PDA

View Full Version : Texas GOP declares war on Critical Thinking and Gays!



JustAlex
06-28-2012, 12:28 AM
Boy, Texas just made North Carolina look very "moderate".

The following links are about the 2012 Texas GOP platform:

http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/texas-republican-party-s-just-announced-2012-platform-is-nothing-but-a-war-on-gays?directory=100011

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/26/506357/the-5-craziest-policies-in-texas-republicans-2012-platform/

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf

Some "highlights" of the Texas GOP Platform:

Family and Defense of Marriage ― We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists.

Family Values ― We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values.

Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.

American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty – We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. Students should pledge allegiance to the American and Texas flags daily to instill patriotism.


AND HERE IS THE BEST PART!

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.

^In other words, any and all teaching that goes against a student's "Fixed beliefs" should be DISCOURAGED and if it were up to the GOP completely banned.

mrveggieman
06-28-2012, 08:32 AM
At one time I considered moving to texas. I'm glad that I didn't. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves right about now.

*censored*
06-28-2012, 10:17 AM
I live in Texas. I'm registered as a Republican, but only so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

Looks like I'll be switching my party affiliation.

pghin08
06-28-2012, 10:19 AM
As General Philip Sheridan once said, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell."

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 11:08 AM
In other words, any and all teaching that goes against a student's "Fixed beliefs" should be DISCOURAGED and if it were up to the GOP completely banned.

as children they do not have the ability to really know what is right for them, this is not as bad as it sounds.

but as an adult you have the rights and abilities to have your own beliefs

living in your parents home and relying on them for all you need, you should learn to respect their beliefs and rules. when you are are your own, then you can do and believe whatever you want.

habsheaven
06-28-2012, 11:27 AM
as children they do not have the ability to really know what is right for them, this is not as bad as it sounds.

but as an adult you have the rights and abilities to have your own beliefs

living in your parents home and relying on them for all you need, you should learn to respect their beliefs and rules. when you are are your own, then you can do and believe whatever you want.

So if my father is a racist I should respect that until I am old enough to move out? No, I don't think so. When I decided that I was no longer going to "believe", I discussed it with my parents once or twice. Then, out of respect, I stopped discussing it with them. That is as far as my respect was going to go.

*censored*
06-28-2012, 11:27 AM
as children they do not have the ability to really know what is right for them, this is not as bad as it sounds.

but as an adult you have the rights and abilities to have your own beliefs

living in your parents home and relying on them for all you need, you should learn to respect their beliefs and rules. when you are are your own, then you can do and believe whatever you want.

But children are also much easier to indoctrinate one way or another. By giving them only one side and no other, how are you equipping them to make well-balanced decisions for themselves in the future?

What if two parents honestly believed the Holocaust didn't happen? Under these ideas, does this mean they wouldn't be permitted to learn of the Holocaust in schools? Do you honestly think then that the child as an adult would actually weigh the two options and make an honest, well-informed decision? Or just accept what they had been taught all along while viewing the other side as garbage?

I see it every day here in Texas (not with the Holocaust, but plenty of other things), and those regulations haven't even been put in yet.

duane1969
06-28-2012, 12:52 PM
So if my father is a racist I should respect that until I am old enough to move out? No, I don't think so. When I decided that I was no longer going to "believe", I discussed it with my parents once or twice. Then, out of respect, I stopped discussing it with them. That is as far as my respect was going to go.

Yes. And by the same measure, if a parent disagrees with killing then the child should move out and become a mass murderer.


But children are also much easier to indoctrinate one way or another. By giving them only one side and no other, how are you equipping them to make well-balanced decisions for themselves in the future?

What if two parents honestly believed the Holocaust didn't happen? Under these ideas, does this mean they wouldn't be permitted to learn of the Holocaust in schools? Do you honestly think then that the child as an adult would actually weigh the two options and make an honest, well-informed decision? Or just accept what they had been taught all along while viewing the other side as garbage?

I see it every day here in Texas (not with the Holocaust, but plenty of other things), and those regulations haven't even been put in yet.

So you think that it is important for others to have a chance to indoctrinate people's children and then just hope that these young minds are somehow strong enough to see through the murk and make the correct decision? The teaching and perspective of parents is somehow wrong by default?

I am a conservative. I don't see where it is the government's right to tell me that I am required to allow liberal educators to try and sway my children to believe in something that I disagree with. The same applies to the children of liberal parents. Would you want me having your kid in my class for a whole year spouting off about Obama being a failure, bashing liberal concepts, pushing conservative agenda, demanding that classwork have a conservative lean? Would you support different concepts then?

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 12:56 PM
See, this is the problem with America. Even in education you bring it down to Liberal vs Conservative. You can't even stop arguing amongst yourselves to educate your kids.

It's really, really sad.

mrveggieman
06-28-2012, 12:59 PM
See, this is the problem with America. Even in education you bring it down to Liberal vs Conservative. You can't even stop arguing amongst yourselves to educate your kids.

It's really, really sad.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 01:30 PM
wickabee, so the whole idea of there being different points of view should be invalid?

we should just say, oh the government says so, so it must be right?

our kids, my kids, have a great education and still respected my ideas while in my house. they can believe what they want, but will respect my beliefs as long as I am your provider. No different than having a job, you may not always agree with your boss, but he is signing the check.

and why does it always come to the extreme, of racists and murderers? how about telling my kid it is ok to take from the rich and give to the poor? how about telling my kids the wealthy are evil? capitalism is bad? conservatives are evil? christian should only listen to the church?

