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.
knowledge is something you vote for everyday. how you spend your money determines what we learn in a free society.
Don't you see the inherent problem with this type of epistemology?
If knowledge were a popularity contest, like campaigns season, isn't that problematic? Doesn't that make human knowledge rather arbitrary?
What if society got together and voted in referendum style on what was true and correct...say society voted that 2+2=5? Of course, empirically this is wrong and people would not vote for something so ridiculous, but in effect, this is what people do when they vote in a political candidate who is going to run either their local, state, or federal Dept. of Edu. Knowledge then will be disseminated according to their whims, beliefs, prejudices, etc.
I think this is entirely problematic.
Further, you seemed to assert that for you, knowledge is constituted by its monetary value -- it's extrinsic value rather than its intrinsic value. I think such is a recipe for a quickly degenerating society. And this has played itself out in American politics at all levels. I'm going to use Mississippi as an example because their educational policy is what I research and it's easy to criticize Mississippi. Seriously, I think the following case example contains broader pertinence:
Mississippians prefer that the less spent on education, the better. What results is a system of education in that state that does little for its population other than providing an elaborate and bureaucratic baby-sitting service while the majority of the population is enduring their low-paid service industry type of job. As a result, the state's population elects officials who share this view that if this is what people want...a poorly funded and poorly operating educational system, then so be it. These officials then construct a knowledge system bereft of much benefit that could be utilized by its people.
It's dangerous for society to have such low or arbitrary epistemological standards.
In fact, schools and education aren't even mentioned in the constitution.
True, but the federal governments role is one of the "promotion of the general welfare" and I think it reasonable to say that "promoting" (not mandating or selling adherence to policy) is within their duty.
The big problem I think was when they started stepping over the lines of promotion of such, to the scams of conditions they place through funding of these schools. I think all federal funding should be removed from state education and that alone would remove its authority and lessen its need of having such a large infrastructure to which the DOE has become.
If they simply want to have a congressional assessment done of the nations educational accomplishments and status to which they recommend focus due to such evaluations, I see no problem with that as it would be within their powers, but not as they have it now.
multiculturalism is constitutional. bwahahahahaha. that is the most ridiculous argument i have heard in a while, but luckily for you it is a view held dear by most power brokers and the billions who have been indoctrinated by their spawn. the dept of education will continue to grow, its budgets will go cosmic and little by little they will usurp more power from parents and families. education won't improve.
It sounds to me then, based on your more recent post, that you prefer a society in which ethnics are cleansed from the population...or at the very least are marginalized. I find that viewpoint not only unconstitutional and a violation of social contract theory, but downright repugnant as well.
Who are you to say that certain people are to be locked out of opportunity and should be treated before the law in an arbitrary manner? What if the power structure were to deem you and your social group the ones destined for marginalization? In your view, that's preferred.
It sounds to me, based on your post quoted above, that you are the one advocating arbitrary government power. Based on your post, you don't accept the very principle of social contract theory because it costs too much.
We do need to get rid of the dept. of Education, so we can revert the education powers back to the local communities. There'd be less focus on standardized testing.
Private schools seem to do very well in educating their students. Especially the private Catholic school in my town.
The basis of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism is the creation of everything by God or a creator.
Why deprive our children of the debate?
I also believe that religion belongs in a religion or philosophy class but wanted to add that Buddhism does not have a specific creation story like the others you mentioned. It is more of a philosophy of how to live and is not based on a deity like the world's other major religions. Some sects of Buddhism do have creation stories but those are based on local/cultural stories, not on actual Buddhism. The Buddha did not create the world in Buddhism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
I'd like to see it cut to the bone, not eliminated. I honestly do think there needs to be some federal level standards and don't buy into the whole "states rights" thing on every issue.
Federal agencies should mostly run lean.
I agree with this. Some issues I do feel that the Dept of Education should run such as federal student aid and the federal work study program, programs in which they have a direct hand in running. I feel it should be taken back to an office of the cabinet (which is what it was before 1979) and cut to the minimum but not completely abolished.
I also am not a complete "states rights" bandwagon follower because I know some states have a majority population that believes in indoctrinating students with religion especially since it was brought up, but from my understanding the Dept of Edu does not regulate this sort of thing and it is more of a judicial issue so people will be able to sue without a dept of edu just as they are now. But like I said, that department does run some programs dealining with financial aid for college students and other smaller programs that the states should be left out of unless we want to take away all federal aid, which includes student loans and that is something that I do not agree with.
