantee freedom like prosperity and nothing has produced more prosperity than the vast and, so far, inexhaustible energy from carbon fuels.
So you see, government stands at odds with pure science in every meaningful way. Science must be corrupted and power, prestige, money, authority, recognition, praise all work or they would not be part of the arsenal of the tyrant.
I am also suggesting it is worth reading Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
The climate scientists must be the worst of the lot, because it seems it is that field which is singled out for particular vilification. Where are your rallying cries against the scientists at the Heart Institute or the Centre for Cancer Research? You remind me of a preacher on the pulpit, extolling the virtues of the energy industry with fancy rhetoric, not sound argument.:
"Trust not in the evils of science, which is rife with corruption and a slave of the Tyrant we call government. We cannot trust science because it's open to corruption..believe only in the freedom and liberty of the of the market...and carbon fuels, oh yes we can put our faith in that and those who control that wondrous, endless bounty, which, because I and not an untrustworthy scientist say so, has no bad effect on the planet! . "
I'm afraid as flawed as science may be, it's still the best tool we have with which to understand the machinations of the natural world and we all depend on on it's reliability quite heavily. Of course Libertarians find it hard to acknowledge man-made global warming exists, because it is a salient instance where government action is required to deal with it.
Then look at the data. We have at least four 'big' datasets, all of which--including the BEST project, run by a prominent climate skeptic--are consistent and show a robust warming trend. So do the satellite-based UAH and RSS.
We have solid data on the ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We have solid data on human contributions to it, including isotopic data 'fingerprinting' it.
We have numerous predictions by climate models which have been borne out by events--Barton Paul Levenson has a nice list documenting (IIRC) 19 specific successes in this regard.
And we have masses of data on the real-world consequences: melting sea ice, shifting hardiness zones, shifting habitats for crops and wildlife alike: there are now tropical butterflies establishing themselves in Montreal, rice growers in Vermont, and Niagara winemakers are concerned that winters may soon be too warm for them to make their signature 'ice-wine.' Increases in extreme weather are another example: drought, flooding, and heatwaves are obvious contemporary examples, and all are discussed in previous IPCC assessment reports.
On the 'other side of the aisle', the 'denialist' camp doesn't even have a self-consistent position: some still try to deny any warming is occurring; some say, oh, we're not doing it; others say, oh, it won't be bad. None of these are well-supported in the evidentiary sense--though they appear to be quite well supported in the financial sense, what with the Koch brothers, the Scaife Foundation, and even nasty old Massey Energy chipping in to support their version of 'sound science.' But it's very telling that in denialworld, any view or idea is good, provided that it somehow opposes or appears to oppose 'the Team.'
All the datasets don't agree with each other. According to UAH, we haven't even come close to 1998 levels. According to NASA, we keep setting records each year. The datasets are getting further and further apart.
In addition, researchers at NASA and the IPCC apply adjustments to raw data all the time. They do it in real time, and they do it retroactively. They always come up with some excuse to do so, but I dare you to try to recalibrate a faulty sensor in any other field by applying adjustments to the data, compared to fixing the sensor. Try that in a college research project. It's completely bass-ackwards. If they really have so many faulty sensors, they should actually look at them, rather than saying 'Hmm, this data should be 0.2 higher than it is, so we'll make it 0.2 higher than it is'.
You can see this in Hansen's work. In 1999, Hansen(NASA) released a report showing that the 1930s were the warmest years on record, and we had been in a 60-year cooling trend since then. In 2001, Hansen released a report with adjusted data. The 1930's temperatures were all adjusted downward, and recent temperatures were all adjusted upward. Suddenly, 1998 was the warmest year on record, and we had been in a 60-year warming trend. Quite a dramatic change.
Consider this. If NASA was incapable of telling us what the temperature was in 1998 in a 1999 report, doesn't that make you wonder how accurate their data for the last 150 years is, how accurate their data for the last 15 million years is, and how accurate their data is today?
What's worse, the climategate emails, around the same time period, discussed the 'problem' of the 1930's data. They called the high temperatures a 'blip', and were discussing how to make that data appear cooler.
Does that sound like science to you? "Hmmm, we have this data from 60 years ago, but it's too high... it would look really good if we could lower it by, say, 0.2 degrees. That would sure make things look better for us". That's not science.
Global warming science is too heavily involved in politics for us to be able to trust the data. Our simulators and models are constantly being adjusted, because their models don't fit what really happens. The IPCC has constantly been lowering their projections in every report, because we aren't seeing what they keep saying we should see. CO2 keeps rising, but warming isn't following it. There are so many problems, that we unfortunately can't know for certain the extent of global warming, and/or our part in it.
Boy, you are just an expert on every single subject aren't you?
Nope. Care to address any of the points I have made?