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 01:51 PM
wickabee, so the whole idea of there being different points of view should be invalid?

we should just say, oh the government says so, so it must be right?

our kids, my kids, have a great education and still respected my ideas while in my house. they can believe what they want, but will respect my beliefs as long as I am your provider. No different than having a job, you may not always agree with your boss, but he is signing the check.

and why does it always come to the extreme, of racists and murderers? how about telling my kid it is ok to take from the rich and give to the poor? how about telling my kids the wealthy are evil? capitalism is bad? conservatives are evil? christian should only listen to the church?
No, not at all. In fact, other than learning the political process and history, government and politics have absolutely no place in the classroom.

Problem is both sides are so paranoid about the other "indoctrinating" their kids that you force yourselves to not only put politics into the classroom, but put it as one of your top priorities above even actually teaching the kids. They're the ones you're jerking around, confusing and refusing to actually educate. They're the ones who lose out because of your national bickering and using politics as a sport.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 02:02 PM
the issue is liberals have already came into the classrooms, claiming they are just trying to make things right.

because the word god is in a few lines of songs and speeches all has been corrupted, we can teach the big bang theory and evolution, but don't dare mention any religion.

PC is the issue and most conservatives could care less about being PC

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 02:06 PM
the issue is liberals have already came into the classrooms, claiming they are just trying to make things right.

because the word god is in a few lines of songs and speeches all has been corrupted, we can teach the big bang theory and evolution, but don't dare mention any religion.

PC is the issue and most conservatives could care less about being PC
Just like in Kansas?

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 02:11 PM
no like in OZ

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 02:23 PM
Well, Liberals have taken "teach kids not to hate" to an extreme, and conservatives want to basically abolish science as we know it.
Liberals say it's not okay to reference God in a song...I live in Canada, which is far less religious than the US, and I sang our national anthem every Monday morning, "we stand on guard for thee" and no one was ever offended)

Conservatives say, "I don't want my kids learning evolution!" Even a creationist should know the theory of evolution. It's a valid scientific theory with a decent amount of evidence to support it. I don't totally buy it myself, but I can't deny there's something to it and it should be taught.

If you raise your kids properly they will not take everything the schools teach them as gospel.
If you raise your kids properly they will not take everything you teach them as gospel.

Basically, from here it seems like an argument of, "You're not going to indoctrinate my kids! I`m going to indoctrinate them myself!`and both sides are shouting it. The problem is none of you are teaching them anything other than how to argue (and you`re not even really doing that well). You spend more time arguing about what should be taught than you could ever hope to spend actually teaching. Do you not see a problem with that

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 02:33 PM
Shrew, do you think teaching Evolution is Liberal?

Do you think 99.9% of Scientists are Liberal?

If you want to believe in god, that's perfectly fine but schools need to stay neutral.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 02:46 PM
alex, actually I don't for animals. but once you say humans evolved from apes, I do.

if evolution was taught as strictly non human, I would stand up and help out, but once you add the human component, you go against god. if god cannnot be taught because it goes against science, should science be taught that goes against god?

if schools were going to be neutral how can they go against god?

wickabee, i think you don't know too much about american education, the kids are being taught, the argueing goes on behind the scenes. we have one of the finest educational systems in the world, that is why the masses flock here to get educated.

the issue is the liberals saying go to college and you will get a great job, which is not always the case. that education makes you a better person, which is not always the case.

to be neutral is just that, you would not go against others, but allow all to be heard, and most liberals (not all) do not want to here anything that goes against what they believe.

while I am a christian and a conservative, I love science, and love researching other religions. i have never forced my ideas on my kids (in fact not all are christians nor believe in a god) but when you are in my house you will respect my beliefs. this does not mean you have to believe what i believe nor pretend you do, but don't try to belittle my beliefs by saying your are superior, a hypothesis is a hypothesis, whether in religion or science.

*censored*
06-28-2012, 03:04 PM
So you think that it is important for others to have a chance to indoctrinate people's children and then just hope that these young minds are somehow strong enough to see through the murk and make the correct decision? The teaching and perspective of parents is somehow wrong by default?

I am a conservative. I don't see where it is the government's right to tell me that I am required to allow liberal educators to try and sway my children to believe in something that I disagree with. The same applies to the children of liberal parents. Would you want me having your kid in my class for a whole year spouting off about Obama being a failure, bashing liberal concepts, pushing conservative agenda, demanding that classwork have a conservative lean? Would you support different concepts then?

So you'd be perfectly alright with parents indoctrinating their kids with racist views and think the school is wrong for trying to teach them something different?

