GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012
|
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 20 2012,08:36) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,09:02) | Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 19 2012,20:15) | Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 19 2012,17:19) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,17:52) | Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34) | Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.
But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools. |
Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help. The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.
Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets. |
Can these science teachers explain what the hell you have been prattling about for so long?
If so, can you send one of them here please? |
I'm a high school teacher, and I sure as hell can't explain what Gary's on about. For example, we know Gary thinks science shouldn't be based on falsifiability. But can we get him to tell us how we tell whether a theory (which doesn't mean what we all teach it means apparently) is worthwhile? No, we cannot. And, Gary, showing us a graph that would get a high school student an F for not having any labels is not an answer to that question. |
I have been talking about the recent philosophy (as in NOT science) of Karl Popper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._Popper
Science teachers who do not know the difference between science and philosophy should not be teaching science. |
Who do you suppose should be the arbiter of that distinction?
You?
So far you haven't shown us that you understand fuckall about science in the first place, and we haven't even really touched on anything philosophical at all, except perhaps the question raised by Stevestory of why we find cognitive pathologies (like the set you are displaying here) to be so fascinating and entertaining. |
Certainly not political activists who require their own personal definitions they spread online.
What's wrong with this from the National Academy of Sciences? Quote | Theory: A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti....ns.html
|
-------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|