Would you be interested in seeing the changes NASA has made to historic temperatures?
Do you think a group of scientists who, in 1999, were unable to correctly tell us what the temperature was in 1998, has got correct data for the past hundred, thousand, and million years?
Do you think we should trust 'researchers' who constantly say 'well, it's actually not going to be as bad as we said two years ago, even though CO2 is going up faster now than it was then, but it's still going to be bad'?
Do you think we should believe that there is consensus when data sets don't agree with each other?
Have you ever tried apply objective critical thinking to the actual data, instead of just believing what you hear on the news?
So many misconceptions, so little time. No, the datasets aren't exactly the same; they shouldn't be, since they use (in some cases) different data and in all cases different algorithms. For example, GISTEMP achieves global coverage by interpolating Arctic and Antarctic values based upon the nearest stations; HadCRUt4 does not.
You are mistaken to think that the satellite datasets do not also make adjustments. They have to; adjustments for orbital decay, adjustments to stitch together different satellite records (since satellites don't last forever, and covering the period since '79 involves a whole succession of satellites); adjustments to the algorithm to separate the different layers of atmosphere which they attempt to sense. Moreover, the satellites do not measure surface temperature as thermometers do, 2 meters from the ground; their "surface measurement" involves basically the bottom 5 kilometers of atmosphere or so. Their record is accordingly much more variable than the land-based record; it responds more strongly to things like El Ninos. That is why '98 is still, in those data sets, the warmest year: it was the mother of all (recent) El Ninos.
You also misunderstand the purpose of adjustments. They aren't to substitute for 'fixing the instrument,' they are to compensate for known error that can't be 'fixed' because it is in the past! For example, in the really old days, thermometers were sited on the north side of buildings to protect against bias from direct sun. Then came the Stevenson shelter. The characteristics are a little different, and can bias the record if uncompensated. Same thing for changes in observational protocol. Same thing for the famous "Urban Heat Island" effect. Would you prefer that GISTEMP ignore known sources of error? I sure wouldn't.
But the best proof that they've done a pretty good job with their corrections is the good overall agreement mentioned. To demonstrate that to you, here is a graph comparing several datasets. You'll see differences, but you'll also see that they give the same overall picture:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/me … ah/mean:12
(Sorry for the long URL.)
Perhaps you meant it as hyperbole, and not literally, but let me quickly add before I run that it's not true that GISTEMP has "a record every year." If I remember correctly, GISTEMP had 1998 as the warmest year for quite a while, but it was supplanted first by 2005, and then by 2010. But that's off the top of my head, so it may not be exactly right. Still, it's not far off; there's only been 1 or 2 record warmest years since 1998, and the reigning champ in GISTEMP is definitely still 2010. (FWIW, I suspect that things are lining up for 2013 to mount a good challenge--but that's another story.)
That's all I have time for now, but if I get a chance, I'll try to come back and say a little more about the revisions to GISTEMP that you reference.
This, I'm afraid, is seriously confused.
The story on the 1930's and post-2000 corrections involves only US data, *not* the global data. Skeptic blogger Steven McIntyre noticed discrepancies in some US station records in 2007, and pointed them out. GISS corrected them, but the effects were quite small. The GISS version is here; McIntyre's version slants a little differently, but is essentially in agreement:
Moreover, if you go to the 1990 report you will find that it says that 1998 was the warmest year in the global record:
There was a NASA backgrounder from 1990 which describes the case for US temps and discusses some of the reasons for the difference between the US and global records:
This describes a *US* "cooling trend":
"The cooling trend in the United States, which began after the 1930s and is associated with ocean temperature change patterns, began to reverse after 1979."
That would be a 25-year warming trend, not a 60-year one. And if you'll compare the two Goddard versions via his 'blink' animation, you'll find that the breakpoint didn't change between the two versions of the record. (You'll also see that the adjustments are not by any means uniform; some of the 30's data were *higher* in the later version.)
Your source appears to be Steve Goddard's "Real Science" blog. Unfortunately, he has a pattern of making numerous errors of fact, some very basic indeed, and none of which he ever, ever acknowledges.
His post about the changes in the US record is confusing. You'll note that the first comparison is of GISS temperatures--GISTEMP being the Hansen dataset. Strangely, the second comparison, the one with the red/blue US map, is not; it's the NCDC (NOAA) data. Why different datasets? Because the adjustments were common to both, apparently. They appear to have been done not by Hansen's team OR by the NCDC team, but by the folks who curate the US Climatological Network, which provides data used by both organizations. I didn't read the whole paper, but a quick scan seems to indicate that the change is the result of improved compensation for changing times of observation (TOBS). Judge for yourself:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/ … al2009.pdf
There was an irony associated with the McIntyre 'catch' I noted above: the recent US temperatures were too warm *because the UNadjusted version of the UHCN data was applied*--IOW, the adjustments *lessened* warming. Post-2000 US temps cooled when the adjusted data were used! Goddard seems to have missed that, in his eagerness to smear those 'evil' climate scientists.