Wow.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 03:05 PM
alex, actually I don't for animals. but once you say humans evolved from apes, I do.

if evolution was taught as strictly non human, I would stand up and help out, but once you add the human component, you go against god. if god cannnot be taught because it goes against science, should science be taught that goes against god?

if schools were going to be neutral how can they go against god?
THe problem is just this. Half the people think teaching creationism "goes against" science and the other half thinks teaching evolution goes "against God". I don't think either statement is true. Again, to much of a "Yer either fer it or agin it" attitude.


wickabee, i think you don't know too much about american education, the kids are being taught, the argueing goes on behind the scenes. we have one of the finest educational systems in the world, that is why the masses flock here to get educated.
How many American students can tell you who Putin is? How many American students can name all 10 Canadian provinces (I could tell you all 50 states when I was 9).


the issue is the liberals saying go to college and you will get a great job, which is not always the case.
I agree with you here.


that education makes you a better person, which is not always the case.
I believe that is completely wrong. Ignorance NEVER makes you a better person, education always does.


to be neutral is just that, you would not go against others, but allow all to be heard, and most liberals (not all) do not want to here anything that goes against what they believe.
To be truly neutral in that sense, then shut down all schools, because they won't be able to teach anything



while I am a christian and a conservative, I love science, and love researching other religions. i have never forced my ideas on my kids (in fact not all are christians nor believe in a god) but when you are in my house you will respect my beliefs. this does not mean you have to believe what i believe nor pretend you do, but don't try to belittle my beliefs by saying your are superior, a hypothesis is a hypothesis, whether in religion or science.
If more parents held to this, there would be absolutely no issue. Unfortunately there are too many parents who only want their own beliefs taught to their children but, for some reason, think that's the school's job.

I once knew a guy (who I didn't think much of) who looked at me during a conversation and said, "It's my job to raise my kids, not teach them. That's the school's job!" If this attitude weren't so prevalent, the schools could teach them anything and no one would care because they would actually take responsibility for their kids instead of sluffing them off on teachers before turning around and screaming, "DON'T TEACH THAT!"

mrveggieman
06-28-2012, 03:11 PM
while I am a christian and a conservative, I love science, and love researching other religions. i have never forced my ideas on my kids (in fact not all are christians nor believe in a god) but when you are in my house you will respect my beliefs. this does not mean you have to believe what i believe nor pretend you do, but don't try to belittle my beliefs by saying your are superior, a hypothesis is a hypothesis, whether in religion or science.


I'm going to give you some for this part.

CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

Star_Cards
06-28-2012, 03:11 PM
the issue is liberals have already came into the classrooms, claiming they are just trying to make things right.

because the word god is in a few lines of songs and speeches all has been corrupted, we can teach the big bang theory and evolution, but don't dare mention any religion.

PC is the issue and most conservatives could care less about being PC

big bang and evolution theories have absolutely nothing to do with a type of religion. it may differ from christians story of how it all began, but it's not a religion. If you are comparing the two and saying they are both religions you are completely wrong.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 03:24 PM
never said they were religions, but rather a theory or hypothesis, which can be said about religion.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 03:35 PM
never said they were religions, but rather a theory or hypothesis, which can be said about religion.
Well, there's already places to teach the religious side and those places are home and church. Since schools are full of people with many differeing views on the subject, I see it as being the school's job to teach the secular ideas of origin, which would be evolution. If you're worried about what your kids are learning, teach them yourselves and do a good enough job that they can eventually discern for themselves.

Evolution has scientific evidence on its side. Creationism has the Holy Books (Bibke, Koran, etc). Let the Holy Books be taught at church and in the home. Let science be taught in science class. Raise your kids so they can look at both sides and decide for themselves. As it stands, everyone just wants kids to parrot one side or the other. Until everyone realizes that A) It doesn't have to be like that and B) That's a pretty poor way of teaching, things will have a chance to go a lot better. Of course, you still have the (stereotypically) Right-wing, Christian conservatives VS Left-wing, atheist liberals (Sunday, SUNDAY, Sunday) which is the root of why this argument will never end and the US will continue to let their children (their future) suffer the consequences of your fighting instead of teaching.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 03:49 PM
evolution of humans has little evidence, so why is that taught in the classroom?

Lucy could simply be a misfigured human, a mutant human, or even a misfigured/mutant ape. and where do the hobbits of flores fit in evolution? evolution is a theory and a belief, no different than religion!

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 04:00 PM
evolution of humans has little evidence, so why is that taught in the classroom?

Lucy could simply be a misfigured human, a mutant human, or even a misfigured/mutant ape. and where do the hobbits of flores fit in evolution? evolution is a theory and a belief, no different than religion!
Evolution of humans has more actual evidence as "God made us"...not much, but more. It is a scientific theory and should be taught as such. I don't believe in teaching it as absolute fact because, until we meet someone who was there, we'll never really know how we came to be (and it's my personal belief that it doesn't matter, the point is we're here) but it should still be taught as a scientific theory in science classes.
Religion shouldn't be taught in school. Church and home is where that should be taught. Unfortunately, many zealot of all religions believe THEIR religion should be taught as fact and everything else ignored. I understand the sentiment, when you're right you're right and they all believe themselves to be right. I get that. There are things the schools should be teaching; science, math, reading/literature, history, the arts, etc and there are things parents should be teaching; religion, morals, etc. Allow the schools to be secular in their teachings. Just because evolution is taught doesn't mean creationism should get equal classroom time because there's even less scientific basis for it than evolution. Unless the class is "Religious studies" religion has no place in schools and it is NOT a teacher's job to teach every kid your beliefs.

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 04:22 PM
evolution of humans has little evidence, so why is that taught in the classroom?

