I agree with your reading of the platform, that the Texas Republican Party opposes specific programs, not the teaching of critical thinking in general.
However, there is a very large subtext of this whole matter, which is that the major political parties in Texas are waging political warfare in the school curriculum arena. What the Republicans (who are in power) actually desire is to prevent children from growing up to vote for Democrats. I have no doubt that the Democrats would do the same were they in the same position of power. I suspect they may have done so in the past. Republican majorities in Texas are a fairly recent phenomenon, although the racist right wing Texas Democratic Party that ruled from the end of reconstruction until the Republicans took over in the wake of the Democrats supporting civil rights was hardly comparable to the modern version of the Democratic Party.
The Texas Republicans have shown, though, an alarming desire and willingness to use every possible tool, legal or illegal, to secure a permanent one-party system in the state. (See TRMPAC. See also a wide variety of "fighting voter fraud" efforts, designed primarily to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters - the actual incidence of voter fraud being vanishingly miniscule. And also see, of course, the blatant, unapologetic gerrymandering of districts.) This may be understandable as a reaction to the previous century of Democratic single-party rule, but personally, I dislike single party systems. Frankly, I dislike political parties altogether.
Fortunately, my children have learned and are learning a great deal beyond the confines of public schools, thanks to parents and grandparents who spend time, money, effort, and more time on teaching them, providing learning and experience opportunities to them, and making sure they learn to reason and make decisions on their own. I can undermine my own parental authority just fine, thanks.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, I'd point out that "governments" don't want anything. People do. Government is a system whereby people willingly or unwillingly trade certain freedoms for security (or a perception of it) and various forms of "prosperity". In order to actually make and carry out decisions and policies, you have to have people making decisions and carrying out policies, and that's where the difficulties set in. It was the bad behavior of people that caused governments to be desirable in the first place. So it's pretty much a Catch-22.
Even in systems that were originally designed to impede the misbehavior of the individuals given power, over time every nook and cranny of those systems will be probed and tried for ways to misbehave, and wherever possible the nooks and crannies will be enlarged. The famous "eternal vigilance" was not just referring to keeping a watch on external enemies.
Conversely, I prefer to live in civilization, so I recognize that I must accept some sacrifices and responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is maintaining my eternal vigilance against those who would corrupt the system for personal gain at the expense of those governed. And they are legion.
Let's gather observational data, come up with hypotheses that fit that data, test them, revise them, falsify and discard the ones that don't fit new observations, and get ever closer to a consistent theory, which we can then use for making rational decisions.
I really hate responding to an AC and an obvious troll...
But here goes.
The guys and gals that actually went there and did the work weren't asked, they were told. They are just ordinary folk themselves, doing something really, really not fun because they have to, not because they want to. Whatever your opinion of the propriety of their orders, it's not right to treat them as if they decided it would be fun to leave their friends and family for a few months and go get their legs blown off in a hot, dirty, unfriendly place on the other side of the world.
Got a complaint about the orders? Go talk to the people that issued the orders. Start at the top. The buck should dang well start there.
From where I am, in 2012, 2020 is not very far off at all. 2030 might be considered far off, by the very young. In terms of bringing new tech to market, 8 years sounds pretty optimistic. I have some optimism that we'll lick this oil dependency thing yet. Maybe this tech, or something like it, or something it leads to, will be part of that. In any case, it's interesting.
I don't give a rat's hindquarters what someone's background is, if they produce credible peer reviewed evidence that falsifies a hypothesis. Can anyone cite for me some credible peer reviewed evidence that the (insert suitable adjective meaning "sh!tloads") amount of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere is NOT affecting climate?
My "dumbass common sense" tells me that continuously putting large amounts of one type of gas into a container of mixed gases will alter the proportions of the gases in that container, which in turn will alter the properties of that gas mixture. That is my hypothesis, and until it is proven false I will continue to use it as a model for my expected results.
I am not qualified, nor is my home equipped, to provide the sort of care available in good facilities that specialize in the needs of older patients. By the way, there are a whole range of options, from "assisted living" which is pretty much an independent life with facilities available if and as needed, to facilities offering nearly ICU level care, and everything in between. Any of these, chosen appropriately, and with regular visits or outings with family and friends, is better than sitting in my empty house all day while I am away at work and unavailable to provide ANY care or assistance. Your "golden age of yesteryear" when happy smiling oldsters lived with their loving families and were healthy and happy until they passed away singing in their sleep is a crock.