Finally, I'm pretty familiar with the climategate emails, and I don't think you will find any reference to 1930s temperatures in them if you check for yourself. I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search. But if you've got a specific source, please let me know; I'd like to check it out.
OK, that's screwed up. It's not 1990, it's 1999--for both cites. Hope there isn't some other editorial mess in all that...
Another problem, though it's Goddard's originally. He conflates the Hansen and Menne USHCN changes, and assigns them to "around 2000." Trouble is, the Menne et al USHCN didn't come out til 2009! And I can't tell from what Goddard published when the second version of the GISS US graph dates from--though it appears to have data at least to 2006; it's cut off on the right margin, so it could have gone past that date.
So, Goddard's version can't be right; the dates don't line up. And since he doesn't provide a traceable source for the graph, it can't really be tracked down, or at least not readily. My guess is that he confused the error from 2000 with the adjustment made 9 years later.
I didn't really want to get this deep into the subject. I'm convinced there are widespread problems with the topic, but that's just for me, apparently.
As for the comparison chart, the one chart comes from Hansen 1999, the other comes from the current chart.
The blip i believe is referred to as the 1940 blip in the emails.
Though it's a temptation for me, as I'm passionate about it. I think the problem is that we can't bring ourselves to believe that we can create such a big effect. But looks to me that the evidence is that it's very real.
But before I go on even longer, thanks for the details. I'll check them out!
Hehe, I'm the same way.
I don't have all the data memorized, and I'm already involved enough in gun and tax debates to go into global warming
Here's the "1940s blip" sequence discussed:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/in … amp;page=3
That's how these discussions go: it seems self-evident to the 'skeptic' that the intent was bad; it seems equally clear to the 'warmist' that the discussion was an innocent one, all about trying to understand the subject at hand. I see it more the way the 'warmist' does, but there's really not enough context, IMO, to nail it down for either of the disputants.
For completeness, here are the two emails we have in this sequence:
And for grins and giggles, one can see that the 1940s blip is alive and well in HadCRUv3:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tempe … nhshgl.gif
The EXACT same "facts" were used in the 70's to warn of global cooling and the need for more governmental control...when that didn't materialize, the mantra changed to global warming...and now climate change, which can mean anything...look at Time and Newsweek in the 70's...cover stories!
And what caused the last ice age to melt and global average temperatures to rise? (not a rhetorical question) It wasn't my SUV or incandesant bulb etc...it is all political...
Don't confuse politicians, pundits, and entertainers (like Time and Newsweek) as scientists.
A mountain of peer-reviewed scientific research has been produced since the 70s. Know any of it? Of course there are natural variations. They are accounted for in the modeling.
If it is all so honest and there is nothing more important in scientific inquiry than openness than why the fight to conceal so much information about methods, models, decisions and funding? There is an agenda and it has nothing to do with people adapting to naturally occurring climatic change.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid … s-he-.html
The same people who were paid by the tobacco companies to deny the connection between smoking and cancer are being paid by the forces of evil to put out anti-warming propaganda.
One POSSIBLE instance of wrongdoing out of hundreds of thousands of scientists working every day of their lives does not impugn the entire scientific community. Most of the science is right out in the open. Feel free to dive in whenever you want.
The AAAS, which produces that magazine you quoted from is clear:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.
What agenda does the [not for profit] AAAS have? Gosh maybe they're flesh-eating socialists
"Climate science has, sadly, been polluted with far too much politics. It is hardly a settled scientifically valid theory."
The science is nearly all on one side and the political pollution from the Kochs, Exxon, coal and electric power companies not to mention ALEC, the Teatards and other ignorant mouthbreathers.
I haven't seen any scientist who's recently said that climate change has nothing to do with human activity. Even Exxon recently recanted partially and now admits that climate change is occurring. Now they are quibbling about whether and what to do about it.
It is not a question of whether the earth goes through warming AND cooling phases, it is whether man is causing it...none of the earlier ice ages were either started or ended by man...why now?
Technology...you know not all of it is good, right?
Why is is so hard for the deniers to accept that climate isn't an either/or (natural cycles or man made) issue? At any given time climate is the product both of natural phenomena (as it has been for thousands of years) and man made causes (a significant factor more recently due to population growth and the burning of fossil fuels, primarily). Nobody can be absolutely sure what the future will bring. Although the amount and effect of greenhouse gases has been scientifically measured some natural occurrence beyond our control could cancel out the greenhouse effect, accelerate greenhouse warming or put us back into another ice age. Most scientists are saying it's prudent to start doing something about what is within our control--greenhouse gases and let mother nature worry about the rest.