Lucy could simply be a misfigured human, a mutant human, or even a misfigured/mutant ape. and where do the hobbits of flores fit in evolution? evolution is a theory and a belief, no different than religion!

Are we really going to start this up again?

If you don't want to accept the fact that we have NUMEROUS of fossils that show that humans have evolved, the fact that Human DNA is almost identical to chimpanzee DNA, and the fact that EVERY spiecies on this planet has some type of evidence of evolution...then what will it take???


A religion?

What proof is there that Humans were created by god?

Absolutely ZERO!


What proof is there that Humans have evolved?

Substantial amounts!


We might NEVER prove that god exists or doesn't exist, but we CAN prove that Evolution is true.

And in my personal opinion evolution is pretty much a FACT, there is too much evidence in its favor.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 04:25 PM
And in my personal opinion evolution is pretty much a FACT, there is too much evidence in its favor.
But not enough evidence to negate the need to qualify your statement with "pretty much"

Face it, we don't know and likely never will.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 04:43 PM
wickabee,

ding, ding, ding, you are a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 05:21 PM
But not enough evidence to negate the need to qualify your statement with "pretty much"

Face it, we don't know and likely never will.

I have to disagree....and since I am no where near as smart as a biologist, I will post their responses:

ZRDsNjhZn34

VWxlLzQWM64

LIm2H0ksawg


SCIENTIFIC FACT = EVOLUTION!

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 05:21 PM
Just for the record, I think you're both wrong. I do not believe evolution should be taught as anything more than a "probably" or "the most widely accepted scientific theory". I figure if my doctor who specializes in my condition can't definitively tell me what caused it but instead gives me an explanation that starts with, " The most widely accepted theory is that X probably happened" (remember, the man's a specialist) how can anyone say they know for an absolute fact how we came to be? There is no absolute evidence of anything so, while it is the most accepted theory and even I see its merits, it is not absolute fact nor will it ever be.

At the end of the day the only way we're ever going to definitively find out how we came to be is if creationists are correct and God tells us so. Other than that, it's all educated guessing. With this in mind, it makes me sad to see such major fights on the subject. Ultimately, the only reason we care so much is because we seem to think that proving things one way or the other will either prove or disprove God. Proving evolution does not disprove God. Disproving evolution does not prove God. A lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.

I think it's a waste of time and energy. The fact of the matter is we're here now, we know what we know, let's get on with it instead of playing moral tug-o-war with children as the rope.

theonedru
06-28-2012, 05:31 PM
Fact: There is way more evidence to support evolution over creationism, while we do not have all the facts set straight but the evidence is there, and growing more clearly as time passes. The arguments and evidence remain the same for creationism..........

While I believe Humans and chimpanzees can be related (DNA cannot lie) I think Donald Johanson and Richard Leakey hypothesis is on the right track but is missing some critical lineage somewhere.......

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 05:32 PM
VWxlLzQWM64

Now, I admittedly didn't watch the whole thing, but here's my problem with this. In this video, he references the crab and how a crab with a "face" on it was more likely to be thrown back and live as opposed to a regular looking crab that gets eaten. That's fine.

But then he goes on to say that the crabs "evolve" to develop a very specific looking face...like they decided to. In reality it would likely be a matter of crabs with "faces" breeding together more and more (since they don't get taken) and heredity, not evolution, creating the look. The fact that it resembles a samurai, besides being up for debate, is irrelevant.

In school I was pointed to the fact that people living in high mountain areas, such as the Andes, tend to have larger hearts and lungs, so they must have evolved that way. It couldn't be that the people who survive better in the area are those with larger hearts and lungs and those who survive get to procreate and when they procreate together they get a similar product. No, it's evolution.

Is it not possible that what science sees as "evolution" is merely genetic traits being passed on, not actual "evolving"?

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 05:33 PM
how can anyone say they know for an absolute fact how we came to be?
That's just it Wickabee, Science does NOT dwell with "Absolutes".

If anything, only religious people deal with absolutes, such as "Absolute morality", "absolute good and evil", and so on.


Science has NEVER said that Evolution is Absolute fact.

It has observed evolution and determined it to be "Scientific Fact", just like it has observed gravity and has determined it to also be Scientific fact.


I highly recommend the THIRD video that I posted, It explains it so much better than I can ever explain it.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 05:37 PM
That's just it Wickabee, Science does NOT dwell with "Absolutes".

If anything, only religious people deal with absolutes, such as "Absolute morality", "absolute good and evil", and so on.


Science has NEVER said that Evolution is Absolute fact.

It has observed evolution and determined it to be "Scientific Fact", just like it has observed gravity and has determined it to also be Scientific fact.


I highly recommend the THIRD video that I posted, It explains it so much better than I can ever explain it.
What I'm getting here is that science doesn't bother with actual fact and merely being accepted by the majority makes it so. Even if scientific fact is an ever-changing thing, just labeling it as such means that trying to disprove it is a complete waste of time.

Mostly it looks like there's a difference of definition between a "scientific fact" and an actual; fact.

I'll check out the video.

ETA:
Alex, I just tried to watch that 3rd video and I couldn't even get halfway through it. I understand the concept of scientific theory vs regular theory. My problem is with "scientific fact".