My argument is whatever consortium came together to establish the curriculum for what is taught in scientific classrooms deemed evolution a valid topic.
Valid topic is not the same as a factual result of a proven theory. Nothing wrong with teaching evolution under such a position. The consensus of such is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
For some reason, you disagree with that one particular item (evolution) without addressing any other theories/topics that are part of a high school science curriculum.
Because evolution is often believed by many to be a proven scientific theory. It is not, it has many holes and it only takes one hole to show a hypothesis to lacking validation.
The others? Well they are just the same, also in the same state. Which is often the point of contingency between them. One side argues the holes of the other side, neither are able to properly validate their position according to the scientific method. How many cheerleader either side makes no difference in that respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
Why you settled on evolution, I don't know. Most likely because you are merely echoing the opinions you've read and understand at a very rudimentary level (as I do).
Because, just like the assumptions you are making here, so are they made with evolution. The fact that you are unwilling to recognize such has already been validated by you. That is, you have accepted it as fact, because you were told it was. That may be well enough for you, but it is by no means a valid position to proclaim fact of any given issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
So my only advice to you is be careful as you climb down from your pedestal as you have yourself perched up pretty high there.
Being that your advice is based on that of assumptions to which you have no means to validate, advice is something you should not likely be giving concerning such. /shrug
Yet that is a correlative assessment and it does not imply causation. There are many "holes" in the position and the process of science is not about building enough support to establish it as conclusive, but finding any single element to which shows it is not and there are plenty of these elements within that position. If you can not explain every divergence in such a position, then you have not shown the position to be valid.
This is the danger of establishing such grounds and disregarding the requirements of the scientific method and a major point of contention between traditional science and those of unverified theoretical means.
I don't argue "against" evolution, I simply asked if it is proven according to the scientific method.
I'm curious as to what your credentials are to speak on this subject with such conviction? You use some slick terminology but I've yet to see any substance in your opinion other than putting the onus on the poster's of this forum to provide you with a detailed explanation of how evolution conforms to the scientific method.
Are we not allowed to say the universe is 13 billion years old or the closest star is 4 light years away (or whatever) without being able to speak in great detail on the matter?
Again I ask, why this particular subject? Why not black holes or big bang or geology of earth, etc?
We do need to get rid of the dept. of Education, so we can revert the education powers back to the local communities. There'd be less focus on standardized testing.
Private schools seem to do very well in educating their students. Especially the private Catholic school in my town.
Valid topic is not the same as a factual result of a proven theory. Nothing wrong with teaching evolution under such a position. The consensus of such is irrelevant.
Because evolution is often believed by many to be a proven scientific theory. It is not, it has many holes and it only takes one hole to show a hypothesis to lacking validation.
The others? Well they are just the same, also in the same state. Which is often the point of contingency between them. One side argues the holes of the other side, neither are able to properly validate their position according to the scientific method. How many cheerleader either side makes no difference in that respect.
Because, just like the assumptions you are making here, so are they made with evolution. The fact that you are unwilling to recognize such has already been validated by you. That is, you have accepted it as fact, because you were told it was. That may be well enough for you, but it is by no means a valid position to proclaim fact of any given issue.
Being that your advice is based on that of assumptions to which you have no means to validate, advice is something you should not likely be giving concerning such. /shrug
Ahh, once again plenty of fluffiness, no substance.
We do need to get rid of the dept. of Education, so we can revert the education powers back to the local communities. There'd be less focus on standardized testing.
Private schools seem to do very well in educating their students. Especially the private Catholic school in my town.
I agree, most private schools are great, especially the Catholic schools. I was taught by the Jesuits when I was in high school. It was almost a no holds barred type of education, and I was lucky that my parents taught there because otherwise I'd have been stuck in the local public school where little if anything was being taught (on an aside, the most Catholic schools pay their teachers crap...far worse than the public schools).
Yet in various communities across the nations, private schools are oftentimes more feeble than the local public schools. I can't remember the authors, but there's a book about his that was written in the late 1970s called The Schools that Fear Built that explains how southern communities erected hastily built private schools (segregation academies) that were often worse than the public school choices in a given community.
I guess the lesson here is that not all private schools are good. People should shop around for one that is not an indoctrination center or find one that's better than a grandiose baby-sitting ventures like many of the segregation academies that still exist in the South.
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.