There are outliers who say that climate change is either not happening or that humans are not the cause, but there are also those who are geocentrists; that doesn't mean Galileo was wrong.
But even if humans aren't the cause, and we reduce CO2 and other greehouse gas emissions anyway, the worst we've done is improve the air quality of the planet. If we do nothing, or roll back environmental controls (like many in the GOP have done), while we might not warm the planet, we will have degraded our air quality.
"There is a growing body of scientists who think that human activity has nothing to do with climate change, warming or cooling."
That may, or may not, be accurate. I don't know. I am concerned about pollution and about our over usage of resources.
As for climate change, it always happens - whether it's global warming or a global ice age. The problem is not whether it is happening or not. The problem is whether we want to be prepared for whatever happens - whether it's too much heat or too much cold.
Of course, total objectivity is indeed possible; however, the majority of humankind has not evolved to that level of maturity. Most people exist at a totally subjective level. A lot of our American schools have teachers sadly which exists at a subjective level. This subjectivity is even worse in parochial schools where most teachers subject their innate bias into many subjects. Proper education should be conveyed to our children obejctively and intelligently. Sadly, that is not the case in the majority of our American schools. I also want to add that many American schools are atavistically backwards regarding teaching methodology.
Sophie, I applaud that in your educational system that critical thinking was taught in the 3rd and 4th grade. Most American schools teach critical teaching in the upper high school and college levels. I portend that is FAR too late. Critical thinking should be taught much earlier. Yes, American education is far behind that of other educational systems in developing countries. American parents need to become more proactive regarding the school system. This passivity on the part of American parents is totally egregious and inexcusable to say the least.
Critical thinking, logic and rhetoric are greatly lacking...I think on that we can all agree.
I have taught my kids those thongs from an early age.
Yeah and have been sometime now, so taking Critical Thinking out of schools is completely absurd. It's already bad enough that the public education system needs true/real reform as it is now.
The dumbing down of society in America started about 20+ years ago and has continued to happen.
You know as I look at this subject matter and the comments it strikes me that the idea here is that if one were actually utilizing the process of critical thinking, then one should come to the same conclusions as all the progressive left and atheists here who are forwarding the idea.
I believe that will lead you to believe that they are positing that they have the only true education and viewpoint.
In other words....think like us or we will call you stupid.
And this is a perfect demonstration of someone who is unable to think Critically.
Nothing changes the cycle around here!
Ignore the rational thought with the facts that prove something to be bollocks and just be concerned about keeping the boilerplate narrative alive with distractions and evasion . . .
. . . to a bunch of folks who don't want their mental comfort level to change—no matter what, including the survival of the planet that sustains everything. (Talk about entitlements and the arrogance of taking life for granted) . . .
. . . then we have to wade through all of the regurgitations from the 24/7 Fox News avalanche of misinformation and propaganda
. . . and all for what, because we " bleeding heart Liberals" just tend to ask what might be "The good" instead of wanting more "goods" to consume so we can worry about who might steal them?
This place can be so exasperating!
[End of Semonette!]
What was Obama's small business statement. I didn't see any coverage. I heard it. Can it be more obvious that he is a fool?
LOL! Point to the moon and they dwell on your finger!
Did you read the entire thing and not just the image that was made of one sentence?
June 2012 — 2,284 records were broken and another 998 were tied . . .
We are systematically destroying the lungs of our planet for products we throw away . . .
I had to take a family member (who ignored our warnings to stop smoking—for decades) to an oncologist yesterday; he was told he has stage four cancer and 2 months to 24 months to live. The look of shock on his face can not be conveyed, but it is the end result of self-delusion.
Critical thinking being banned? You mean we would have less than we already do?
The NYTimes posts an article that says GE will get a $3 billion tax refund. Later they correct their figures. Most people still seem to think that GE got a refund. Critical thinking among Americans is parroting what they hear on the news. Who would want to actually check the figures themselves, or who would actually believe the real figures over a news article anyway?
The US has low income mobility. Everybody knows this. Critical thinking among Americans is parroting that the US has low income mobility and 'knowing' that the American Dream is dead. Who cares if our extremely high income inequality means that it takes more absolute change in income to move up a quintile compared to countries with low inequality? Who cares if someone in the US going from $10k/year to $30k/year would be counted 'worse off', than someone in Sweden who goes from (USD equivalent) $10k/year to $20k/year? Income mobility says the person in Sweden is moving up the rung more than the person in the US, so $20k/year is better than $30k/year.
Under the direction of Obama, GM laid off employees, slashed wages, and closed factories. The news says this is good, and Obama saved the auto industry. Bain Capital bought a steel company that was going under, laid off employees, slashed wages, and closed a factory. The news says this is bad, and Romney is a vulture. Critical thinking is knowing that Obama did a good thing and Romney did a bad thing.