That video is the most arrogant, condescending, self-righteous things I've ever attempted to sit through. If someone put together a video with the same point without the, "I'm better than you and here's why" attitude behind it, then fine, but that is just painful to listen to.

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 05:53 PM
ETA:
Alex, I just tried to watch that 3rd video and I couldn't even get halfway through it. I understand the concept of scientific theory vs regular theory. My problem is with "scientific fact".

That video is the most arrogant, condescending, self-righteous things I've ever attempted to sit through. If someone put together a video with the same point without the, "I'm better than you and here's why" attitude behind it, then fine, but that is just painful to listen to.

Well, I must say that I definitely don't feel the same way.

I've viewed the video before and I saw just before I posted it and I didn't think it was arrogant, condescending or self-righteous.

It shows that many creationists don't even know the words they are arguing against, and that is true, sometimes they just don't know that there's a difference between "Scientific Theory" and regular theory.

The main case of the video is to show that Evolution is BOTH a Scientific theory AND a Scientific Fact.


But I guess, we might have to agree to disagree on this topic.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 06:13 PM
Well, I must say that I definitely don't feel the same way.

I've viewed the video before and I saw just before I posted it and I didn't think it was arrogant, condescending or self-righteous.

It shows that many creationists don't even know the words they are arguing against, and that is true, sometimes they just don't know that there's a difference between "Scientific Theory" and regular theory.

The main case of the video is to show that Evolution is BOTH a Scientific theory AND a Scientific Fact.


But I guess, we might have to agree to disagree on this topic.
I guess because I have no issue with the definitions of "theory" it seemed to be along the lines of saying, "Ok, so, if I have three apples and you have two apples then together we have five apples. Or to put it another way, if I have 3 oranges and you have two oranges then together we have five oranges. Or to put it another way, if I have three bananas and you have two bananas then together we have five bananas. Or to put it another way..."

It was very condescending, treating the listener like a four year old and calling anyone who doesn't buy into evolution as fact an idiot without ever having to say it. They very easily could have done it without the "you're an idiot and here's why" approach. I do think it's quite indicative of how many in the science world genuinely view most people, which is with great prejudice.

Of course, because this is the internet, I will state the obvious and remind everyone these are my opinions. I am not trying to present anything as fact, scientific or otherwise.

But, Alex, earlier you said science doesn't get hung up on absolutes the way religion does. I don't see that as a point for science. Is science not meant to explain how everything around us works (or be how everything around us work)? If it is, would the goal not be the absolute explanation instead of coming to a general consensus and calling it fact?
Is a scientific fact less sure than an actual fact (ie: is there a whole separate definition as with "theory") and subject to change? Is it code for "the accepted theory"?

I have no problem with the defining of theory. "Fact" is where I get lost. What is a scientific fact.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 06:18 PM
alex,

some science tries to portray they know things as facts and so do some in religion.

the facts are you cannot show me any proof that i cannot explain how that backs my theory just as much as it does yours.

DNA, sure we could say this proves evolution, but I can easily say, and just as wisely, that this just proves we all came from the same source, so that is why we share DNA with everything, not only chimps.
that source for you is the unknown in evolution, that source for me is the christian god.

i am not saying you are wrong, i am saying i believe something slightly different. some may say it is pompous to think i would know such a thing. something science cannot even explain, but i would say no, i am no wiser, in fact my answer is a bit more simple.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 06:21 PM
I would call it pompous.
But if everyone changed the word "know" to "believe" no one would be pompous. As it stands, most people are pretty pompous.

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 06:49 PM
Like always, there are many great questions, some of which are hard to answer.


In the video it makes a great example of gravity.

Gravity is a "Scientific Fact" we can observe objects falling due to gravity...

However, Gravity is still a "Scientific Theory" because it seeks to answer..... WHY do objects gravitate to one another?


I have researched Evolution A LOT in these past 4 years ever since I de-converted from being a Christian.

The evidence is overwhelming, I could easily post numerous of videos on here on this overwhelming evidence.....and still, it would not be 100% fact.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 07:05 PM
So a scientific fact and an actual fact are two different things then.

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 07:36 PM
So a scientific fact and an actual fact are two different things then.

Tough to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

^As we can see here, there are indeed many different ways to interpret "Fact".

habsheaven
06-28-2012, 07:48 PM
I BELIEVE evolution is a FACT. I also BELIEVE anyone who does not share this belief has either; not looked at the overwhelming evidence, or does not truly understand the evidence, or simply has blinders on.

For anyone to state that Creationism and Evolution are both just theories and therefore equal in validity is like saying a housecat and a lion are both felines and therefore the same thing.

drtom2005
06-28-2012, 08:20 PM
evolution of humans has little evidence, so why is that taught in the classroom?

Lucy could simply be a misfigured human, a mutant human, or even a misfigured/mutant ape. and where do the hobbits of flores fit in evolution? evolution is a theory and a belief, no different than religion!

Where exactly do humans skeletons start coming in the fossil record? Once again, it is like beating a dead horse. Theory in science means fact in common vernacular. You can not argue the point. Creationism does not even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis. Many confirmed facts equal a hypothesis. Creationism has no confirmed facts.

*censored*
06-28-2012, 08:36 PM
http://astrobeccah.tripod.com/cartoon.gif

drtom2005
06-28-2012, 08:42 PM
So a scientific fact and an actual fact are two different things then.
Scientific facts are testable truth statements. Any of the below are scientific facts.

