Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, your son was very brave! And the professor displayed an open-mindedness that's rare in today's political climate, to allow him to do that paper.
You're right on both your observations here. My son got a good grade on his paper and the professor was obviously an old-school, open-minded educator allowing the students to actually THINK and not just regurgitate all of whatever his ideologies are.
Keep in mind, this wasn't in the Political Science department, but tied to either the English department or Speech department. I really don't know which, but it was a pre-requisite class AND it was nearly 20 years ago.
Were I in charge of the conference, rather than kicking them out of a display booth (unless they were being physically disruptive, but the article said nothing about that), I would invite them, or more likely include a session to present papers representing their side. The cleanest, clearest way to resolve the disagreement is for various people to present their data and analysis and settle things the old-fashioned way -- through combat physics.
Yes, we need debate but we can't expect an issue like Climate Change to be proved or disproved in our lifetime. Not when we're being asked to believe that a general 1.5C increase by the year 2100 is coming and it will certainly destroy the planet.
Galileo used mathematics to prove the Earth goes around the Sun. We have clear evidence that the Moon landings were real and that the Earth is more or less spherical. Arguing about the rate of climate change, and to what degree technology can slow or reverse the temperature increase, is more like arguing whether the universe is finite or infinite or saddle-shaped. It will always be a theory.
You're right on both your observations here. My son got a good grade on his paper and the professor was obviously an old-school, open-minded educator allowing the students to actually THINK and not just regurgitate all of whatever his ideologies are.
Keep in mind, this wasn't in the Political Science department, but tied to either the English department or Speech department. I really don't know which, but it was a pre-requisite class AND it was nearly 20 years ago.
Funny thought, but the best professor I ever had, said straight up on one of the first days of class "Don't ever believe something just because someone tells you. Don't even believe something just because I say it. Believe it because you've thought about it and you believe it."
That's always stuck with me because it was a professor acknowledging that he could be wrong. He was also one of the toughest, most demanding professors I ever had, but you sure knew that subject by the end of the semester.
Funny thought, but the best professor I ever had, said straight up on one of the first days of class "Don't ever believe something just because someone tells you. Don't even believe something just because I say it. Believe it because you've thought about it and you believe it."
That's always stuck with me because it was a professor acknowledging that he could be wrong. He was also one of the toughest, most demanding professors I ever had, but you sure knew that subject by the end of the semester.
Excellent advice. I'm sure that professor must be retired by now. I don't think he would currently have a job in academia having that kind of archaic attitude.
I was in the business school of my university back in the early to mid 70's. I don't remember ANY political discussions, even in the economics classes. Especially in Macroeconomics, there was plenty of opportunity for the professor to launch into his ideologies. Instead, we studied the various theories (Keynesian etc) without him jumping in pushing one field of thought over another.
Excellent advice. I'm sure that professor must be retired by now. I don't think he would currently have a job in academia having that kind of archaic attitude.
I was in the business school of my university back in the early to mid 70's. I don't remember ANY political discussions, even in the economics classes. Especially in Macroeconomics, there was plenty of opportunity for the professor to launch into his ideologies. Instead, we studied the various theories (Keynesian etc) without him jumping in pushing one field of thought over another.
Oh, how times have changed.
I was a few years later than you and for the most part our professors didn't either. There were three where it did happen though. One was in English class over pronouns (yep pronouns). This was years before that issue ever became in the media so I was totally confused when he expected us to use "they" instead of "he" or "she" in our writing and would drop a letter grade for each usage. The other was a history class where the prof was a communist and there was a psych class where the prof would fall in the "defund the police" category today.
I was a few years later than you and for the most part our professors didn't either. There were three where it did happen though. One was in English class over pronouns (yep pronouns). This was years before that issue ever became in the media so I was totally confused when he expected us to use "they" instead of "he" or "she" in our writing and would drop a letter grade for each usage. The other was a history class where the prof was a communist and there was a psych class where the prof would fall in the "defund the police" category today.
Holy crap, what a dip-sh*t. I guess you could have used that as a pronoun for him.
I'm sure had I ever strolled over to the Political Science department of the university I attended, even in my day, things would have been different. I attended the same college that produced the likes of Tom Brokaw and Tom Daschle, so you KNOW where the leanings were there.
You are using hyperbole to misrepresent what the group is claiming.
Would Greta Thunberg be welcome at the conference? I think she would be. Yet she recently deleted a tweet in support of a "top scientist" who claimed Climate Change would "wipe out all of humanity" by 2023 if we didn't abandon fossil fuels starting in 2018.