I don't know if banning critical thinking would really make that much of a difference...
"I don't know if banning critical thinking would really make that much of a difference..."
At this point, probably not. To all intents and purposes, it has been missing from school systems for at least three or four decades.
Teaching critical thinking at university level is far too late to train the human mind how to do something. The saying that it's difficult to teach an old dog new tricks holds some truth.
In any event, when people cannot see the difference between the theory of evolution and the religious dogma of intelligent design, then you know critical thinking has been successfully vanquished.
Income mobility is more about inter-generational poverty than differences in pay scales between countries. That is, if you are born poor in the US, you have less chance of moving up even one quintile, than in other wealthy countries. If income mobility among the poor in the US was really higher than elsewhere, you would expect to see more marked intergenerational change and people would be less dependent on their parent's circumstance in moving up or down the scale. Several studies have shown that In the US, a person's parental circumstances is much more predictive of income than in other countries. If there really was good upward mobility it should be less, not more.
Jane, if one country has the median wage for the bottom 20% at $10,000, and the median wage for the second 20% at $20,000, then you would have to make $10,000 more than your parents to be 'mobile'.
But, if another country has the median wage for the bottom and 2nd 20% groups at $10,000 and $30,000, then the same increase wouldn't result in being 'mobile'.
The US has extremely high income inequality, so it takes tremendous changes in income to move up. Compared to Sweden, it takes about twice as much income change to make the same upward movement.
I've posted this elsewhere, but why would you say one person who goes from $20k to $40k is extremely mobile, and another person who goes from $20k to $40k is 'stuck' in their income bracket?
Income mobility is an extremely flawed measure to use.
Wow! I amb not sure which comment is more silly. First which repulican is trying to ban critical thinking? Every republican I can think of encourages everyone to critically think. In fact that is basis for everything they do. As for shuting people up. That is the favoite activity of the liberal minded people. You hate people and degrade them because they don't have the same ideas as you or have some small amount of values, honor or integrity. Sounds like the coldron is trying to project it actions and feeling on good conservative people.
This is too ironic. The party that is filled with people who think a bunch of desert nomads who had a direct link to the creator of the universe are more knowledge about the physical workings thereof than our best scientists today?
The party that teaches bigotry towards homosexuals and minorities (voter ID laws, using the term "illegal" as a racial slur).
The party that thinks Bill Gates, even though he is literally giving his money away, needs another tax break to "create jobs."
The religious fanatics who preach hate to all people who don't affirm a silly belief about a vengeful bloodthirsty God sacrificing himself to himself. If you don't believe this, you are going to hell!
Libertarians are the only "members" of the Republican party that teach critical thinking, and they despise the religious and social bigotry that makes up the majority of the GOP.
Sorry I wish I could have gotten back to you sooner Sooner, but I am kind of new to this blogging thing and just barely saw that you had commented. Anyway.
First I would like to address your concern about religion. Yes there are people out there that are crazy you know them I know them the thing is they are crazy. The problem is that they detract from the real picture. The hard thing to do is to stop looking at all the crazy fan fair of a few and look at the real over all picture. Also if you don't know much about religion making comments like bloodthirsty God sacrificing himself to himself sounds really weird. The thing is that not everyone believes that and the ones that do are the FANATICS there is a reason they are called that and have their own work to describe them. The thing is they don't represent the majority. Kind of like Obama thinking what he says represents all the Black community, the Hispanic community, (insert your minority of choice). He doesn't, but he thinks he does. You have to take everything they say with a grain of salt and then do your own studying. That is also as I understand the conservative message. Though I don't represent all conservatives I think it is a good idea.
As for the bigotry as you call it what happened to freedom of religion. Are people not allowed to believe in the bible anymore? The bible teaches that it is wrong. The great thing is that we also live in a free country where if you do something as long as it is not affecting me or others around you or you are not forcing others to think the same way you do then hay I don’t care what you do. This includes homosexuality, beastiality, living with 50 women and drinking yourself into oblivion. As long as you do it on your own time and don’t complain when you have a problem caused by what you do that is fine. The thing is that there are FANATICS out there and they are crazy. I don’t believe that any of the above mentioned things are good or right to do. My problem comes when people are saying to me you have to believe it. You have to accept it. You must or you are a bigot and hate these people who fall into these groups. It is a free country as long as they don’t mess with me I won’t look twice at them.