The sky is purple.
Bacteria transposon transfers cause antiboitic resistance.
Jupiter has only four moons.
Gravity does not exist.

Some of these are true and some are not. They can be tested though.

A hypothesis is a conglumaration of confirmed facts(by repeated replication) to come up with a possible conclusion, but not enough evidence to become a theory. It can also be a scientifc fact being tested in an experiment.
Some hypothesis below.
Tide is a better cleaner of laundry.
Ultra violet light causes skin cancer.
Bacteria growth is affected by temperature.

The big dog ,theory, means there is many confirmed facts and hypothesis pointing to a conclusion. A theory can be replaced by a better theory if it explains the natural world better.
Some examples of theories:
Big Bang
Evolution
Germ


What scientist want from a theory below:
7. Summary of Criteria of Scientific Theories




The criteria for scientific theories can be summarized by these principles:

Consistent (internally & externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities, explanations)
Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made with new data)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Tentative (admits that it might not be correct, does not assert certainty)
These criteria are what we expect for a theory to be considered scientific. Lacking one or two might not mean a theory isn't scientific, but only with good reasons. Lacking most or all is a disqualification.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/tp/CriteriaScientificTheory.htm

A term many people get confused with is falsifiable. It basically means a theory/hypothesis/fact could be proven false if the testing confirmed it. If your question or statement isn't falsifiable, it is not science. Creationism is not falsifiable. It isn't on the level of evolution or any other theory.

Aikman_TheGreat
06-30-2012, 02:41 AM
As General Philip Sheridan once said, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell."

And he was obviously an idiot.

Wickabee
06-30-2012, 10:33 AM
Scientific facts are testable truth statements. Any of the below are scientific facts.

The sky is purple.
Bacteria transposon transfers cause antiboitic resistance.
Jupiter has only four moons.
Gravity does not exist.

Some of these are true and some are not. They can be tested though.

A hypothesis is a conglumaration of confirmed facts(by repeated replication) to come up with a possible conclusion, but not enough evidence to become a theory. It can also be a scientifc fact being tested in an experiment.
Some hypothesis below.
Tide is a better cleaner of laundry.
Ultra violet light causes skin cancer.
Bacteria growth is affected by temperature.

The big dog ,theory, means there is many confirmed facts and hypothesis pointing to a conclusion. A theory can be replaced by a better theory if it explains the natural world better.
Some examples of theories:
Big Bang
Evolution
Germ


What scientist want from a theory below:
7. Summary of Criteria of Scientific Theories




The criteria for scientific theories can be summarized by these principles:

Consistent (internally & externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities, explanations)
Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made with new data)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Tentative (admits that it might not be correct, does not assert certainty)

These criteria are what we expect for a theory to be considered scientific. Lacking one or two might not mean a theory isn't scientific, but only with good reasons. Lacking most or all is a disqualification.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/tp/CriteriaScientificTheory.htm

A term many people get confused with is falsifiable. It basically means a theory/hypothesis/fact could be proven false if the testing confirmed it. If your question or statement isn't falsifiable, it is not science. Creationism is not falsifiable. It isn't on the level of evolution or any other theory.
So essentially then:
Scientific fact = theory (as used colloquially)
Hypothesis = hypothesis
Scientific theory = fact, but one that can still be potentially disproven

drtom2005
06-30-2012, 10:37 AM
So essentially then:
Scientific fact = theory (as used colloquially)
Hypothesis = hypothesis
Scientific theory = fact, but one that can still be potentially disproven

Yep with one exception. A theory can only be replaced by another better theory. Theories have tons of evidence. The Big bang, evolution, etc can be replaced, but only with a better theory with better evidence. Science does not deal with absolutes. No scientist will ever say they are 100% positive about something. 99.999999% is as far as you get.

Wickabee
06-30-2012, 10:54 AM
Yep with one exception. A theory can only be replaced by another better theory. Theories have tons of evidence. The Big bang, evolution, etc can be replaced, but only with a better theory with better evidence. Science does not deal with absolutes. No scientist will ever say they are 100% positive about something. 99.999999% is as far as you get.
That's not really an exception. I wouldn't expect a scientific theory to be replaced with one that has worse evidence. I'm not a moron. You could have just said "yes".

Let me ask you this. If:
scientific theory = actual fact
and
scientific fact = actual theory

Why the need to change the meaning of "fact" to "theory" and the meaning of "theory" to "fact"?
Seems to me if you just let the words mean what they mean instead of swapping their meanings a lot fewer people would get confused. It almost seems as if the definitions are switched for the purpose of confusing people.

tpeichel
06-30-2012, 11:07 AM
I find it hard to believe that they would say that they were not going to teach critical thinking skills. Very short-sighted if true.

I have worked with Indian developers in the past and was frustrated with their inability to think critically. Sure, they could develop to a spec, but if any problem arose, most of the time they were unable to think creatively to devise a solution.

The education system in India places a strong emphasis on rote memorization and discourages students from questioning anything. This is great for performance on standardized tests, not so great for real world problem solving.

I always chuckle a little when I see people bemoaning the rankings of the U.S. in math and science while elites from other countries send their children to be educated here and so many of the breakthroughs and inventions come from the U.S.