Why is a nut like Greta Thunberg celebrated, along with wind and solar power conglomerates, while those with opposing viewpoints are censored?
Thank you for illustrating the problem of bad-faith arguments. Your OPINION is that a firebrand political activist would be welcome at the Science Teachers conference, therefore your fantasy conference is hypocritical.
Well, the FACTS are:
Thunberg is not attending. What she tweeted or did not tweet is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The rebranded Heartland Institute uses the same sorts of disingenuous arguments rather than doing actual research or basic science--go look them up. They do not publish research papers, aggregate research publications, or perform actual analysis. They simply push disinformation with a few out-of-context excerpts from actual scientific publications as window dressing.
This is a conference about how to deliver scientific research--whatever its conclusions--to students, and teach them the basics of doing their own research and analysis. This is not someone's nephew's college English-203 paper.
Pseudoscience and policy-driven disinformation campaigns has no place at the conference in question. The exclusion of a group that specializes in misinformation is a correct and reasonable action.
The OP's question: Is this defensible?
A critical thinker's answer: Yes.
Thank you for illustrating the problem of bad-faith arguments. Your OPINION is that a firebrand political activist would be welcome at the Science Teachers conference, therefore your fantasy conference is hypocritical.
Well, the FACTS are:
Thunberg is not attending. What she tweeted or did not tweet is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The rebranded Heartland Institute uses the same sorts of disingenuous arguments rather than doing actual research or basic science--go look them up. They do not publish research papers, aggregate research publications, or perform actual analysis. They simply push disinformation with a few out-of-context excerpts from actual scientific publications as window dressing.
This is a conference about how to deliver scientific research--whatever its conclusions--to students, and teach them the basics of doing their own research and analysis. This is not someone's nephew's college English-203 paper.
Pseudoscience and policy-driven disinformation campaigns has no place at the conference in question. The exclusion of a group that specializes in misinformation is a correct and reasonable action.
The OP's question: Is this defensible?
A critical thinker's answer: Yes.
This sounds a lot like merely an OPINION---yours.
Since I'm not a person who believes that EITHER side of the climate issue really have enough solid FACTS to point to where our planet is headed, I'm all for open debate on this. For example, I don't believe that cow farts are one of the main factors in our doom. Nor do I believe that excessive emissions from coal fired power plant may be good for the earth either, even though most of the electric to charge all these, Ohso necessary, EV vehicles will still have to come from these very plants.
I checked the Heartland Institute's website. They seem like a legitimate enough organization that they're "opinions" should be considered in this argument. Based at what happened at this NSTA conference, they had every right to be there.
Thank you for illustrating the problem of bad-faith arguments. Your OPINION is that a firebrand political activist would be welcome at the Science Teachers conference, therefore your fantasy conference is hypocritical.
Well, the FACTS are:
Thunberg is not attending. What she tweeted or did not tweet is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The rebranded Heartland Institute uses the same sorts of disingenuous arguments rather than doing actual research or basic science--go look them up. They do not publish research papers, aggregate research publications, or perform actual analysis. They simply push disinformation with a few out-of-context excerpts from actual scientific publications as window dressing.
This is a conference about how to deliver scientific research--whatever its conclusions--to students, and teach them the basics of doing their own research and analysis. This is not someone's nephew's college English-203 paper.
Pseudoscience and policy-driven disinformation campaigns has no place at the conference in question. The exclusion of a group that specializes in misinformation is a correct and reasonable action.
The OP's question: Is this defensible?
A critical thinker's answer: Yes.
Yes, Greta Thunberg was not invited to the conference, but I see you want to have it both ways. Moon Landing hoaxers and Flat Earthers did not crash the conference either. Neither did the Heartland Institute.
And I did look up CO2 Coalition. They make valid points about polar bear population, the rate of sea level rise, and other popular myths. And they are iconoclastic. The NSTA is a private organization which means they can legally invite or disinvite whomever they choose. It just seems wrong to throw an exhibitor out after the set up their booth.
I went to the conference website and checked the list of exhibitors. There were quite a few organizations that fall more into the political activist side of the house rather than the science side of the house. Such as PETA, WWF, and several other animal rights and environmental groups. I'm not going to argue those organizations didn't have a right to be there, but if the hosts are going to allow political activist groups to have display booths, then for consistencies sake, they shouldn't pick and choose based on who agrees with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