I would like to make one case study example as to why I don’t support gay marriage for example. Several years ago I believe it was Massachusetts they had passed the gay marriage law and suddenly a gay couple goes to a Christian church that does not support that life style and demands that he marry them. The pastor refuses and is subsequently taken to court because he was in violation of some code for a tax exempt status for religious establishments. My problem is it is his choice to worship as he chose and if they don’t like it they should look elsewhere for this service. I know you are going to say that is the same thing as letting a small number of people and individual cases of crazies sway my opinion and that it is hypocritical. I suppose it might be, but I have a hard time when all I ever hear is we have no rights and we should be able to marry who we want when we want where we want. The thing is that almost every states, as I know of, has some provision that allows persons living together to share in the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. The only thing they don’t have is a license. I don’t understand why a piece of paper is so important to people. Unless you have a belief in a God as a religious figure it is just that and many heterosexual couples aren’t even having those any more either.
Sorry it is so long I don’t know when to stop.
Do they? What about the Heartland Institute, bastion of Libertarian ideals, home to many Libertarian thinkers? Heavily supported by industry donors and far more interested in PR than facts, it spent it's early years attempting to obscure the scientific evidence on the dangers of smoking and followed that up with an ongoing campaign to discredit climate science, disseminating false and misleading information, calling for changes to the school science curriculum (in order to introduce an AGW denial campaign) and running an atrocious billboard campaign likening those who accept the science on climate change to mass murderers, (which they were compelled to retract).
If this is an example of Libertarians 'teaching critical thinking'...well.
It's a very specific *sort* of 'critical thinking...'
It only works in one direction.
It's always interesting to talk to people who have an excellent command of language and can express themselves well.
If you clicked on the link attached to the OP, you would have found the newspaper article and the documents of the Texas GOP who want to ban critical thinking. In fact, the quote was copied and pasted from Texas Republican documents.
But, of course, you knew that. People like you, as you point out, always check everything! So I'm not quite sure why you're asking. Are you being sarcastic?
We're obviously meeting very different Republicans. People who can think critically don't believe in the Bible because critical thinking would find all the contradictions and inaccuracies.
I'm also having some trouble understanding what you are saying as the spelling and grammar in your last sentence is so poor. Could you please rewrite this sentence so that I can understand what you are attempting to say, "Sounds like the coldron is trying to project it actions and feeling on good conservative people."
What is 'the coldron?"
For JaxonRaine, JS Chams, undermyhat, et al:
Pathos of the Plutocrat
By PAUL KRUGMAN
“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” So wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald — and he didn’t just mean that they have more money. What he meant instead, at least in part, was that many of the very rich expect a level of deference that the rest of us never experience and are deeply distressed when they don’t get the special treatment they consider their birthright; their wealth “makes them soft where we are hard.”...
It’s no secret that, at this point, many of America’s richest men — including some former Obama supporters — hate, just hate, President Obama. Why? Well, according to them, it’s because he “demonizes” business — or as Mitt Romney put it earlier this week, he “attacks success.” Listening to them, you’d think that the president was the second coming of Huey Long, preaching class hatred and the need to soak the rich.
Needless to say, this is crazy. In fact, Mr. Obama always bends over backward to declare his support for free enterprise and his belief that getting rich is perfectly fine. All that he has done is to suggest that sometimes businesses behave badly, and that this is one reason we need things like financial regulation. No matter: even this hint that sometimes the rich aren’t completely praiseworthy has been enough to drive plutocrats wild. For two years or more, Wall Street in particular has been crying: “Ma! He’s looking at me funny!”
But never mind. Because the rich are different from you and me, many of them are incredibly self-centered. They don’t even see how funny it is — how ridiculous they look — when they attribute the weakness of a $15 trillion economy to their own hurt feelings. After all, who’s going to tell them? They’re safely ensconced in a bubble of deference and flattery.
O.K., let’s take a deep breath. The truth is that many, and probably most, of the very rich don’t fit Fitzgerald’s description. There are plenty of very rich Americans who have a sense of perspective, who take pride in their achievements without believing that their success entitles them to live by different rules.
But Mitt Romney, it seems, isn’t one of those people. And that discovery may be an even bigger issue than whatever is hidden in those tax returns he won’t release.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opini … ef=opinion
The irony of this thread is that you would be lucky if 1/10 of the population on the planet had a critical thought run through mind on a daily basis.
Oh well the other irony of this thread is that it is slanted. You are to get the impression that Conservatives as a whole do not engage in critical thinking. It also fosters the belief that all Liberals do and therefore, of course, are mentally superior.
Also in play here is the term "critical thinking". This thread also wants to steer yo in the direction think like a Liberal, otherwise you aren't "thinking critically"
Hmmmmm, this is getting GOOD- tempest storm arising!
That is absolutly right that is what they are saying. The problem is that they are also trying to say that their of thinking is the right one and if you disagree with them then you are stupid and aren't acutally thinking for your self. Isn't it funny the people who say they critically think are the ones that say just listen to what I say because I am right and you are wrong.