My own kids are in elementary school and my biggest frustration has been the increased emphasis on taking tests. These are basic skills tests, why do we need to spend so much time prepping the kids to do well, just teach them basic skills!

Once we stop teaching our kids to think critically, we're going to lose one of our major strengths.

drtom2005
06-30-2012, 11:10 AM
That's not really an exception. I wouldn't expect a scientific theory to be replaced with one that has worse evidence. I'm not a moron. You could have just said "yes".

Let me ask you this. If:
scientific theory = actual fact
and
scientific fact = actual theory

Why the need to change the meaning of "fact" to "theory" and the meaning of "theory" to "fact"?
Seems to me if you just let the words mean what they mean instead of swapping their meanings a lot fewer people would get confused. It almost seems as if the definitions are switched for the purpose of confusing people.
The statement was not for you. It was for everyone else. I did not mean to offend you.

Well, this has been accepted scientific usage of words for awhile now(I do not remember for how long). You would have to get most of the scientists in the world to agree to change it. It would probably be impossible. It would be like herding cats. LOL.

Scientists are human and can be stubborn in their views. But if someone gives them enough evidence to change their minds, most will do so. They couldn't call themselves, scientist, if they didn't.

The reason scientists get irrated with "teach the convtrovesy" as with regards to Creationism is simple. It does not even rise to the level of fact. People can not test if "god" created the universe or anything(This is accepted by relgious people. I hear all of the time god works in mysterious ways). Creationism belongs in a religon class, not in any science class.

Wickabee
06-30-2012, 03:32 PM
The statement was not for you. It was for everyone else. I did not mean to offend you.

Well, this has been accepted scientific usage of words for awhile now(I do not remeber for how long). You would have to get most of the scientists in the world to agree to change it. It would probably be impossible. It would be like herding cats. LOL.

Scientists are human and can be stubborn in their views. But if someone gives them enough evidence to change their minds, most will do so. They couldn't call themselves, scientist, if they didn't.

The reason scientists get irrated with "teach the convtrovesy" as with regards to Creationism is simple. It does not even rise to the level of fact. People can not test if "god" created the universe or anything(This is accepted by relgious people. I hear all of the time god works in mysterious ways). Creationism belongs in a religon class, not in any science class.
Here's my issue, and remember I'm more of a language guy than a science guy.

We already have the words "fact" and "theory" with their own distinct definitions. Fact = Something that is, Theory = Something that possibly could be. But in the world of science you've reversed that so that Theory = Something that is and Fact = Something that could be.

...

The only possible reason I see for completely reversing the terms is to trip up or confuse those of us who aren't up on this scientific newspeak.

We have the theory of evolution (which really means fact). So when someone says it's just a theory, you get to look at them and say, "You don't know what theory means!"

In reality, they do. The fact that the scientific community has reversed the meaning of "fact" and "theory" among themselves doesn't change what "theory" really means in the English language.

To me it looks like you're deliberately creating a stumbling block for people.

In reality:
The sky is purple is a theory, but the fact is the sky is blue.

In science:
It's a fact the sky is purple, but once that fact is tested, the theory becomes that it's blue.

That video that Alex showed basically (without outright saying it) calls everyone morons. But I don't think it's moronic to assume theory means theory and fact means fact instead of theory means fact and fact means theory. It's a useless excersize that, again, seems to only serve as a stumbling block so the scientific community can think highly of themselves for being the only ones who know the meanings to these words, which they seem to have arbitrarily switched.

Basically it's no different from calling a cat a "scientific dog" and then laughing at people when they say it's a cat.

drtom2005
06-30-2012, 05:55 PM
Here's my issue, and remember I'm more of a language guy than a science guy.

We already have the words "fact" and "theory" with their own distinct definitions. Fact = Something that is, Theory = Something that possibly could be. But in the world of science you've reversed that so that Theory = Something that is and Fact = Something that could be.

...

The only possible reason I see for completely reversing the terms is to trip up or confuse those of us who aren't up on this scientific newspeak.

We have the theory of evolution (which really means fact). So when someone says it's just a theory, you get to look at them and say, "You don't know what theory means!"

In reality, they do. The fact that the scientific community has reversed the meaning of "fact" and "theory" among themselves doesn't change what "theory" really means in the English language.

To me it looks like you're deliberately creating a stumbling block for people.

In reality:
The sky is purple is a theory, but the fact is the sky is blue.

In science:
It's a fact the sky is purple, but once that fact is tested, the theory becomes that it's blue.

That video that Alex showed basically (without outright saying it) calls everyone morons. But I don't think it's moronic to assume theory means theory and fact means fact instead of theory means fact and fact means theory. It's a useless excersize that, again, seems to only serve as a stumbling block so the scientific community can think highly of themselves for being the only ones who know the meanings to these words, which they seem to have arbitrarily switched.

Basically it's no different from calling a cat a "scientific dog" and then laughing at people when they say it's a cat.

Well, the reason I am responding is so people understand the language of science. I do not think I have been derogatory. Also, in the past I have told some of the people on this site this point. I think they refuse to believe this is the truth. Maybe it goes against their beliefs? I really do not know.

As for scientists calling someone a moron, I can not comment of other people's statements. The terminology has been around since at least Darwin. It is basic scientific knowledge. If people are going to comment on an issue in science, they should know the difference.