Sadly, even people who do the right things get sick sometimes.
Take, for instance, my wife. She ate a very healthy diet, maintained a very healthy weight, got plenty of exercise, did not use harmful substances, and got plenty of sleep. (She was a model and an aerobics instructor, and also worked as a nutrition counselor at one point. She has never, ever used tobacco or consumed alcoholic beverages, and never used any non-prescribed pharmaceuticals.) Then she was hit by a series of critical illnesses and developed some chronic illnesses, as well as some debilitating injuries. Just plain old bad luck.
We still eat a very healthy diet and have pretty good health insurance coverage, thanks to my job which provides enough income to buy healthy foods and covers a good portion of the insurance cost. However, just the co-pays on her prescriptions and required doctor visits cost us upwards of $500 per month, and I have at various times spent large portions of my time caring for her at home after putting in a full day at work to pay for all of this.
The point being, we are not idiots, and did not do anything to "bring this on ourselves" - it just happened. If I were not well employed, we would be much worse off, and my wife might not even have survived. I consider it a grave injustice to the thousands or millions of my fellow Americans who through no fault of their own cannot obtain the amount, consistency, or quality of health care they need simply because they are not wealthy enough, where if they lived in a different country they might be far better off, even if that country's health care services were technically inferior, but available to all.
P.S. Yes, I'm a nerd who married a model. Apply your nerd skills to learning about social skills, and you too can have a life outside Mom's basement.
Thank you. I've acquired your free sample, and will likely purchase. I don't know yet if I'll like it or not, but 3 bucks is worth it just to say "thanks" for the effort you put in.
I think you've already discovered that the publishing houses really do add value (in the form of marketing so that you can reach your potential audience, at the very least) but I wish you good fortune regardless.
For the most part, and ideally, scientists study things and publish their results without seeking to promote a predetermined position. There is reason to be concerned with maintaining or maybe re-establishing the independence of scientific research from outside forces that would use funding, political pressure, or rabble rousing to influence what sort of research projects actually happen.
However, putting that aside, the vast majority of the "ideological bias" in science is, in my opinion, not found in the scientists, nor in their work, but is found in those who use the results as a place to look for "evidence" to support their "case", as would a lawyer assembling a legal case in an adversarial court proceeding. However, in most such legal proceedings, there are rules tthat at least attempt to establish some equitable balance in the presentation of the various positions, whereas in the "court of public opinion" the idea seems to be to cherry pick some sensational factoids, magnify them out of proportion and out of context, then shout down any opposing views so that you "win".
The pursuit of truth has nothing whatsoever to do with that process. Instead, it is approached as a game, where winning is more important than being correct, or prudent, or useful. Alas, that human nature may yet prove us unsuited for survival.
(I've tried very hard not to present one of the "two sides" as more guilty than the other, since I am of the opinion that there are far more than just two sides, and that almost all engage in the same stupidity.)
On the contrary, I have a Kindle loaded up with nothing but DRM free books. Amazon will probably take a loss on me, since I refuse to buy their DRM laden wares, but I'm happy with the hardware at what is probably below their cost.
Having purchased one DRM'ed Nook book before I got a Kindle, and one DRM'ed kindle book since then, I wised up and now I only purchase DRM free ebooks (generally epub), manage the collection with Calibre, and convert the books as needed for loading on devices.
If a book is not available without DRM, I do not purchase it.
Slashdot Mirror
...sufficiently large values of "off"...
This is the point in time where a true visionary would see the coming wealth to be made in mass producing guillotines.
His noodly goodness would never deign to sully the tips of his tentacles with proximity to any Texas politics.
I agree with your reading of the platform, that the Texas Republican Party opposes specific programs, not the teaching of critical thinking in general.
However, there is a very large subtext of this whole matter, which is that the major political parties in Texas are waging political warfare in the school curriculum arena. What the Republicans (who are in power) actually desire is to prevent children from growing up to vote for Democrats. I have no doubt that the Democrats would do the same were they in the same position of power. I suspect they may have done so in the past. Republican majorities in Texas are a fairly recent phenomenon, although the racist right wing Texas Democratic Party that ruled from the end of reconstruction until the Republicans took over in the wake of the Democrats supporting civil rights was hardly comparable to the modern version of the Democratic Party.