TAJKAJ, have you got "Chronological" clicked at the top of the page?
If not, do so, it makes threads much easier to follow.
Hay guys I just decided to look up the artical and read what was said and what the actual statement was from the GOP of Texas. Here it is
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
That is the devils talk right there. Who are those parents to think that they could possibly have something to teach their children?
Silly right? Well I also thought that was kind of funny that they would be against such an obviously good sounding thing. So I decided to think for myself and try to find out why they would do such a thing. In the process I found an interesting article called "The importance of both knowledge based and skill based education". Very interesting, come to find out that, on top of teaching kids math and reading, it also teaches kids the importance of social issues as well.
http://www.helium.com/items/916417-the- … -education
I know many of the liberals out there will agree with the social requirements of knowledge based education, but I don't. I can also see why it was rejected by the Texas GOP.
“It grooms the human mind morally, intellectually, physically, emotionally, personally and spiritually and prepares the youth for its future roles. It teaches an individual how to think , what to think and how to live peacefully and successfully.”
Sounds all happy and lovey-dovey right? Who decides what makes of these qualifications. It should have to be someone with no religious affiliations first. Whose morals will be taught. Whose spirituality will be taught and where are they going to find someone with any spirituality to put into it anyway.
To me this entire discussion for the past 300+ comments has been based on nothing but liberal spin and lies. Just like the original authors reply to me on my Government slavery post.
Gee... but what if I want critical thinking taught to my kids? What if I actually want them to question what I teach them? Why do your wants come before mine?
Honestly, you could teach them yourself.
With the state of our educational system, it's no surprise to me. Some people are trying to ban something that isn't being taught, and my kids would be severely under-educated in the public system anyway(which is why they aren't going to go through the public system).
I do teach them myself... actually. I home-school them in part because the religious environment in my area and how everyone thinks it is fine to bring it into the school system...
My point is that the members of the GOP could ALSO homeschool their children to keep them away from that evil free-thought and forming their own personality thing. Instead a bunch of politicians are telling educators how to do their jobs. If any of those GOP have education degrees I'd love to see them.
This is nothing to do with critical thinking in any way - I have no idea where you got it from but if you even began to understand critical thinking you would already know that this is twaddle.
The point that i was trying to make was that republicans as aren't against critical thinking as is being said. The thing they are against is this liberal knowledge based education. I am lierd of listening to people take republican comments and twist them because it sounds bad. Republicans are not against education just that spacific plan.
"To me this entire discussion for the past 300+ comments has been based on nothing but liberal spin and lies. Just like the original authors reply to me on my Government slavery post."
Let's be quite clear about something here. I am NOT a liberal. If fact, I am NOT even an American. I a dual German/South African citizen. In most countries, I would be deemed moderate.
Your bias against certain schools of thought is so intense that you have to label anyone who has that school of thought.
For your information, the world is a bit bigger than the Democratic and the Republican parties of the USA.
In addition, it would be helpful if your sentences made sense and your words spelt correctly.
I am glad that you enjoyed my post. Just because you aren't a citizen doesn't mean that you can't take part in the titles we have here. You are right there is more to this world that Democrat and Republican, but this discussion was based on the decision of the Republican party to not support a plan of education that to me appears to have strong liberal/socialist roots. In other words I would question the Republican party of Texas if they did accept it. My problem with it is as I stated; the plan sounds good and all but it is based on one thing, small group of people making the rules for the larger group of people learning. In the past this has shown to be detrimental because a lot of information gets lost or just completely removed. I am not saying that it is not a problem on the Republican side as well, but the people would not be elected and therefore would not be responsible to no one. I know that you come from some countries where a handful of people make the rules, but America is a Republic. Here we elect a group of people to make decisions on out behalf, we talk to them about what we want done and then they make their best judgment on what should be done based on the use of a piece of paper called a Constitution. The problem is that we have been getting away from that over the past several decades, but that is the process none the less. The other part of the problem is that the process of deciding what will be taught across the country has been based on the opinions of a small group for decade and look where we are now. “Rules for Radicals”, is recommended reading in high school, and teaching elementary children about masturbation and homosexuality. I am the kind of person who would prefer to teach these kind of things to my kids when I feel they are ready for it. You probably don't agree with it, but then by the laws and rules we have you could teach you kids if you decided to have any about hardcore porn when they were 2. The problem is just because what I think is different does not mean that it is wrong or that you are wrong, but your views should not be forced on me and that is was will and has happened with the knowledge based education plan. The rejection of it is completely based in sound critical thinking whether you like the decision or not.
I hope there are not gramatical errors in this one.
QUOTE FROM YOU
'I know that you come from some countries where a handful of people make the rules, but America is a Republic.'