Different groups of people have different nomenclature depending on the topic. It is kind of a human thing.

One more thing I forgot to mention. The sky is blue will always be a fact. The theory/hypothesis of why the sky is blue would explain why it appears that way. There is different levels of evidence depending on the term you use.

Wickabee
07-01-2012, 10:38 AM
Well, the reason I am responding is so people understand the language of science. I do not think I have been derogatory. Also, in the past I have told some of the people on this site this point. I think they refuse to believe this is the truth. Maybe it goes against their beliefs? I really do not know.

As for scientists calling someone a moron, I can not comment of other people's statements. The terminalogy has been around since at least Darwin. It is basic scientific knowledge. If people are going to comment on an issue in science, they should know the difference.

Different groups of people have different nomenclature depending on the topic. It is kind of a human thing.

One more thing I forgot to mention. The sky is blue will always be a fact. The theory/hypothesis of why the sky is blue would explain why it appears that way. There is different levels of evidence depending on the term you use.Oh, I'm not saying you're being derogatory at all.

It doesn't matter how long the terminology has been around, if you're tell me that putting "scientific" in front of "fact" and "theory" swap their meanings around, I'm telling you that's changing language for no reason, like calling a dog a scientific cat. I see no need for it, scientific or otherwise.

drtom2005
07-01-2012, 12:12 PM
Oh, I'm not saying you're being derogatory at all.

It doesn't matter how long the terminology has been around, if you're tell me that putting "scientific" in front of "fact" and "theory" swap their meanings around, I'm telling you that's changing language for no reason, like calling a dog a scientific cat. I see no need for it, scientific or otherwise.
Well really, I can not comment on the language origination. I really have no idea where it came from. I just would like people to understand the terminology better.

Wickabee
07-03-2012, 02:03 PM
Well really, I can not comment on the language origination. I really have no idea where it came from. I just would like people to understand the terminology better.

Which wouldn't be so difficult if the meanings of words weren't so needlessly changed. I realize the terminology has been used this way for some time now, but you're still calling a dog a "scientific cat" and then getting upset when people don't understand. Science has created the problem on this one. You can't use a word to mean the exact opposite and expect everyone to go, "Ok, I get it."

Everything I say is fact...just keep in mind I've changed the leaning of "fact" to mean "opinion" and vice versa. So now every time you say something is just an opinion, I'm going to tell you, "No, it's linguistic fact. How dare you call it an opinion!"


Do you see the problem now. Arbitrarily reversing meanings on words and then getting upset, confused or just laughing at people who don't understand is counterproductive. I understand the terminology, I just don't know why scientist of long ago decided to create this problem for you. If I had to guess, I'd say they were deliberately trying to trip people up. Why can't "fact" mean "fact" and "theory" mean "theory"? It's kind of stupid, you have to admit.

drtom2005
07-03-2012, 09:26 PM
Which wouldn't be so difficult if the meanings of words weren't so needlessly changed. I realize the terminology has been used this way for some time now, but you're still calling a dog a "scientific cat" and then getting upset when people don't understand. Science has created the problem on this one. You can't use a word to mean the exact opposite and expect everyone to go, "Ok, I get it."

Everything I say is fact...just keep in mind I've changed the leaning of "fact" to mean "opinion" and vice versa. So now every time you say something is just an opinion, I'm going to tell you, "No, it's linguistic fact. How dare you call it an opinion!"


Do you see the problem now. Arbitrarily reversing meanings on words and then getting upset, confused or just laughing at people who don't understand is counterproductive. I understand the terminology, I just don't know why scientist of long ago decided to create this problem for you. If I had to guess, I'd say they were deliberately trying to trip people up. Why can't "fact" mean "fact" and "theory" mean "theory"? It's kind of stupid, you have to admit.

Sorry I disagree. This is basic understanding of science. People do not go tell the German or Spanish teacher to speak English in their class. Based on this assumption, you are saying their should be no terminolgy for any field. If you do it to scientist, it should happen to everyone.

By the way, do you know the origin of the colloquial term theory? I have no idea. I suspect the scientific meaning came first, but I do not know. I haven't looked into it. I just looked it up. The Greek root means to look at, or to observe.

Wickabee
07-04-2012, 12:57 AM
Sorry I disagree. This is basic understanding of science. People do not go tell the German or Spanish teacher to speak English in their class. Based on this assumption, you are saying their should be no terminolgy for any field. If you do it to scientist, it should happen to everyone.

I've said nothing close to that. I'm not even sure how you could reasonably come to that conclusion from anything I've said. I'm saying that to swap the meanings of two words is pointless. I'm saying if you do that, don't be surprised when people don't understand you.

drtom2005
07-04-2012, 03:17 PM
I've said nothing close to that. I'm not even sure how you could reasonably come to that conclusion from anything I've said. I'm saying that to swap the meanings of two words is pointless. I'm saying if you do that, don't be surprised when people don't understand you.
These terms are taught in high school science classes, at least, in my state. I can not really comment on others experiences. People should understand the difference or ask a question if they do not know. Not say, "it's just a theory," when they haven't looked into the term.

MadMan1978
07-05-2012, 05:57 AM
Wow I just read through his quickly
Are we to return to the 50's?