The Texas Republicans have shown, though, an alarming desire and willingness to use every possible tool, legal or illegal, to secure a permanent one-party system in the state. (See TRMPAC. See also a wide variety of "fighting voter fraud" efforts, designed primarily to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters - the actual incidence of voter fraud being vanishingly miniscule. And also see, of course, the blatant, unapologetic gerrymandering of districts.) This may be understandable as a reaction to the previous century of Democratic single-party rule, but personally, I dislike single party systems. Frankly, I dislike political parties altogether.
Fortunately, my children have learned and are learning a great deal beyond the confines of public schools, thanks to parents and grandparents who spend time, money, effort, and more time on teaching them, providing learning and experience opportunities to them, and making sure they learn to reason and make decisions on their own. I can undermine my own parental authority just fine, thanks.
The people will be revolting.
People have always been revolting.
Oh, were you meaning that as a verb?
While I largely agree with your sentiments, I'd point out that "governments" don't want anything. People do. Government is a system whereby people willingly or unwillingly trade certain freedoms for security (or a perception of it) and various forms of "prosperity". In order to actually make and carry out decisions and policies, you have to have people making decisions and carrying out policies, and that's where the difficulties set in. It was the bad behavior of people that caused governments to be desirable in the first place. So it's pretty much a Catch-22.
Even in systems that were originally designed to impede the misbehavior of the individuals given power, over time every nook and cranny of those systems will be probed and tried for ways to misbehave, and wherever possible the nooks and crannies will be enlarged. The famous "eternal vigilance" was not just referring to keeping a watch on external enemies.
Conversely, I prefer to live in civilization, so I recognize that I must accept some sacrifices and responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is maintaining my eternal vigilance against those who would corrupt the system for personal gain at the expense of those governed. And they are legion.
you fuckers will start treating AC posts with some respect!
Nope.
Killed? No one said that.
Tell that to Anwar al-Awlaki. But I guess he made his speeches without anonymity.
I have A Plan.
Let's gather observational data, come up with hypotheses that fit that data, test them, revise them, falsify and discard the ones that don't fit new observations, and get ever closer to a consistent theory, which we can then use for making rational decisions.
Oh, wait, we're talking about humans.
Never mind.
I really hate responding to an AC and an obvious troll...
But here goes.
The guys and gals that actually went there and did the work weren't asked, they were told. They are just ordinary folk themselves, doing something really, really not fun because they have to, not because they want to. Whatever your opinion of the propriety of their orders, it's not right to treat them as if they decided it would be fun to leave their friends and family for a few months and go get their legs blown off in a hot, dirty, unfriendly place on the other side of the world.
Got a complaint about the orders? Go talk to the people that issued the orders. Start at the top. The buck should dang well start there.
So what the fuck is the alternative, then?
Um, it's a glider, launched from a rocket, which would probably use a hydrogen based rocket fuel or some other.. um.. why am I answering an AC?
From where I am, in 2012, 2020 is not very far off at all. 2030 might be considered far off, by the very young. In terms of bringing new tech to market, 8 years sounds pretty optimistic. I have some optimism that we'll lick this oil dependency thing yet. Maybe this tech, or something like it, or something it leads to, will be part of that. In any case, it's interesting.
If it is not reviewed and challenged and tested and retested and retested and always subject to question, it is not science.
As a corollary, in my experience, it is better to base decisions on well tested hypotheses than on either "consensus opinion" or "contrary opinion".
To respond to your post:
If you question any hypothesis or result, please feel free to test it yourself, and publish your results. Merely questioning is meaningless.
Dogmatic opinions are worse than useless, they obscure and hinder the process of science.
I don't give a rat's hindquarters what someone's background is, if they produce credible peer reviewed evidence that falsifies a hypothesis. Can anyone cite for me some credible peer reviewed evidence that the (insert suitable adjective meaning "sh!tloads") amount of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere is NOT affecting climate?
My "dumbass common sense" tells me that continuously putting large amounts of one type of gas into a container of mixed gases will alter the proportions of the gases in that container, which in turn will alter the properties of that gas mixture. That is my hypothesis, and until it is proven false I will continue to use it as a model for my expected results.
Agreed, I love driving past the wind farms along Interstate 10 in west Texas. I'd like to go take a tour or something along those lines.