Just exactly how ignorant are you? Have you ever set foot outside the USA? Do you have any conception of just how ignorant you are?|
It appears not.
Sorry to get personal, but honestly, every comment you have made reeks of ignorance.
I do realize that Germany and South Africa both have Democratic government, and I don't have a lot of experience in politics and governments of other countries. You are also correct that I don't know how involved the people of these countries are in the workings of the government.
Having said that I am not keen on having people telling me what to do especially those that I have nothing to do with. I am happy for you if you are into that.
My other concern is that I don't want to get away from a system where there are a group of people making rules for me that I can't voice my disagreement with. Do you feel the same way?
You also inspired me to do some looking at the government structures of Germany and South Africa. They do sound very similar to the American style. My question is what is the Bundesrat? It sounds like an important part of government, but it doesn't look like they are elected.
I am happy that America is a place where if my elected officials think that the rule made in one state is not for them or the people in that area are strongly for or against it then that is their choice. The other nice thing is that if the people in that area don't like it they can vote them out. I realize this may be the same process that is used in other countries, but if that is the case why are you so opposed to it?
I almost forgot in relation to you being a moderate in some places like Germany and South Africa that tells me that they are very left wing, liberal, or whatever term is used for that. Don't feel everyone has the right answers all the time, but I believe history has shown multiple times that socialism does not work as well as people would like it to. That includes involvement in education.
Also I know this may require some extra work, but I hate to remain in ignorance, so would you be able to rather that saying that I am tell me how and give me the correct information? That way I can know that you are not just name calling.
South Africa is known to have the best constitution in the world. You might google that.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ … nd-uncool/
You can also read about the Bundesrat here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrat_of_Germany
"Also I know this may require some extra work, but I hate to remain in ignorance, so would you be able to rather that saying that I am tell me how and give me the correct information? That way I can know that you are not just name calling."
My culture and education system taught me that the time to check my facts was BEFORE I opened my mouth, and that the onus to get my facts right was on me, not on the people I was speaking to to give me the right information.
"'I know that you come from some countries where a handful of people make the rules, but America is a Republic."
and in the same breath, you say,
"I don't have a lot of experience in politics and governments of other countries."
If you don't want to be insulted, then I suggest you don't insult others, especially when your knowledge, as indicated above, is somewhat limited.
"Having said that I am not keen on having people telling me what to do especially those that I have nothing to do with. I am happy for you if you are into that."
That rather depends, doesn't it. So if you want to murder someone, you don't want a government telling you that you're not allowed to murder someone? Or if you want to go rob a bank, you don't want anyone to tell you that you're not allowed to rob a bank. Or maybe you just want to be free to rape and plunder and you aren't happy to live under the rule of law, because the rule of law impedes your freedom to do as you like?
I don't think so.
I can't believe you really used murder, to twist the issue. I know I am not as great of a writer as are, but you sit and twist every word to make it sound like I am against everything. It is people like you that prove my point about the liberal spin. You can't make a single point against a conservative that has not distorting their words. You seek to destroy people by tearing them down when it is convenient for you.
I had looked up the South African and German government prior to the last post that is how I got the word Bundesrat in the first place. It sounds like an unelected group that is a central part of the government and helps in making most or all of the decisions. I looked in several different places including Wikipedia and that is what I found. Sound familiar to me.
Lastly let’s say the table was turned and it was a god fearing conservative group making the rules for education. Then the morals and values of that group would be forced upon the children. Things like "In God we trust" and faith in Christ, and the importance of prayer. I think you would be very upset.
Next thing you know they'll be forcing women to wear veils and preventing girls from going to school.
Funny Campaign Fibs . . .
by Credence214 months ago
The Right, in its fixation on parochial thought and indoctrination has provided just another reason for outrage. Is it no wonder they are the natural enemy of independent thought and inquiry. Of course, all of our...
by Theresa Ast4 years ago
My apologies, but I think the high school and college teacher needs to avoid such broad sweeping questions (very few students nowadays - and I see them in my classes all the time - are ready for such questions). I...
by Sophia Angelique4 years ago
Critical thinkers are in the minority these days. Between 1900 and about 1960, critical thinking was taught at schools so that people would reject magical thinking. During the past thirty or forty years, with the...
by cooldad4 months ago
In another forum, someone posted that they dumped their significant other because he/she voted for George Bush. I was kind of shocked by that. It seemed incredibly shallow to me, but I don't know either of...
by mythbuster7 years ago
I've read a lot of opinions on 'current events' in the forum threads at hubpages. Sometimes I think that media who report on current events are just giving us general information that we SHOULD NOT comment on but should...
by Julie McFarland2 years ago
I'm currently in a university class on critical thinking, and it's forcing me to think about a lot of things from perspectives that I've never examined previously. I abandoned my faith in god over the process of...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.