I am not qualified, nor is my home equipped, to provide the sort of care available in good facilities that specialize in the needs of older patients. By the way, there are a whole range of options, from "assisted living" which is pretty much an independent life with facilities available if and as needed, to facilities offering nearly ICU level care, and everything in between. Any of these, chosen appropriately, and with regular visits or outings with family and friends, is better than sitting in my empty house all day while I am away at work and unavailable to provide ANY care or assistance. Your "golden age of yesteryear" when happy smiling oldsters lived with their loving families and were healthy and happy until they passed away singing in their sleep is a crock.
Sadly, even people who do the right things get sick sometimes.
Take, for instance, my wife. She ate a very healthy diet, maintained a very healthy weight, got plenty of exercise, did not use harmful substances, and got plenty of sleep. (She was a model and an aerobics instructor, and also worked as a nutrition counselor at one point. She has never, ever used tobacco or consumed alcoholic beverages, and never used any non-prescribed pharmaceuticals.) Then she was hit by a series of critical illnesses and developed some chronic illnesses, as well as some debilitating injuries. Just plain old bad luck.
We still eat a very healthy diet and have pretty good health insurance coverage, thanks to my job which provides enough income to buy healthy foods and covers a good portion of the insurance cost. However, just the co-pays on her prescriptions and required doctor visits cost us upwards of $500 per month, and I have at various times spent large portions of my time caring for her at home after putting in a full day at work to pay for all of this.
The point being, we are not idiots, and did not do anything to "bring this on ourselves" - it just happened. If I were not well employed, we would be much worse off, and my wife might not even have survived. I consider it a grave injustice to the thousands or millions of my fellow Americans who through no fault of their own cannot obtain the amount, consistency, or quality of health care they need simply because they are not wealthy enough, where if they lived in a different country they might be far better off, even if that country's health care services were technically inferior, but available to all.
P.S. Yes, I'm a nerd who married a model. Apply your nerd skills to learning about social skills, and you too can have a life outside Mom's basement.
Strider sidles into the Prancing Pony, spurs jingling.
STRIDER:
Howdy, y'all!
BUTTERBUR:
Whatcha drankin', pardner?
Thank you. I've acquired your free sample, and will likely purchase. I don't know yet if I'll like it or not, but 3 bucks is worth it just to say "thanks" for the effort you put in.
I think you've already discovered that the publishing houses really do add value (in the form of marketing so that you can reach your potential audience, at the very least) but I wish you good fortune regardless.
For the most part, and ideally, scientists study things and publish their results without seeking to promote a predetermined position. There is reason to be concerned with maintaining or maybe re-establishing the independence of scientific research from outside forces that would use funding, political pressure, or rabble rousing to influence what sort of research projects actually happen.
However, putting that aside, the vast majority of the "ideological bias" in science is, in my opinion, not found in the scientists, nor in their work, but is found in those who use the results as a place to look for "evidence" to support their "case", as would a lawyer assembling a legal case in an adversarial court proceeding. However, in most such legal proceedings, there are rules tthat at least attempt to establish some equitable balance in the presentation of the various positions, whereas in the "court of public opinion" the idea seems to be to cherry pick some sensational factoids, magnify them out of proportion and out of context, then shout down any opposing views so that you "win".
The pursuit of truth has nothing whatsoever to do with that process. Instead, it is approached as a game, where winning is more important than being correct, or prudent, or useful. Alas, that human nature may yet prove us unsuited for survival.
(I've tried very hard not to present one of the "two sides" as more guilty than the other, since I am of the opinion that there are far more than just two sides, and that almost all engage in the same stupidity.)
On the contrary, I have a Kindle loaded up with nothing but DRM free books. Amazon will probably take a loss on me, since I refuse to buy their DRM laden wares, but I'm happy with the hardware at what is probably below their cost.
Having purchased one DRM'ed Nook book before I got a Kindle, and one DRM'ed kindle book since then, I wised up and now I only purchase DRM free ebooks (generally epub), manage the collection with Calibre, and convert the books as needed for loading on devices.
If a book is not available without DRM, I do not purchase it.
... massive system run as excel macros.
I think I just had an aneurysm.
Pssst, the answer is <!DOCTYPE html>.
go into wielding, you will make more money !
Great! Wait, what will I be wielding?